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 that qualified as a defeat for him, the other that could end up helping him enormously.

In the morning, a judge in New York formally picked a date in March for Trump’s trial on charges related to hush money payments he made to keep the news of a sexual liaison he had with a porn star from coming out during his 2016 presidential campaign.

In the afternoon, the district attorney in Fulton County, Ga., who indicted Trump and several others on charges of tampering with that state’s election, tried to avert the collapse of her case when she delivered fiery testimony about a relationship she had with a deputy.

The twin moves — both of which oddly touched on the subject of sexual affairs — showed how volatile and unpredictable the cases against Trump have been and may continue to be. They took place during a week when one of Trump’s other criminal cases — in which he stands accused of illegally plotting to overturn the 2020 election — also had an inflection point, and when one of his civil cases is expected to end with a significant financial penalty.

It cannot be said frequently enough that the web of legal matters Trump has become ensnared in over the past year or so is so complex and tangled it almost defies comprehension. Events this week seemed to prove that point, handing the former president a legal loss and a potential win within hours of each other.

The setting of Trump’s trial date in New York, for instance, made it a reality that for the first time in American history a former president will face a criminal trial, starting on March 25. And the testimony by the district attorney, Fani Willis, came as a judge considered whether to remove her from the case, which could place the entire Georgia prosecution into limbo.

‘I’m not on trial’

The hearing in Georgia was convened to consider evidence about whether financial dealings 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 irrelevant to the prosecution or her ability to run 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 defense lawyers of lying about her and Wade, and saying it was “extremely offensive” that they accused the pair of being together before they say they were.

“I’m not on trial, no matter how hard you try to put me on trial,” she told one of the lawyers who was questioning her.

Willis’s account followed testimony by one of her former friends and colleagues who said that she and Wade were romantically linked earlier than they have acknowledged.

At one point, Wade himself took the stand and insisted that the relationship began in 2022, after he started working for the district attorney’s office in November 2021.

If Willis were to be removed from the case, it would disrupt the entire prosecution, opening questions about who would take her place and almost certainly delaying any trial on the election tampering charges until next year.

A first trial date

While the hearing in New York turned to relatively sober questions of timing, it was no less explosive or important than the one in Georgia.

For months now, the logistics of managing the various Trump cases has been daunting as four judges in four cities have jockeyed for position on the calendar, even as Trump keeps up a busy schedule of campaign events in his third bid for the White House.

Trump himself touched on just how intertwined his legal travails have become with his political ambitions when he appeared at the courthouse in Manhattan this morning.

“I’ll be here during the day,” he said of the upcoming trial, “and I’ll be campaigning during the night.”

The hush money case was not expected to be the first of the four to go in front of a jury. But it jumped to the front of the pack after the judge overseeing the election interference case in Washington scrapped her March 4 trial date this month. The judge, Tanya Chutkan, did so out of necessity as Trump pursues his efforts to have the underlying charges tossed out because of broad claims of presidential immunity.

The New York judge, Juan Merchan, said that he expects his trial to take about six weeks, meaning that it could last well into May. He also revealed he had discussed issues of timing with Judge Chutkan, all but ensuring that the election interference trial won’t take place until his trial ends.

We’ll have updates throughout the trial in this newsletter.

More about timing

If you weren’t feeling dizzy already, here’s where things get even more confusing.

The timing of the election trial 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 any acts he took as president.

This week, Trump’s lawyers and prosecutors working for the special counsel, Jack Smith, made their opening bids to the court. The defense asked the justices to take their time in issuing a decision. The prosecutors urged them to move quickly.

It’s not clear when the court will announce its plans, but it could be as early as this week.

If the court decides to skip hearing Trump’s immunity appeal — letting stand the findings of a lower court that ruled against him last week — then the election case could, in theory, go to trial in Washington not long after the Manhattan trial concludes. If, however, the court elects to hear Trump’s challenge, even if it moves expeditiously to resolve it, the case is more likely to go to trial some time in the summer.

A final option: The court could hear the appeal and take its time in making a decision. Under that scenario, there might not be a trial in Washington until after Election Day.

All of this matters because if Trump can postpone his trials until after the presidential race is over and regain the White House, he would be in a position to avoid or indefinitely delay prosecution.

Trump himself was transparent about his strategy when he spoke to reporters today. He has assailed the array of legal cases he is facing as one collective “witch hunt” purposefully designed to damage his standing in the polls.

“We want delays obviously,” he said. “I’m running for election again.”

Your questions

We’re asking readers what they’d like to know about the Trump cases: the charges, the procedure, the important players or anything else. You can send us your question by filling out this form.

Which of the four trials, if a verdict were rendered before the November election, would keep Trump from running for office? — Ila Vassallo, New Jersey

Alan: Strictly as a legal matter, a guilty verdict on any of 91 counts Trump is facing in his four separate criminals would not be sufficient to keep him from running from office. Very few criminal charges come with a provision that bars a convict from holding office. One of those charges is incitement to insurrection, but Trump has not been accused of that. But as a practical matter, opinion polls have shown that Trump would suffer with voters if found guilty of a crime.

Where does each criminal case stand?

Trump is at the center of four separate criminal investigations, at both the state and federal levels. Here is where each case currently stands.