DES MOINES, Iowa —

Iowa Republicans have scheduled the party's presidential nominating caucuses for Jan. 15, 2024, putting the first votes of the next election a little more than six months away.

The Iowa Republican Party's state central committee voted unanimously Saturday to hold the leadoff contests on the third Monday in January — on the Martin Luther King Jr. Day federal holiday.

Though Republican presidential candidates have been campaigning in Iowa since last winter, there has been some uncertainty about when the traditional leadoff contests would be held. That is partly due to the Democratic National Committee's reshuffling of its calendar and dropping Iowa as its first contest.

The GOP date is earlier by several weeks than the past three Iowa caucuses, though not as early as 2008, when they were held just three days into the new year.

Caucuses, unlike primary elections, are contests planned, financed and carried out by the parties, not state election officials. The Iowa announcement Saturday allows New Hampshire, which has not set a primary election date yet, to protect its first-in-the-nation status, which is codified in state law that requires that contest to be held at least seven days ahead of any other primary.

Last month, South Carolina Republicans adopted Feb. 24 as the date for the traditional first Southern primary, leaving plenty of time for Nevada to schedule its Republican caucuses without crowding New Hampshire.

"We remain committed to maintaining Iowa's cherished first-in-the-nation caucuses, and look forward to holding a historic caucus in the coming months and defeating Joe Biden come November 2024," Iowa Republican Party Chairman Jeff Kaufmann said in a statement.

Saturday's decision could have implications for both parties because Iowa Democrats had been waiting on the state's Republican Party to set its caucus date as they try to adjust to new DNC rules on the order of the 2024 presidential primary.

Iowa Democrats have proposed holding a caucus on the same day as the state's Republicans and allowing participants to vote for president via mail-in ballot. But Iowa Democrats have said they may not immediately release the results.

That could allow the state party to still hold the first-in-the-nation caucus without defying a new primary calendar endorsed by President Joe Biden and approved by the DNC that calls for South Carolina to replace Iowa in the leadoff spot and kick off primary voting on Feb. 3.

NEW YORK CITY — New York City's medical examiner said that the death of former President Donald Trump's first wife, Ivana Trump, was caused by injuries she suffered from a fall.

NBC and ABC News reported that the medical examiner ruled her death an accident on Friday.

The news outlets reported that the medical examiner said her cause of death was blunt impact injuries to the torso, which were received due to a fall.

The ME's report comes a day after Ivana Trump died.

According to ABC News affiliate WABC, New York City police responded to her Manhattan home after receiving a call about a person in cardiac arrest.

By the time police arrived, she was dead, the news outlets reported.

She was 73.

She and Donald Trump married Donald in 1977 and had three children together: Donald Jr., Ivanka, and Eric.

They divorced in 1992.

WASHINGTON —

Former President Donald Trump said in a lengthy statement Monday that the FBI was conducting a search of his Mar-a-Lago estate.

The circumstances were not immediately clear. Spokespeople for the FBI and the Justice Department did not return messages seeking comment Monday evening.

“After working and cooperating with the relevant Government agencies, this unannounced raid on my home was not necessary or appropriate,” Trump said in his statement.

The Justice Department has been investigating the discovery of boxes of records containing classified information that were taken to Mar-a-Lago after Trump's presidency had concluded. It was not clear whether the FBI search was connected to that probe.

A separate investigation related to efforts by Trump allies to undo the results of the 2020 presidential election and the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol has also been intensifying in Washington.

This is a developing story. Check back for updates.

A federal judge in Florida has dismissed former President Donald Trump's lawsuit against former first lady Hillary Clinton and former top FBI officials, calling it a "200-page political manifesto."

According to his lawsuit, Trump claimed the former Democratic presidential nominee, former FBI Director James Comey, and others conspired against him by claiming that he coordinated with Russia to win the 2016 presidential election, USA Today reported.

On Thursday, District Judge Donald Middlebrooks dismissed the case, saying that the lawsuit contained “glaring structural deficiencies” and that many of the “characterizations of events are implausible," the Associated Press reported.

In his lawsuit, Trump claimed that Clinton and the Democratic National Committee "worked together with a single self-serving purpose: to vilify Donald J. Trump," USA Today reported.

In his ruling, Middlebrooks wrote that none of Trump's claims supported that there was a conspiracy against him, the Associated Press reported.

In 2019, special counsel Robert Mueller's concluded after a special investigation that investigators "did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities," the Associated Press reported.

According to the news outlet, Trump's lawyer, Alina Habba, said the former President would appeal the dismissal.

Overturning Roe v. Wade and eliminating affirmative action in higher education had been leading goals of the conservative legal movement for decades.

In a span of 370 days, a Supreme Court reshaped by three justices nominated by President Donald Trump made both a reality.

Last June, the court ended nationwide protections for abortion rights. This past week, the court’s conservative majority decided that race-conscious admissions programs at the oldest private and public colleges in the country, Harvard and the University of North Carolina, were unlawful.

Precedents that had stood since the 1970s were overturned, explicitly in the case of abortion and effectively in the affirmative action context.

“That is what is notable about this court. It’s making huge changes in highly salient areas in a very short period of time,” said Tara Leigh Grove, a law professor at the University of Texas.

As ethical questions swirled around the court and public trust in the institution had already dipped to a 50-year low, there were other consequential decisions in which the six conservatives prevailed.

They rejected the Biden administration's $400 billion student loan forgiveness program and held that a Christian graphic artist can refuse on free speech grounds to design websites for same-sex couples, despite a Colorado law that bars discrimination based on sexual orientation and other characteristics.

The court, by a 5-4 vote, also sharply limited the federal government's authority to police water pollution into certain wetlands, although all nine justices rejected the administration's position.

Affirmative action was arguably the biggest constitutional decision of the year, and it showcased fiercely opposing opinions from the court's two Black justices, Clarence Thomas and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

They offered sharply contrasting takes on affirmative action. Thomas was in the majority to end it. Jackson, in her first year on the court, was in dissent.

The past year also had a number of notable surprises.

Differing coalitions of conservative and liberal justices ruled in favor of Black voters in an Alabama redistricting case and refused to embrace broad arguments in a North Carolina redistricting case that could have left state legislatures unchecked and dramatically altered elections for Congress and president.

The court also ruled for the Biden administration in a fight over deportation priorities and left in place the Indian Child Welfare Act, the federal law aimed at keeping Native American children with Native families.

Those cases reflected the control that Chief Justice John Roberts asserted, or perhaps reasserted, over the court following a year in which the other five conservatives moved more quickly than he wanted in some areas, including abortion.

Roberts wrote a disproportionate share of the term's biggest cases: conservative outcomes on affirmative action and the student loan plan, and liberal victories in Alabama and North Carolina.

The Alabama case may have been the most surprising because Roberts had consistently sought to narrow the landmark Voting Rights Act since his days as a young lawyer in the Reagan administration. As chief justice, he wrote the decision 10 years ago that gutted a key provision of the law.

But in the Alabama case and elsewhere, Roberts was part of majorities that rejected the most aggressive legal arguments put forth by Republican elected officials and conservative legal advocates.

The mixed bag of decisions almost seemed designed to counter arguments about the court's legitimacy, raised by Democratic and liberal critics — and some justices — in response to last year's abortion ruling, among others. The narrative was amplified by published reports of undisclosed, paid jet travel and fancy trips for Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito from billionaire Republican donors.

“I don’t think the court consciously takes opinion into account,” Grove said. “But I think if there’s anyone who might consciously think about these issues, it’s the institutionalist, the chief justice. He’s been extremely concerned about the attacks on the Supreme Court.”

On the term's final day, Roberts urged the public to not mistake disagreement among the justices for disparagement of the court. “Any such misperception would be harmful to this institution and our country,” he wrote in the student loans case in response to a stinging dissent by Justice Elena Kagan.

Roberts has resisted instituting a code of ethics for the court and has questioned whether Congress has the authority to impose one. Still, he has said, without providing specifics, that the justices would do more to show they adhere to high ethical standards.

