www.washingtonpost.com Open in urlscan Pro
23.45.108.250  Public Scan

Form analysis
0 forms found in the DOM

Text Content

Accessibility statementSkip to main content

Democracy Dies in Darkness
SubscribeSign in


Advertisement


Close
The Washington PostDemocracy Dies in Darkness
National SecurityForeign Policy Intelligence Justice Military
National SecurityForeign Policy Intelligence Justice Military



TRUMP PAC HAS SPENT MORE THAN $40 MILLION ON LEGAL COSTS THIS YEAR FOR HIMSELF,
OTHERS


DONALD TRUMP’S POLITICAL GROUP IS FINANCING LEGAL WORK THAT HAS PROMPTED
QUESTIONS FROM PROSECUTORS ABOUT POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

By Josh Dawsey
, 
Devlin Barrett
and 
Spencer S. Hsu
July 29, 2023 at 6:39 p.m. EDT

Special counsel Jack Smith and former president Donald Trump. (Mandel
Ngan/AFP/Getty Images)

Listen
10 min
Comment on this storyComment

Gift Article

Share

Former president Donald Trump’s political group spent more than $40 million on
legal costs in the first half of 2023 to defend Trump, his advisers and others,
according to people familiar with the matter, financing legal work that has
drawn scrutiny from prosecutors about potential conflicts of interest between
Trump and witnesses.



WpGet the full experience.Choose your planArrowRight


Save America, the former president’s PAC, is expected to disclose about $40.2
million in legal spending in a filing expected Monday, said the people familiar
with the filing, who like others interviewed spoke on the condition of anonymity
to discuss information that has not been made public.

That total is more than any other expense the PAC has incurred during Trump’s
2024 presidential campaign and, according to federal filings from earlier this
month, more than Trump’s campaign raised in the second quarter of 2023. It will
bring the PAC’s post-presidential legal spending to about $56 million, as Trump
faces a federal indictment in Florida, state charges in New York, and the
prospect of additional criminal indictments in Washington and Fulton County, Ga.

Advertisement

Story continues below advertisement



Trump’s advisers say the costs of providing lawyers for dozens of people are
necessary and will continue mushrooming as investigations continue, trials are
scheduled and the possibility of more charges looms.

While interviewing potential witnesses associated with Trump, prosecutors have
raised pointed questions about who is paying for their lawyers and why, people
familiar with the questions said. Trump advisers told The Washington Post that
the PAC, which raises most of its money from small-dollar contributions by Trump
supporters across the country, is footing the legal bills for almost anyone
drawn into the investigations who requests help from the former president and
his advisers.

In an indictment unsealed Thursday charging Trump, his longtime valet Waltine
“Walt” Nauta, and his property manager Carlos De Oliveira in the classified
documents case, authorities allege that Trump called De Oliveira last August to
say he would pay for De Oliveira’s attorney. That same day, authorities said,
Nauta had a conversation with a different Trump employee who assured Nauta that
De Oliveira was loyal to Trump.

Advertisement

Story continues below advertisement



Lawyers for De Oliveira and Nauta declined to comment, as did a spokesman for
special counsel Jack Smith, who is leading the federal investigations of Trump.

Steven Cheung, a spokesman for the former president, said Save America was
paying legal fees for those who worked for Trump “to protect these innocent
people from financial ruin and prevent their lives from being completely
destroyed” by what he called “unlawful harassment” from investigators. Trump and
his campaign have long accused Justice Department and FBI officials of pursuing
politically motivated investigations of him. “They know they have no legitimate
case,” Cheung said.

The PAC’s own fundraising and creation is under investigation, The Post has
reported, though the group has not been accused of wrongdoing. Much of the money
it is using to pay for legal bills was raised on false claims that the 2020
election was stolen.

Advertisement

Story continues below advertisement



Paul Seamus Ryan, a campaign finance expert, said he didn’t necessarily see any
“legal red flags” with the spending, noting that Trump had wide berth to spend
money on legal fees — but that it was far more than any other 2024 presidential
candidate would be spending at this point.

“It’s an extraordinary sum of money,” he said. “At the end of the day it’s up to
the donors to decide if that’s the way they want their money spent. My sense is
if you’re giving money to Trump in 2023, you’re fine with it.”


TANGLED WEB



Thursday’s indictment accuses Trump, De Oliveira and Nauta of trying to have
security camera footage destroyed amid the FBI investigation into classified
documents Trump kept at Mar-a-Lago, his Florida home and private club, long
after he stopped being president.

Story continues below advertisement



De Oliveira is also charged with lying to investigators. Trump and Nauta face
multiple additional counts from an indictment filed in June.

Advertisement


The backstory to the new charges underscores just how complicated things can get
when serving as a lawyer for a Trump employee.