Some conservative law professors rejected the idea that the court bowed to outside pressures, consciously or otherwise.

“There were a lot of external atmospherics that really could have affected court business, but didn't,” said Jennifer Mascott, a George Mason University law professor.

Curt Levey, president of the Committee for Justice, pointed to roughly equal numbers of major decisions that could be characterized as politically liberal or conservative.

Levey said conservatives “were not disappointed by this term.” Democrats and their allies “warned the nation about an ideologically extreme Supreme Court but wound up cheering as many major decisions as they decried,” Levey wrote in an email.

But some liberal critics were not mollified.

Brian Fallon, director of the court reform group Demand Justice, called the past year “another disastrous Supreme Court term” and mocked experts who “squint to find so-called silver linings in the Court’s decisions to suggest all is not lost, or they will emphasize one or two so-called moderate decisions from the term to suggest the Court is not as extreme as we think and can still be persuaded from time to time.”

Biden himself said on MSNBC on Thursday that the current court has “done more to unravel basic rights and basic decisions than any court in recent history.” He cited as examples the overturning of abortion protections and other decisions that had been precedent for decades.

Still, Biden said, he thought some on the high court “are beginning to realize their legitimacy is being questioned in ways it hasn’t been questioned in the past.”

The justices are now embarking on a long summer break. They return to the bench on the first Monday in October for a term that so far appears to lack the blockbuster cases that made the past two terms so momentous.

The court will examine the legal fallout from last year's major expansion of gun rights, in a case over a domestic violence gun ban that was struck down by a lower court.

A new legal battle over abortion also could make its way to the court in coming months. In April, the court preserved access to mifepristone, a drug used in the most common method of abortion, while a lawsuit over it makes its way through federal court.

The conservative majority also will have opportunities to further constrain federal regulatory agencies, including a case that asks them to overturn the so-called Chevron decision that defers to regulators when they seek to give effect to big-picture, sometimes vague, laws written by Congress. The 1984 decision has been cited by judges more than 15,000 times.

Just seven years ago, months before Trump's surprising presidential victory, then-Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg reflected on the term that had just ended and made two predictions. One was way off base and the other was strikingly accurate.

In July 2016, the court had just ended a term in which the justices upheld a University of Texas affirmative action plan and struck down state restrictions on abortion clinics.

Her first prediction was that those issues would not soon return to the high court. Her second was that if Trump became president, “everything is up for grabs.”

Ginsburg's death in 2020 allowed Trump to put Justice Amy Coney Barrett on the court and cement conservative control.

Commenting on the student loan decision, liberal legal scholar Melissa Murray wrote on Twitter that Biden's plan “was absolutely undone by the Court that his predecessor built.”

NEW YORK —

Former President Donald Trump's claims that absolute presidential immunity and free speech rights shield him from the defamation claims of a New York columnist were rejected Thursday by a federal judge.

The writer, E. Jean Carroll, can continue to press claims that Trump owes her at least $10 million in damages for comments he made before and after she won a $5 million sexual abuse and defamation verdict against him last month, Judge Lewis A. Kaplan said in a written opinion.

Trump tried to dismiss the lawsuit on grounds that he is entitled to absolute presidential immunity, his statements were not defamatory and that his statements were opinion protected by free speech rights.

Kaplan said Trump surrendered absolute presidential immunity as a defense by failing to assert it years ago when the lawsuit was filed. The lawsuit was delayed until recently as appeals courts considered legal issues surrounding it.

Trump countersued Carroll this week, claiming that she has libeled him by continuing to insist that he raped her even after a jury found otherwise.

After a jury returned its verdict last month in Manhattan federal court, Trump made comments on a CNN town hall that prompted Carroll to assert new defamation claims in a 2020 defamation lawsuit.

The jury award resulted from a sexual abuse and defamation lawsuit filed last November after New York state temporarily enacted a law allowing sexual assault victims to sue for damages resulting from attacks that occurred even decades earlier.

Trump's claims in the CNN broadcast mirrored statements he made while president in 2019 when Carroll published a memoir in which she claimed Trump raped her in the dressing room of a luxury midtown Manhattan department store in spring 1996.

Within hours of excerpts from the book being published in a magazine, Trump denied a rape occurred or that he ever knew Carroll.

"Mr. Trump did not merely deny Ms. Carroll's accusation of sexual assault," Kaplan wrote. "Instead, he accused Ms. Carroll of lying about him sexually assaulting her in order to increase sales of her book, gain publicity, and/or carry out a political agenda."

The judge said the main purpose of presidential immunity was to avoid diverting the president from public duties, but it was not a "get-out-of-damages-liability-free card that permits the president to say or do anything he or she desires even if that conduct is disconnected entirely from an official function."

Kaplan said he took into consideration that Carroll is now 79 years old and has pursued claims against Trump for 3 1/2 years.

"There is no basis to risk prolonging the resolution of this litigation further by permitting Mr. Trump to raise his absolute immunity defense now at the eleventh hour when he could have done so years ago," he said.

In rejecting claims that Carroll's lawsuit was about protected speech, Kaplan explained how libel and slander are handled in the courts and why Trump's statements could be construed to fit the legal definition for defamation, including that a jury had already found it so.

Trump's lawyers did not immediately comment.

Attorney Robbie Kaplan, who represents Carroll and is unrelated to the judge, said in a statement that the judge's ruling "confirms that once again, Donald Trump's supposed defenses to E. Jean Carroll's defamation claims don't work."

She added: "Today's decision removes one more impediment to the January 15 trial on E Jean's defamation damages in this case."

The Associated Press typically does not name people who say they have been sexually assaulted unless they come forward publicly, as Carroll has done.

The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol issued a subpoena Friday to Donald Trump, exercising its subpoena power against the former president who lawmakers say is the “central cause” of a coordinated, multi-part effort to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

The nine-member panel issued a letter to Trump's lawyers, demanding his testimony under oath by Nov. 14 and outlining a request for a series of corresponding documents, including personal communications between the former president and members of Congress as well as extremist groups.

“We recognize that a subpoena to a former President is a significant and historic action," Chairman Bennie Thompson and Vice Chair Liz Cheney wrote in the letter to Trump. “We do not take this action lightly.”

It is unclear how Trump and his legal team will respond to the subpoena.

Donald Trump has sued E. Jean Carroll for defamation after a jury found he sexually abused the former magazine columnist and defamed her.

In a counter claim filed Tuesday night, Trump alleges that Carroll defamed him when she appeared on CNN the morning after the jury awarded her $5 million in damages. Carroll was asked about the verdict finding Trump sexually abused Carroll but did not rape her as she alleged. Carroll said, “Oh, yes he did.”

In response to the new claim, Carroll’s lawyer Roberta Kaplan said in a statement, “Donald Trump again argues, contrary to both logic and fact, that he was exonerated by a jury that found that he sexually abused E. Jean Carroll.”

She added, “Trump’s filing is thus nothing more than his latest effort to delay accountability for what a jury has already found to be his defamation of E. Jean Carroll. But whether he likes it or not, that accountability is coming very soon.

Video below: How key piece of Trump deposition likely led jury to find him liable of sexual abuse

The counter claim is the latest legal salvo in a multi-year legal battle between Trump and Carroll. Carroll first sued Trump for defamation in 2019 after he denied her allegation that he raped her in the mid-1990s in the dressing room of Bergdorf Goodman. Trump said he didn’t know Carroll and that she wasn’t his type.

She sued him again last year under a New York law that allowed a one-year window for civil lawsuits for survivors of sexual assault no matter when they occurred. Trump has moved for a new trial.

The 2019 defamation lawsuit is scheduled to go to trial next year, although there are still several legal issues outstanding. Carroll is seeking more than $10 million in damages in that case in part because Trump repeated statements the jury found to be defamatory after the verdict on social media and at a CNN town hall.

An IRS policy governing the audits of tax returns filed by U.S. presidents is under new scrutiny after a report published by a congressional panel found the agency failed to perform the mandatory inspection of Donald Trump's returns until Congress pressed for information about the process.

The three-point policy states that individual returns for the president and the vice president are subject to mandatory review, “should always be kept in an orange folder,” should be kept from the eyes of IRS employees and “should be locked in a secure drawer or cabinet when the examiner or reviewer is away from the work area.”

The report released Tuesday by the Democratic majority on the House Ways and Means Committee said the process, which dates to 1977, was “dormant, at best” during the early years of the Trump administration. Democrats in Congress are responding by introducing legislation that would codify the IRS policy into law with more stringent requirements.

Tax experts say the failure to launch the audit earlier is emblematic of a larger problem regarding the IRS’ capacity to examine high-income taxpayers’ returns — and a reminder of Trump as a norm-defying president.

John Koskinen, who served as IRS commissioner during both the Obama and Trump administrations, said the policy has been out of the public eye because presidents have traditionally released their tax-return summaries to the public.

“It only became an issue with a president who refused to release his tax returns,” Koskinen said. “If Trump had been releasing his returns, nobody would have raised this issue.”

Trump’s tax returns being handed over to Congress recently is the culmination of a yearslong legal fight between Trump and Democratic lawmakers.

Steve Rosenthal, senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, said the IRS’ failure to audit Trump is a showing that “the mandatory auditing program is broken, we cannot rely on the current system to fairly audit the president, and there’s a general problem of the IRS auditing sophisticated taxpayers.”

Rosenthal added: “This is a much larger problem than Donald Trump — yes, he makes bad things worse, but the situation was bad to begin with.”

A new $80 billion infusion of funds through the so-called Inflation Reduction Act is supposed to remedy the beleaguered agency's low staffing levels, outdated technology and host of other issues. Republicans who are poised to take control of the House in less than two weeks, however, have said they want to cut that funding.

Tuesday's committee report revealed that the IRS only began to audit Trump’s 2016 tax filings on April 3, 2019, more than two years into Trump’s presidency and just months after Democrats took control of the House. That date coincides with Rep. Richard Neal, D-Mass., the panel chairman, asking the IRS for information related to Trump’s tax returns.

The report's findings prompted lawmakers to recommend a statutory requirement for the mandatory examination of the president's taxes, with “disclosure of certain audit information and related returns in a timely manner.”

Senate Finance Committee Chair Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said he will work to pass the bill through the Senate. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the chamber would “move swiftly” to advance the legislation.

The issue highlights frustration with the so-called tax gap, which is the difference between how much money is owed to the federal government and how much is paid. IRS data released in October projects that for 2017 to 2019, the estimated average gross tax gap will be $540 billion per year.

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said in August, and has repeated at various speaking engagements, that the new funds allocated by Congress would be used to increase audits on high-wealth individuals, firms and complex pass-throughs.

“This is challenging work that requires a team of sophisticated revenue agents in place to spend thousands of hours poring over complicated returns, and it is also work that has huge revenue potential,” she told former IRS Commissioner Chuck Rettig in August.

In an application of the IRS policy on mandatory presidential audits, well-trained agents, forensic experts, tax attorneys and others would be required to oversee a presidential audit as complicated as Trump's, which included hundreds of businesses, properties and complex business interests.

The congressional report highlighted the lack of staffing and availability of experts to examine Trump's taxes. The report states that the IRS believed that accuracy of his filings was ensured because he had legal counsel and an accounting firm representing him.

The question of whether presidential tax documents should be disclosed is another matter of debate among tax experts and advocates.

Rep. Kevin Brady of Texas, the top Republican on the Ways and Means Committee, said Congress would be setting a “dangerous new precedent” by releasing the presidential records. Koskinen said that “it's a significant serious precedent for a committee to seek returns and then release them."

“I see two big issues here — what is the IRS going to do to ensure presidents are audited regularly, and what's the rationale for releasing these returns," Koskinen said.

Rosenthal said he thinks presidential returns should be publicly disclosed to ensure proper oversight.

“When this information is made public, the president is going to be more wary about cheating on their taxes and making them public — the results would put both the IRS and president on their best behavior,” he said.

Donald Trump's legal problems appear to have escalated significantly on Thursday with federal charges over the retention of top secret documents, but investigators aren't done yet.

The former president faces a string of inquiries in various states and venues as he campaigns for a second term in the White House. He's already been charged in a 34-count indictment in New York in a hush money case. The others include federal and state investigations into his efforts to overturn his loss in the 2020 election and a civil case that threatens his ability to ever again do business in New York.

Trump, a Republican, has denied any wrongdoing and says he is being targeted by Democrats trying to keep him from reclaiming the presidency in 2024.

Here's a look at the top probes:

Hush money scheme

Trump became the first former U.S. president in history to face criminal charges when he was indicted in New York in March on state charges stemming from hush money payments made during the 2016 presidential campaign to bury allegations that he had extramarital sexual encounters.

He pleaded not guilty to 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. Each count is punishable by up to four years in prison, though it's not clear if a judge would impose any prison time if Trump is convicted.

Video below: Legal expert analyzes Trump indictment, arraignment in hush money case

The counts are linked to a series of checks that were written to his lawyer Michael Cohen to reimburse him for his role in paying off porn actor Stormy Daniels, who alleged a sexual encounter with Trump in 2006, not long after Melania Trump gave birth to their son, Barron. Those payments were recorded in various internal company documents as being for a legal retainer that prosecutors say didn't exist.

The former president is next set to appear in court on Dec. 4, two months before Republicans begin their nominating process in earnest.

Georgia

For over two years, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis has been investigating whether then-President Donald Trump and his allies illegally meddled in the 2020 election in Georgia.

She wrote in a letter to the county sheriff that she expects to announce any charging decisions between July 11 and Sept. 1. In a separate letter to a county Superior Court judge, she suggested that any indictments would likely come in August.

The Democratic district attorney's investigation began shortly after the release of a recording of a Jan. 2, 2021, phone call between Trump and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger in which the then-president suggested that Raffensperger could "find 11,780 votes" — just enough to overtake Democrat Joe Biden and overturn Trump's narrow loss in the state.

But the investigation's scope broadened considerably after that, and Willis convened a special grand jury to hear testimony from witnesses including high-profile Trump allies, such as attorney Rudy Giuliani and Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, and high-ranking Georgia officials, such as Raffensperger and Gov. Brian Kemp.

Prosecutors advised Giuliani and Georgia Republicans who served as fake electors that they were at risk of being indicted. The fake electors signed a certificate asserting Trump had won the election and declaring themselves the state's electors, even though Biden had won the state and Democratic electors had already been certified.

A court filing in early May indicated that Willis had reached immunity deals with at least eight fake electors, suggesting they may be cooperating with authorities.

The foreperson on the special grand jury indicated publicly that the panel had recommended multiple indictments. It's now up to Willis to decide whether to convene a regular grand jury and pursue criminal charges in the case.

Trump and his allies have denied wrongdoing, and he has repeatedly described his phone call to Raffensperger as "perfect."

2020 election and Capitol riot

Special counsel Jack Smith, who was appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland to investigate Trump's handling of classified documents, has also been leading a team probing efforts by Trump and his allies to overturn the election that he falsely claimed was stolen.

Federal prosecutors have been especially focused on a scheme by Trump allies to put forth a slate of fake presidential electors in key battleground states who falsely declared that Trump, not Biden, had won the 2020 election. They have issued subpoenas to a number of state Republican Party chairs.

Federal prosecutors have brought multiple Trump administration officials before that grand jury for questioning, including former Vice President Mike Pence.

In a sign of the wide-ranging nature of the investigation, election officials in multiple states whose results were disputed by Trump have received subpoenas asking for past communications with or involving Trump and his campaign aides.

A House committee that investigated the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol recommended that the Justice Department bring criminal charges against Trump and associates who helped him launch a wide-ranging pressure campaign to try to overturn his 2020 election loss.