Nauta, who investigators long considered a key witness in the classified
documents investigation, has been represented for many months by lawyer Stan
Woodward, with Save America footing the bills. Woodward also represents several
other Trump-linked clients who have been subpoenaed as part of Smith’s
investigations, including an IT worker named Yuscil Taveras.

For much of the classified documents probe, there did not appear to be a
conflict between Nauta and Taveras.

Story continues below advertisement



After Trump and Nauta were indicted in June, however, Taveras decided he had
more he wanted to tell the authorities about his conversations with De Oliveira,
according to people familiar with the investigation who spoke on the condition
of anonymity to describe private discussions.

Advertisement


Taveras offered information implicating all three defendants in an alleged
conspiracy to cover up evidence, these people said.

The latest on investigations and indictments involving Donald Trump

Legal ethics rules bar attorneys from arguing adverse positions in a case — such
as defending one client by cross-examining another client, or advising one
person who is testifying to investigators or a grand jury against another.

Once Taveras’s position put him potentially at odds with Nauta’s defense, a
judge reviewed the issue, a person familiar with the matter said. A second
lawyer — not paid by the PAC — was brought in to provide legal advice to
Taveras, who then spoke to investigators, according to people familiar with the
matter.

Story continues below advertisement



Taveras told authorities that in late June of last year, when federal
authorities were seeking security camera footage to determine if boxes with
classified documents had been moved in or out of a storage room, De Oliveira
pulled him aside for a private discussion about how the computer server that
stored images from Mar-a-Lago security cameras worked, these people said.

Advertisement


The indictment describes the same incident, referring to Taveras as “Employee 4”
and alleging that De Oliveira told him “that ‘the boss’ wanted the server
deleted.”

The employee replied to De Oliveira “that he would not know how to do that, and
that he did not believe that he would have the rights to do that,” according to
the indictment. “De Oliveira then insisted to Trump Employee 4 that ‘the boss’
wanted the server deleted and asked, ‘What are we going to do?’ ”

How the superseding indictment, 3rd defendant impact Trump documents case

The indictment does not allege that the footage was actually deleted, and
authorities have said in court papers that the security camera footage they
received provided critical evidence in their case. But Taveras’s account
bolstered suspicions prosecutors already had about Nauta’s and De Oliveira’s
conduct based on texts, calls and meetings captured on surveillance video.

The new witness account, these people said, filled in a key gap of what was
allegedly said in an unrecorded conversation in a small room and helped
authorities build criminal charges against De Oliveira.


MAKING SURE 'CARLOS IS GOOD’

The new indictment also shows prosecutors are suspicious about how and why some
people in Trump’s orbit have had their legal fees paid.

Advertisement

Story continues below advertisement



It is not unusual for political campaigns, or companies for that matter, to pay
for legal costs of their employees, if the legal issues involve their work. In
Trump’s case, however, prosecutors have suggested there may be more to it than
that.

After the FBI conducted a court-authorized search of Trump’s home last August to
seize government records and documents with classified markings, at least one
Trump employee apparently wanted to make sure that De Oliveira wouldn’t tell
officials about attempts to hide the materials, according to the indictment.

“Someone just wants to make sure Carlos is good,” Nauta allegedly said in a call
with another Trump employee, who like Taveras is not named in the indictment.
That employee assured Nauta that De Oliveira was “loyal” and “would not do
anything to affect his relationship with Trump.” The indictment alleges that the
same employee also confirmed De Oliveira’s loyalty that day in a private message
chat with Nauta and a representative for the PAC.

Advertisement

Story continues below advertisement



Also on that day, the indictment alleges, Trump called De Oliveira “and told De
Oliveira that Trump would get De Oliveira an attorney.”

Carlos De Oliveira's journey from failed witness to Trump co-defendant

During the course of their investigation, prosecutors have repeatedly asked
witnesses about how and why Trump entities have paid for some witnesses to get
lawyers. They have also asked whether that legal representation was designed in
any way to shield Trump from more criminal exposure, people familiar with those
exchanges have said. Prosecutors have asked to see written agreements of legal
retainers, according to subpoenas reviewed by The Post.

Witnesses have told prosecutors that Susie Wiles, the head of Trump’s political
action committee, has made decisions on whose legal bills should be funded,
according to people familiar with the matter, but that Trump reviewed the bills
and occasionally offered his opinion during 2021 and 2022. Trump would sometimes
ask why certain people had been subpoenaed and how they fit into an
investigation, these people said.

Wiles has decided that almost all legal bills incurred by Trump consultants,
employees and others should be paid, according to people familiar with the
discussions, because they were incurred as a result of their work for Trump.

That means dozens of current and former advisers are sending bills to the
campaign. But realizing how expensive such bills have become, Wiles has called
lawyers and asked them to reduce their hourly rates in 2023, Trump advisers say.
People close to Wiles said she has taken a largely administrative role in the
process.