New York civil cases

New York Attorney General Letitia James has sued Trump and the Trump Organization, alleging they misled banks and tax authorities about the value of assets including golf courses and skyscrapers to get loans and tax benefits.

That lawsuit could lead to civil penalties against the company if James, a Democrat, prevails. She is seeking a $250 million fine and a ban on Trump doing business in New York. Manhattan prosecutors investigated the same alleged conduct but did not pursue criminal charges.

A civil trial is scheduled in state court for October.

Video below: How key piece of Trump deposition likely led jury to find him liable of sexual abuse

In a separate civil case in federal court in New York, Trump was found liable in May of sexually abusing and defaming former magazine columnist E. Jean Carroll in the mid-1990s. The jury rejected Carroll's claim that Trump had raped her in a dressing room.

Trump was ordered to pay $5 million to Carroll. He has appealed and has adamantly denied her accusations.

Lawyers for former President Donald Trump have in recent months turned over to federal investigators additional documents with classified markings as well as a laptop belonging to a Trump aide, a person familiar with the situation said Friday night.

The lawyers also provided an empty folder with classified markings, according to the person, who spoke on condition of anonymity to The Associated Press to discuss an ongoing investigation.

File video above: FBI seized 'top secret' documents from Trump's estate

A Justice Department special counsel has been investigating the retention by Trump of hundreds of documents marked as classified at his Florida estate, Mar-a-Lago. FBI agents who served a search warrant at the property in August recovered roughly 100 classified documents, including records classified at the top-secret level. A federal grand jury has been hearing evidence in the case for months.

ABC News first reported the discovery of the additional documents.

The person familiar with the matter said a handful of pages with classified markings were found during a search weeks ago at the Mar-a-Lago complex that was supervised by the Trump legal team and were promptly provided to the Justice Department. The documents were found in a box containing thousands of pages, the person said.

Separately on Friday, the FBI searched the Indiana home of former Vice President Mike Pence and found an additional document with classified markings, following the discovery by his lawyers last month of sensitive documents. FBI officials have also searched the Delaware homes of President Joe Biden after his lawyers found documents with classified markings at his former office in Washington and at his Wilmington property.

Donald Trump has been indicted by a Manhattan grand jury, his lawyers said Thursday, making him the first former U.S. president to face a criminal charge and jolting his bid to retake the White House next year.

The charges center on payments made during the 2016 presidential campaign to silence claims of an extramarital sexual encounter. They mark an extraordinary development after years of investigations into Trump’s business, political and personal dealings.

The indictment injects a local district attorney’s office into the heart of a national presidential race and ushers in criminal proceedings in a city that the ex-president for decades called home. Arriving at a time of deep political divisions, the charges are likely to reinforce rather than reshape dueling perspectives of those who see accountability as long overdue and those who, like Trump, feel the Republican is being targeted for political purposes by a Democratic prosecutor.

Trump, who has denied any wrongdoing and has repeatedly assailed the investigation, called the indictment “political persecution” and predicted it would damage Democrats in 2024. In a statement confirming the charges, defense lawyers Susan Necheles and Joseph Tacopina said Trump "did not commit any crime. We will vigorously fight this political prosecution in court.”

Video below: A live look at Trump Tower in New York City. (Note: This video is live. Offensive images and language may be displayed.)

The case centers on well-chronicled allegations from a period in 2016 when Trump’s celebrity past collided with his political ambitions. Prosecutors scrutinized money paid to porn actor Stormy Daniels and former Playboy model Karen McDougal, whom he feared would go public with claims that they had extramarital sexual encounters with him.

Trump was expected to surrender to authorities next week, though the details were still being worked out, according to a person familiar with the matter who was not authorized to discuss a matter that remained under seal.

The timing of the indictment appeared to come as a surprise to Trump campaign officials following news reports that criminal charges was likely weeks away. The former president was at Mar-a-Lago, his Florida estate, on Thursday and had filmed an interview with a conservative commentator earlier in the day.

For a man whose presidency was defined by one obliterated norm after another, the indictment presents yet another never-before-seen spectacle. It will require a former president, and current hopeful, to simultaneously fight for his freedom and his political future while also fending off potentially more perilous legal threats, including investigations into attempts by him and his allies to undo the 2020 election as well into as the hoarding of hundreds of classified documents.

In fact, New York until recently had been seen as an unlikely contender to be the first place to prosecute Trump, who continues to face long-running investigations in Atlanta and Washington that could also result in charges. Unlike those inquiries, the Manhattan case concerns conduct by Trump that occurred before he became president and is unrelated to much-publicized efforts to overturn a presidential election.

As he seeks to reassert control of the Republican Party and stave off a slew of one-time allies who are seeking or are likely to oppose him for the presidential nomination, the indictment sets the stage for an unprecedented scene — a former president having his fingerprints and mug shot taken, and then facing arraignment and possibly a criminal trial. For security reasons, his booking is expected to be carefully choreographed to avoid crowds inside or outside the courthouse.

Video below: A live look at Donald Trump's plane at Palm Beach International Airport in Florida

In bringing the charges, the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg, is embracing an unusual case that had been investigated by two previous sets of prosecutors, both of which declined to take the politically explosive step of seeking Trump’s indictment.

In the weeks leading up to the indictment, Trump, who is seeks to reassert control of the Republican Party and . railed about the investigation on social media and urged supporters to protest on his behalf, prompting tighter security around the Manhattan criminal courthouse.

The fate of the hush-money investigation seemed uncertain until word got out in early March that Bragg had invited Trump to testify before a grand jury, a signal that prosecutors were close to bringing charges.

Trump’s attorneys declined the invitation, but a lawyer closely allied with the former president briefly testified in an effort to undercut the credibility of Trump’s former lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen.

Late in the 2016 presidential campaign, Cohen paid Daniels $130,000 to keep her silent about what she says was a sexual encounter with Trump a decade earlier after they met at a celebrity golf tournament.

Cohen was then reimbursed by Trump’s company, the Trump Organization, which also rewarded the lawyer with bonuses and extra payments logged internally as legal expenses. Over several months, Cohen said, the company paid him $420,000.

Earlier in 2016, Cohen had also arranged for the publisher of the supermarket tabloid the National Enquirer to pay Playboy model Karen McDougal $150,000 to squelch her story of a Trump affair in a journalistically dubious practice known as “catch-and-kill.”

The payments to the women were intended to buy secrecy, but they backfired almost immediately as details of the arrangements leaked to the news media.

Federal prosecutors in New York ultimately charged Cohen in 2018 with violating federal campaign finance laws, arguing that the payments amounted to impermissible help to Trump’s presidential campaign. Cohen pleaded guilty to those charges and unrelated tax evasion counts and served time in federal prison.

Trump was implicated in court filings as having knowledge of the arrangements, but U.S. prosecutors at the time balked at bringing charges against him. The Justice Department has a longtime policy that it is likely unconstitutional to prosecute a sitting president in federal court.

Video below: A live look at the Manhattan District Attorney's office in New York City. (Note: This video is live. Offensive images and language may be displayed.)

Bragg’s predecessor as district attorney, Cyrus Vance Jr., then took up the investigation in 2019. While that probe initially focused on the hush money payments, Vance’s prosecutors moved on to other matters, including an examination of Trump’s business dealings and tax strategies.

Vance ultimately charged the Trump Organization and its chief financial officer with tax fraud related to fringe benefits paid to some of the company’s top executives.

The hush money matter became known around the D.A.’s office as the “zombie case,” with prosecutors revisiting it periodically but never opting to bring charges.

Bragg saw it differently. After the Trump Organization was convicted on the tax fraud charges in December, he brought fresh eyes to the well-worn case, hiring longtime white-collar prosecutor Matthew Colangelo to oversee the probe and convening a new grand jury.

Cohen became a key witness, meeting with prosecutors nearly two-dozen times, turning over emails, recordings and other evidence and testifying before the grand jury.

Trump has long decried the Manhattan investigation as “the greatest witch hunt in history.” He has also lashed out at Bragg, calling the prosecutor, who is Black, racist against white people.

The criminal charges in New York are the latest salvo in a profound schism between Trump and his hometown — a reckoning for a one-time favorite son who grew rich and famous building skyscrapers, hobnobbing with celebrities and gracing the pages of the city’s gossip press.

Trump, who famously riffed in 2016 that he “could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody” and “wouldn’t lose voters,” now faces a threat to his liberty or at least his reputation in a borough where more than 75% of voters — many of them potential jurors — went against him in the last election.

NEW YORK —

The historic indictment of former President Donald Trump thrust the 2024 presidential election into uncharted territory, raising the remarkable prospect that the leading contender for the Republican nomination will seek the White House while also facing trial for criminal charges in New York.

In an acknowledgment of the sway the former president holds with the voters who will decide the GOP contest next year, those eyeing a primary challenge to Trump were quick to criticize the indictment. Without naming Trump, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis called the move "un-American." Former Vice President Mike Pence, whose life was threatened after Trump incited an insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, told CNN the charges were "outrageous."

Video above: Former Vice President Mike Pence was among the lawmakers from both sides of the aisle who reacted to the indictment.

That posture speaks to the short-term incentives for Republicans to avoid anything that might antagonize Trump's loyal base. But the indictment raises profound questions for the GOP's future, particularly as Trump faces the possibility of additional charges soon in Atlanta and Washington. While that might galvanize his supporters, the turmoil could threaten the GOP's standing in the very swing-state suburbs that have abandoned the party in three successive elections, eroding its grip on the White House, Congress and key governorships.

Trump has spent four decades managing to skirt this type of legal jeopardy and expressed confidence again late Thursday, blaming the charges on "Thugs and Radical Left Monsters."

"THIS IS AN ATTACK ON OUR COUNTRY THE LIKES OF WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN SEEN BEFORE," Trump wrote on his social media site.

Trump is "ready to fight," his attorney, Joe Tacopina, said on Fox News.

Trump is expected to surrender to authorities next week on charges connected to hush money payments made during the 2016 presidential campaign to women who alleged extramarital sexual encounters. For now, it remains unclear how the development will resonate with voters. Polls show Trump remains the undisputed frontrunner for the Republican nomination, and his standing has not faltered, even amid widespread reporting on the expected charges.

Trump's campaign and his allies have long hoped an indictment would serve as a rallying cry for his supporters, angering his "Make America Great Again" base, drawing small dollar donations and forcing Trump's potential rivals into the awkward position of having to defend him — or risk their wrath.

Indeed, Trump's campaign began fundraising off the news almost immediately after it broke, firing an email to supporters with the all-caps subject line "BREAKING: PRESIDENT TRUMP INDICTED."

At Trump's first rally of the 2024 campaign, held in Texas over the weekend, supporters expressed widespread disgust with the investigation and insisted the case wouldn't affect his chances.

"It's a joke," Patti Murphy, 63, of Fort Worth, Texas said. "It's just another way of them trying to get him out of their way."

Others in the crowd said their support for Trump had been waning since he left the White House, but the looming indictment made them more likely to support him in 2024 because they felt his anger had been justified.

Video below: Trump supporters gather at Mar-a-Lago after indictment

At the same time, there is little chance a criminal trial will help Trump in a general election, particularly with independents, who have grown tired of his constant chaos. That has provided an opening for alternatives like DeSantis, who are expected to paint themselves as champions of the former president's policies, but without all his baggage.

But there were no immediate signs the party was ready to use the indictment to move past him. Instead, Republicans, including members of Congress and Trump's rivals, rushed to his defense en masse. In addition to DeSantis, former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, who has already declared her candidacy, blasted the indictment as "more about revenge than it is about justice." Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who is mulling a run, accused Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg of "undermining America's confidence in our legal system," while also sending a fundraising text off the news.

Trump, meanwhile, has tried to turn the public against the case. Early on March 18, amid reports that police in New York were preparing for a possible indictment, he fired off a message on his social media site in which he declared that he expected to be arrested within days.

While that never came to pass (and his aides made clear it had not been based on any inside information), Trump used the time to highlight the case's widely-discussed weaknesses and to attack Bragg with a barrage of deeply personal — and at times racist — attacks.

Trump also sought to project an air of strength. The night of his post, he traveled with aides to a college wrestling championship, where he spent hours greeting supporters and posing for photos. On the way home, the assembled entourage watched mixed martial arts cage fighting aboard his plane.

And last weekend, Trump held a rally in Waco, Texas, where he railed against the case in front of thousands of supporters.

People who have spoken with Trump in recent weeks have described him as both angry and unbothered about the prospect of charges. Freshman Republican Rep. Mark Alford of Missouri said Trump was "upbeat" at a fundraiser at Mar-a-Lago the night before he warned of his arrest.

Indeed, Trump has at times appeared in denial about the gravity of the situation. He and his aides were caught off-guard by the news Thursday. And during the plane ride home from his Texas rally, Trump told reporters he believed the case had been dropped.

"I have no idea what's going to happen, but I can tell you that they have no case. So I think the case is — I think they've already dropped the case, from what I understand. I think it's been dropped," he said.

Still, Trump responded with anger when pressed, even as he insisted he was not frustrated.

Video below: The indictment in New York is from one of three known investigations linked to Donald Trump

Beyond the Manhattan case, Trump is facing several other investigations, including a Georgia inquiry into his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election and a federal probe into his alleged mishandling of classified documents.

It remains unclear how the public might respond if Trump ends up facing charges in additional cases, particularly if some lead to convictions and others are dismissed.

An indictment — or even a conviction — would not bar Trump from running for president or serving as the Republican nominee.

_______

Associated Press writers Paul Weber in Waco, Texas, and Lisa Mascaro in Orlando contributed to this report.

CINCINNATI — As Reds fans enjoyed Opening Day at the Great American Ballpark, many were unaware history had been made.

Former President Donald Trump was indicted by a Manhattan grand jury hours before the final pitch was thrown, and many who learned while leaving the ballpark were stunned by the sudden turn of events in a months-long investigation.

"I'm a Trump supporter," said John Booth.

Booth said he views Trump as innocent until proven guilty, and hoped the former president — now the only in U.S. history to face criminal charges — would beat the charges and take office again.

"The economy is where it's at right now because of the current administration," Booth said, "and I would say that the predecessor would be better."

Others saw the indictment as the tip of a very large legal iceberg as Trump also faces an investigation in Georgia related to pressuring officials to change the results of the 2020 election and another into his handling of classified documents after leaving office.

What does Donald Trump's indictment mean for his presidential run?

"As a gay woman, this is exciting news," said Elizabeth Witte. "I think that with everything that's been happening in the world, we need something. He needs to be held accountable for not just this but all his actions."

Many landed in the middle ground in their opinions of Trump's new indictment.

Michaela Pearson said she had faith in the legal system.

"My initial thought is innocent until proven guilty," she said. "Of course, there's two sides to every story."

Jack Ferguson said he had faith in the spirit of the country.

"I love America, and I'm proud to be an American," he said. "So, whatever the case is, I just want everyone to be together and be united. That's what I care about. I could care less about the different political stuff."

WCPO reached out to both Republican and Democratic leadership in Hamilton County. Democratic Party Chair Gwen McFarlin said she had no comment until further details emerged about the charges facing Trump. Republican Chair Russell Mock had the same thing to say, but added he was disappointed with what was happening in New York.

"Weaponizing the judicial system for political purposes is dangerous at this point," he said.

Many local politicians refrained from making statements on the indictment. Senator J.D. Vance tweeted that it was "despicable" that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg thinks Donald Trump should "go to jail for a fake misdemeanor" while a man who described as a "lunatic" who "hurled racial slurs" at a family on a New York subway should "walk free."

Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky also tweeted about Bragg. The former president said the indictment is "political persecution and election interference at the highest level in history."