A person familiar with the matter said the cash-strapped PAC had asked for a
refund on a large contribution the group had previously made to another PAC
supporting Trump. It was unclear if the refund had been granted. That
development was first reported by the New York Times.

Earlier this year, Trump’s team upped the percentage of the campaign’s
fundraising that goes to the Save America PAC, which largely exists now to pay
bills.

Trump advisers say that while they have occasionally recommended lawyers for
employees, they have made no demands that those employees hew to the company
line to have their bills paid. Some of those employees have given damning
testimony, the advisers said. They also said Trump’s team has not required
former or current employees to hire a particular lawyer to have bills paid.

In the course of the investigation, people familiar with the matter said,
prosecutors have obtained emails in which some of Trump’s aides discuss whether
lawyers should be paid, as well as a spreadsheet that Trump’s lawyers kept in
the post-presidency of who had been subpoenaed.

In addition to asking what agreements led to legal representation for certain
witnesses, investigators have also tried to ascertain if there were instances
where Trump or people close to him debated whether to not pay a particular
person’s legal bills, these people said.

Some of Trump’s advisers raised questions about the wisdom of paying for lawyers
for people they viewed as in danger of being charged with crimes, or those who
fueled some of Trump’s more unorthodox legal maneuvers or unfounded legal
challenges to the 2020 election.

Some former Trump employees have told The Post they have not submitted bills to
Trump’s team because they were uncomfortable with the arrangement, instead
paying bills out of their own pocket or finding lawyers willing to represent
them for free.


MORE ON THE TRUMP CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS INDICTMENT

The latest: Donald Trump faces a new federal indictment in which he is charged
with seeking to prevent security footage from being reviewed. Trump pleaded not
guilty in June to federal charges that he broke the law by keeping and hiding
top secret documents at his Mar-a-Lago Club in Florida. The judge set a trial
date for next May.

The charges: Trump faces 40 separate charges in the documents case. Read the
full text of the superseding indictment against Trump and our top takeaways from
the indictment.

The case: The criminal investigation looks into whether Trump took government
secrets with him after he left the White House and obstructed a subsequent
investigation. Here’s what to know about the classified documents case.

Can Trump still run for president? While it has never been attempted by a
candidate from a major party before, Trump is allowed to run for president while
under indictment — or even if he is convicted of a crime. Here’s how Trump’s
indictment could impact the 2024 election.

Show more
ChevronDown
Comments
Gift this articleGift Article
Trump Mar-a-Lago classified documents
HAND CURATED
 * Who is Carlos De Oliveira, Trump aide indicted in documents case?
   July 28, 2023
   
   
   Who is Carlos De Oliveira, Trump aide indicted in documents case?
   July 28, 2023
 * How the superseding indictment and third defendant impact Trump documents
   case
   July 28, 2023
   
   
   How the superseding indictment and third defendant impact Trump documents
   case
   July 28, 2023
 * Trump aide Carlos De Oliveira’s journey from failed witness to defendant
   July 28, 2023
   
   
   Trump aide Carlos De Oliveira’s journey from failed witness to defendant
   July 28, 2023

View 3 more stories



Loading...


Subscribe to comment and get the full experience. Choose your plan →


View more
Advertisement


Advertisement

TOP STORIES
Deep dives
Longer stories and investigations that go deep
Review|The new conservative arguments for an un-modern America


After Mississippi banned his hormone shots, an 8-hour journey


Why the famed Appalachian Trail keeps getting longer — and harder


Refresh
Try a different topic

Sign in or create a free account to save your preferences
Advertisement


Advertisement

Company
About The Post Newsroom Policies & Standards Diversity and Inclusion Careers
Media & Community Relations WP Creative Group Accessibility Statement
Get The Post
Become a Subscriber Gift Subscriptions Mobile & Apps Newsletters & Alerts
Washington Post Live Reprints & Permissions Post Store Books & E-Books Newspaper
in Education Print Archives (Subscribers Only) Today’s Paper Public Notices
Coupons
Contact Us
Contact the Newsroom Contact Customer Care Contact the Opinions team Advertise
Licensing & Syndication Request a Correction Send a News Tip Report a
Vulnerability
Terms of Use
Digital Products Terms of Sale Print Products Terms of Sale Terms of Service
Privacy Policy Cookie Settings Submissions & Discussion Policy RSS Terms of
Service Ad Choices
washingtonpost.com © 1996-2023 The Washington Post
 * washingtonpost.com
 * © 1996-2023 The Washington Post
 * About The Post
 * Contact the Newsroom
 * Contact Customer Care
 * Request a Correction
 * Send a News Tip
 * Report a Vulnerability
 * Download the Washington Post App
 * Policies & Standards
 * Terms of Service
 * Privacy Policy
 * Cookie Settings
 * Print Products Terms of Sale
 * Digital Products Terms of Sale
 * Submissions & Discussion Policy
 * RSS Terms of Service
 * Ad Choices
 * Coupons