The Associated Press reported the Manhattan District Attorney's office is coordinating the surrender and arraignment process with Trump lawyers. Exactly when those steps may take place is still not currently known.

READ MORE
What does Donald Trump's indictment mean for his presidential run?
Lawmakers react after news of Trump indictment
What happens now that Donald Trump has been indicted?

NEW YORK —

Former President Donald Trump is set to appear in a Manhattan courtroom Tuesday on charges related to falsifying business records in a hush money investigation, the first president ever to be charged with a crime.

The Republican former president, who has denied any wrongdoing and has repeatedly assailed the investigation, has called the indictment "political persecution" and predicted it would damage Democrats in 2024. Trump's lawyers have said the former president "did not commit any crime" and they will "vigorously fight this political prosecution in court."

What to expect:

When is Trump's arraignment?

Trump flew into New York from his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida, on Monday and is expected to leave Trump Tower on Tuesday and make the nearly 4-mile drive to the Manhattan criminal courthouse, where he is scheduled to face a judge for his arraignment at 2:15 p.m. EDT.

Will there be a 'perp walk'?

No. So-called perp walks happen when a criminal suspect is taken in handcuffs out of a police precinct and then driven to the courthouse. But Trump won't be going to a police precinct. He's arranged a surrender with the district attorney's office and will head straight to the court, skipping a police station entirely. It's very unlikely anyone will get a glimpse of him going into or out of court, unless he wants to be seen. That's because there are underground entrances, side doors and tunnels in and around the Manhattan courthouse.

What happens after he surrenders?

Trump will get booked. Here's what that means: Before computers, information on every criminal suspect would be written down in a big book kept by court officials. Now, it's all computerized, but the process is largely the same. Court officers will take down Trump's full name, age, birthdate, height and weight. They'll check to see if the former president has any outstanding warrants. They'll take his fingerprints – but they won't roll his fingertips in ink; these days that's done by computer, too. Officers will roll each fingertip on a computerized system that records the prints.

Video above: What is a grand jury and how does it work?

They may take his photo, known as a mug shot. In New York, this process usually takes about two hours, but it can be as long as four. But no one else is getting processed when Trump arrives, so it will go much faster. Then he goes before a judge.

What happens in the hearing?

An arraignment is a hearing in which the indictment will be formally unsealed and the charges will be read aloud, though Trump could request to waive the public reading. He will be asked how he pleads to the charges and is expected to answer "not guilty." And Trump's attorneys Joe Tacopina, Susan Necheles and Todd Blanche, will work with the judge and the district attorney’s office to set a date for the next time he’d be back in court.

The judge has ruled that news photographers would be allowed to take photos of the former president at the start of his arraignment.

Will he be arrested?

Technically, yes. When he's fingerprinted and processed, he's considered under arrest and in custody. But it won't look like what it does in the movies or on TV's "Law & Order."

Video below: Crowds outside of NY courthouse ahead of Trump arraignment

He won't be handcuffed and he won't sit in a jail cell, in part because parts of the courthouse will be cleared out for his arraignment – and because Trump is a former president with Secret Service protection. Not all defendants are handcuffed before they appear before a judge for an arraignment, though some are.

If there is a mug shot, will it be made public?

It depends. In New York City, mug shots aren't generally made public. They are taken by the law enforcement agency that makes the arrest. There are situations where a judge could make the photo public in response to a public records fight. It could also get leaked, too.

Will Trump walk out of there?

In all likelihood, yes. New York’s bail laws have been overhauled over the past few years, meaning Trump would be released without bail because the anticipated charges against him don't require that bail be set. But it's possible that Judge Juan Merchan could decide that Trump is a flight risk and order him held in custody, with or without bail. Trump's lawyers would argue that the former president's ties to the U.S. are strong, and because he's a presidential candidate, he has no reason to flee and should be allowed to leave.

What happens next?

The judge and legal teams will set dates for the next hearing and deadlines for discovery, in which the district attorney's office must turn over all its information to Trump's lawyers, and motions, which include any requests to shift the venue or dismiss the case outright. That process usually takes months. Tacopina has said he needs to read the indictment first and research before he decides what to do on a change of venue or any motions to dismiss, though it would be very common to file one.

NEW YORK —

Ron DeSantis ' entry into the 2024 White House race against former President Donald Trump sets up a clash of the Republican Party's two leading figures as the Florida governor attempts to topple a man who has dominated the GOP for the last seven years.

Video above: Trump vs. DeSantis: Florida politicians, analysts weigh in on matchup

Trump, who has established himself as the clear front-runner for the Republican nomination, has spent the months since he launched his own campaign working to hobble the once-ascendant DeSantis, whom he and his team have long viewed as his most serious challenger. DeSantis so far has tried to remain above the fray, ignoring Trump's escalating attacks on everything from his record to his personality.

"The campaign is about to get a lot more intense. He can't just lay low in Tallahassee signing bills," said GOP strategist Alex Conant of DeSantis' strategy. "Now he has to hit the campaign trail, take media questions and punch back at his opponents."

But DeSantis, during a series of events Wednesday night launching his campaign, took only veiled swipes at his chief rival without mentioning him by name. It is a strategy reminiscent of 2016, when Trump's army of Republican rivals failed to go after the candidate directly for fear of alienating his supporters and assumed — wrongly — that he would flame out on his own.

"There is no substitute for victory. We must end the culture of losing that has infected the Republican Party in recent years," DeSantis said on a Twitter Spaces debut that was plagued by technical difficulties. "We must look forward, not backwards," he added.

Video below: A Trump, DeSantis timeline of how 2 Republican allies became bitter rivals

In an interview later with Fox News, he said he believed all candidates should participate in the planned GOP primary debates, which Trump has threatened to boycott. "Nobody's entitled to anything in this world," he said.

The rollout made clear that, at least for the time being, DeSantis intends to leave the dirty work of attacking Trump to his allies, who see openings that they plan to exploit, particularly on policy.

Now that he's officially in the race, DeSantis' well-funded super PAC is poised to intensify its attacks against the former president. His team plans to focus on policy differences between the two Republicans, making the case that Trump has "lurched left" on some issues — most notably, abortion.

"We're going to amplify him and his voice, and when necessary, contrast with the former president. But right now that contrast is really one is lurching left and one is fighting," said David Polyansky, senior adviser to the pro-DeSantis super PAC Never Back Down.

DeSantis' team believes Trump is particularly vulnerable with Republican primary voters on abortion. Although the former president appointed the Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe v. Wade, he has drawn the ire of anti-abortion activists by refusing to say whether he supports a federal ban on the procedure.

While Trump has openly suggested that Republican candidates' hard-line stances led to GOP losses in last fall's midterms, DeSantis has leaned in even further on the issue, signing a six-week abortion ban in Florida — before most women know they are pregnant.

Video below: Former Vice President Mike Pence says experience sets him apart as Florida Gov. DeSantis enters presidential race

DeSantis and his backers must tread carefully: In order to win the nomination, he will need to assemble a coalition that includes both Trump critics and supporters. DeSantis risks alienating a large swath of the party if he goes after Trump too forcefully.

Acknowledging the challenge, DeSantis' super PAC plans to steer clear of criticism directly related to Trump's many legal entanglements. The Florida governor himself was stung earlier in the spring when he took a swipe at Trump, instead of defending him, following his New York indictment.

Trump, meanwhile, has spent months relentlessly attacking DeSantis, nicknaming him "Ron DeSanctimonious" and subjecting him to a daily onslaught of criticism on his Truth Social app and in ads.

Trump has repeatedly called out the Florida governor's votes to cut Social Security and Medicare when he served in Congress, arguing his record will make him unelectable in a general election. He has tried to undermine DeSantis' success as governor of Florida, claiming the state was "doing GREAT long before Ron DeSanctus got there." And he has pointed to the crime rate in some of the state's large cities and criticized DeSantis' handling of the COVID-19 pandemic — the issue that made DeSantis a conservative star.

Beyond policy, Trump has attacked DeSantis' character — accusing him of being "disloyal" after Trump helped DeSantis win his 2018 gubernatorial primary — and saying he "desperately needs a personality transplant and, to the best of my knowledge, they are not medically available yet."

Trump's allied super PAC, Make America Great Again Inc., has already spent millions on anti-DeSantis ads, and the group has no plans to change its strategy, given the fact that it has been treating DeSantis like a candidate for months already.

"Ron DeSantis' failed campaign launch is just another example that he's not ready for this critical moment," said spokesperson Alex Pfeiffer. "Voters don't yet know Ron DeSantis, but they'll find out he has a record of targeting Social Security, trying to raise taxes, and voting against border wall funding."

So far the effort appears to have paid off. Polls suggest Trump's support has only grown since earlier this year, while the appetite for DeSantis as an alternative has faded.

DeSantis' team largely dismisses Trump's early polling advantage given that the Florida governor only just became an official candidate. DeSantis said Wednesday he was prepared for the onslaught he faces.

"You can call me whatever you want. Just call me a winner," DeSantis said on Fox News. "There will be slings and arrows. I'm a big boy. I can take it."

Republican donor Dan Eberhart, who donated millions to Trump but is now supporting DeSantis, argued that Trump's continued attacks make clear the former president still sees DeSantis as a threat.

"Trump's fixation with DeSantis is proof that the Florida governor is a serious contender," he wrote in an email. "The former president spent more money attacking Gov. DeSantis before he was even a candidate than Trump did helping Republicans last cycle. Trump's biggest fear just came true."

Some voters, meanwhile, continue to have trouble reconciling the feud between two men who were once allies.

Wina Fernandez, who lives in Miami, said she'd prefer DeSantis and Trump run together on the same ticket, with DeSantis serving four years as vice president and then running for president in 2028.

"I would just love them as president and vice president. That would be an amazing thing. I would go out to the street and dance," she said.

But if she had to choose, she said, she would choose Trump.

"There's a lot of drama involving Trump. However, he started this movement. He started it all," she said. "DeSantis is young, and he still has time to work on things."

___

Associated Press writers Jonathan J. Cooper in Phoenix and Adriana Gomez Licon in Miami contributed to this report.

NEW YORK (AP) — Former President Donald Trump angrily lashed out Wednesday, calling the nation's legal system a “broken disgrace" after a judge ruled he must answer questions under oath next week in a defamation lawsuit lodged by a writer who says he raped her in the mid-1990s.

He also called the 2019 lawsuit by E. Jean Carroll, a longtime advice columnist for Elle magazine, “a hoax and a lie."

The outburst late in the day came hours after U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan in Manhattan rejected a request by his lawyers to delay a deposition scheduled for Oct. 19.

Kaplan is presiding over the case in which Carroll said Trump raped her in the dressing room of a Manhattan Bergdorf Goodman store in the mid-1990s. He called the lawsuit “a complete con job."

“I don’t know this woman, have no idea who she is, other than it seems she got a picture of me many years ago, with her husband, shaking my hand on a reception line at a celebrity charity event," Trump said.

“She completely made up a story that I met her at the doors of this crowded New York City Department Store and, within minutes, ‘swooned' her. It is a Hoax and a lie, just like all the other Hoaxes that have been played on me for the past seven years," he said.

Then he grumbled: “Now all I have to do is go through years more of legal nonsense in order to clear my name of her and her lawyer’s phony attacks on me. This can only happen to ‘Trump'!"

Carroll is scheduled to be deposed on Friday.

Roberta Kaplan, Carroll’s attorney, said she was pleased with the judge's ruling and looked forward to filing new claims next month “and moving forward to trial with all dispatch” after New York state passed the Adult Survivors Act, allowing her to sue for damages for the alleged rape without the statute of limitations blocking it.

After Trump's statement was released, a spokesperson for Kaplan's firm, Kaplan Hecker & Fink, said the “latest statement from Donald Trump obviously does not merit a response.”

Trump's legal team has tried various legal tactics to delay the lawsuit and prevent him from being questioned by Carroll's attorneys. But Judge Kaplan wrote that it was time to move forward, especially given the “advanced age” of Carroll, 78, and Trump, 76, and perhaps other witnesses.

“The defendant should not be permitted to run the clock out on plaintiff’s attempt to gain a remedy for what allegedly was a serious wrong,” he wrote.

Carroll's lawsuit claims that Trump damaged her reputation in 2019 when he denied raping her. Trump's legal team has been trying to quash the lawsuit by arguing that the Republican was just doing his job as president when he denied the allegations, including when he dismissed his accuser as “not my type.”

Trump doubled down on the comment in his statement Wednesday, saying: “And, while I am not supposed to say it, I will. This woman is not my type! She has no idea what day, what week, what month, what year, or what decade this so-called 'event' supposedly took place. The reason she doesn’t know is because it never happened, and she doesn’t want to get caught up with details or facts that can be proven wrong."

Whether Trump will remain the defendant in the original lawsuit is a key question because if Trump was acting within the scope of his duties as a federal employee, the U.S. government would become the defendant in the case.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in a split decision last month that Trump was a federal employee when he commented on Carroll's claims. But it asked another court in Washington to decide whether Trump's public statements occurred during the scope of his employment.

Kaplan, the judge, said Trump has repeatedly tried to delay the collection of evidence in the lawsuit.

“Given his conduct so far in this case, Mr. Trump's position regarding the burdens of discovery is inexcusable,” he wrote. “As this Court previously has observed, Mr. Trump has litigated this case since it began in 2019 with the effect and probably the purpose of delaying it.”

The judge noted that the collection of evidence for the lawsuit to go to trial was virtually concluded, except for the depositions of Trump and Carroll.

“Mr. Trump has conducted extensive discovery of the plaintiff, yet produced virtually none himself,” Kaplan said. “Completing these depositions — which already have been delayed for years — would impose no undue burden on Mr. Trump, let alone any irreparable injury.”

The judge also said the deposition could be useful when Carroll's lawyer next month files the new lawsuit.

Whether the rape occurred is central to the defamation claims, as well as the anticipated new lawsuit, the judge said.

SALT LAKE CITY — Messages obtained by CNN show texts between Utah Sen. Mike Lee and President Donald Trump’s chief of staff Mark Meadows in which the two discuss the administration's attempts to overturn the 2020 election.

On Dec. 8, 2020, Lee floated the idea of some states sending Electoral College delegates contrary to the verified ballot counts.

"If a very small handful of states were to have their legislatures appoint alternative slates of delegates, there could be a path," Lee wrote.

But almost a month later on Jan. 3, 2021, Lee expressed frustration with the president.

"I don’t think the president is grasping the distinction between what we can do and what he would like us to do," expressed Lee, who also sent the following message:

"Again, all of this could change if the states in question certified Trump electors pursuant to state law. But in the absence of that, this effort is destined not only to fail, but to hurt DJT in the process."

The very next day, Trump seemingly responded to Lee's texts at a rally the two attended in Georgia.

“Mike Lee is here too, but I am a little angry at him today,” the former president said.

Trump's comment drew a text response to Meadows from Lee.

"I’ve been spending 14 hours a day for the last week trying to unravel this for him. To have him take a shot at me like that in such a public setting without even asking me about it is pretty discouraging," messaged Lee. "It’s not your fault. But I’ve been calling state legislators for hours today, and am going to spend hours doing the same tomorrow. I’m trying to figure out a path that I can persuasively defend, and this won’t make it any easier."

Lee, who faces reelection this year, did not personally respond to the texts, but his office sent a statement.

"The text messages tell the same story Sen. Lee told from the floor of the senate the day he voted to certify the election results of each and every state in the nation. They tell the story of a U.S. senator fulfilling his duty to Utah and the American people by following the Constitution," his office said.

The main candidates running against Lee reacted to the story.

"It's sad to read that. I want senators from either party to put country ahead of partisan divides and in this case, it looks like he literally wants to be Trump's lawyer," said Kael Weston. "It's sad. It's not right."

In a tweet, challenger Evan McMullen called Lee’s actions a spurious legal effort to overturn the 2020 election.

This article was written by John Franchi for KSTU.

Some high-ranking members of the Trump administration say they experienced feelings of vertigo, memory loss and confusion while they were on White House grounds, as CBS reported. The symptoms are similar to those of American diplomats who've been diagnosed with having "Havana Syndrome" while in foreign countries since 2016.

The stories from officials have been corroborated by former National Security Adviser John Bolton, the report says.

Bolton said, "If we were at war and an adversary could disable the president and his top advisers, or commanders in the field, it could render us extraordinarily vulnerable." He said, "We don't know that that's the threat we're facing. But I would much rather focus on finding out the answer now, rather than finding out later when it may be too late."

William Burns, the director of the CIA said, "It's a very complicated issue, you know, dealing with a whole range of incidents which have… different kinds of explanations for them as well." He said, "It's a very charged issue emotionally as well. I understand that very clearly. And that's what… makes me even more determined not only to ensure people get the care that they deserve but also that we get to the bottom of this."

Earlier this month, a panel of intelligence experts wasn't able to identify a single culprit for apparent brain injuries reported by U.S. personnel that have been linked to so-called “Havana syndrome. But officials who briefed reporters Wednesday say several potential causes remain plausible, including the use of devices that emit beams of directed energy.

The CIA announced that the agency considers it unlikely Russia or another foreign adversary is mounting a broad campaign to attack Americans with energy-emitting devices. But in a smaller number of cases, psychological factors alone cannot explain the symptoms and other characteristics displayed by people affected.

Hundreds of American diplomats and intelligence officers attribute their brain injuries and other symptoms to what's come to be known as “Havana syndrome.”

The findings are drawing immediate criticism from those who have reported cases and from advocates who accuse the government of long dismissing the array of ailments. Most cases under review by intelligence officers have been linked to other known medical conditions or to environmental factors. That's according to one official familiar with the matter who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the intelligence.

The 15 boxes of White House records that were stored at former President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago residence contained items marked as classified national security information.

That is according to the National Archives and Records Administration. The agency said Friday that the matter has been referred to the Justice Department.

They revealed the information in response to a Feb. 9 letter to the House Committee on Oversight and Reform Committee. House lawmakers had opened an investigation and the National Archives has reportedly asked the Justice Department to look into the matter. The FBI has not indicated what, if anything, will be done.

Former Vice President Mike Pence has directly rebutted Donald Trump's false claims that Pence somehow could have overturned the results of the 2020 election.

Pence said Friday in a speech to the conservative Federalist Society in Florida that the former president is simply "wrong" when he says Pence had the right to unilaterally "overturn the election." Pence is responding to Trump's intensifying efforts this week to advance the false narrative that he could have done something to prevent Joe Biden from taking office.

While Pence has previously defended his actions on Jan. 6, the remarks Friday mark his most forceful rebuttal of Trump to date.

“I heard this week that President Trump said I had the right to ‘overturn the election,’” Pence said in the speech. He continued by saying, “President Trump is wrong. I had no right to overturn the election. The presidency belongs to the American people and the American people alone,” Bloomberg reported.

According to CNN, Pence went on to say in the speech, "Under the Constitution, I had no right to change the outcome of our election, and Kamala Harris will have no right to overturn the election when we beat them in 2024."

NEW YORK —

The New York attorney general’s office late Tuesday told a court its investigators have uncovered evidence that former President Donald Trump’s company used “fraudulent or misleading” asset valuations to get loans and tax benefits.

The court filing said state authorities haven’t yet decided whether to bring a lawsuit in connection with the allegations, but that investigators need to question Trump and his two eldest children as part of the probe.

The Trump Organization issued a statement Wednesday calling the civil investigation “baseless” and politically motivated.

Video above: NY attorney general seeks Trump's testimony

In the court documents, Attorney General Letitia James’ office gave its most detailed accounting yet of a long-running investigation of allegations that Trump's company exaggerated the value of assets to get favorable loan terms, or misstated what land was worth to slash its tax burden.

The Trump Organization, it said, had overstated the value of land donations made in New York and California on paperwork submitted to the IRS to justify several million dollars in tax deductions.

When giving estimates of Trump's wealth, the company misreported the size of his Manhattan penthouse, saying it was nearly three times its actual size — a difference in value of about $200 million, James' office said, citing deposition testimony from Trump's longtime financial chief Allen Weisselberg, who was charged last year with tax fraud in a parallel criminal investigation.

James’ office detailed its findings in a court motion seeking to force Trump, his daughter Ivanka Trump and his son Donald Trump Jr. to comply with subpoenas seeking their testimony.

Investigators, the court papers said, had “developed significant additional evidence indicating that the Trump Organization used fraudulent or misleading asset valuations to obtain a host of economic benefits, including loans, insurance coverage, and tax deductions."

In its statement, the Trump Organization said “the only one misleading the public is Letitia James.”

“She defrauded New Yorkers by basing her entire candidacy on a promise to get Trump at all costs without having seen a shred of evidence and in violation of every conceivable ethical rule,” they wrote. “Three years later she is now faced with the stark reality that she has no case.”

Trump's legal team has sought to block the subpoenas, calling them “an unprecedented and unconstitutional maneuver." They say James is improperly attempting to obtain testimony that could be used in the parallel criminal investigation, being overseen by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.

Trump sued James in federal court last month, seeking to put an end to her investigation. In the suit, his lawyers claimed the attorney general, a Democrat, had violated the Republican’s constitutional rights in a “thinly-veiled effort to publicly malign Trump and his associates.”

In the past, the Republican ex-president has decried James’ investigation and Bragg's probe as part of a “witch hunt."

In a statement late Tuesday, James office said that it hasn't decided whether to pursue legal action, but said the evidence gathered so far shows the investigation should proceed unimpeded.

“For more than two years, the Trump Organization has used delay tactics and litigation in an attempt to thwart a legitimate investigation into its financial dealings,” James said. “Thus far in our investigation, we have uncovered significant evidence that suggests Donald J. Trump and the Trump Organization falsely and fraudulently valued multiple assets and misrepresented those values to financial institutions for economic benefit."

Although James’ civil investigation is separate from the criminal investigation, her office has been involved in both, dispatching several lawyers to work side-by-side with prosecutors from the Manhattan D.A.’s office.

James’ office said that under state law, it could seek ”a broad range of remedies” against companies found to have committed commercial fraud, “including revoking a license to conduct business within the state, moving to have an officer or director removed from board of directors, and restitution and disgorgement of ill-gotten gains.”

In the court papers, James’ office said evidence shows that Trump’s company:

— Listed his Seven Springs estate north of New York City as being worth $291 million, based on the dubious assumption that it could reap $161 million from building nine luxury homes.

— Added a “brand premium” of 15% to 30% to the value of some properties because they carried the Trump name, despite financial statements explicitly stating they didn't incorporate brand value.

— Inflated the value of a suburban New York golf club by millions of dollars by counting fees for memberships that weren’t sold or were never paid.

— Valued a Park Avenue condominium tower at $350 million, based on proceeds it could reap from unsold units, even though many of those apartments were likely to sell for less because they were covered by rent stabilization laws.

— Valued an apartment being rented to Ivanka Trump at as high as $25 million, even though she had an option to buy it for $8.5 million.

— Said in documents that its stake in an office building, 40 Wall Street, was worth $525 million to $602 million — between two to three times the estimate reached by appraisers working for the lender Capital One.

One judge has previously sided with James on an earlier request to question another Trump son, Trump Organization executive Eric Trump, who ultimately sat for a deposition but declined to answer some questions.

Last year, the Manhattan district attorney brought tax fraud charges against the Trump Organization and Weisselberg, its longtime chief financial officer.

Weisselberg pleaded not guilty to charges alleging he and the company evaded taxes on lucrative fringe benefits paid to executives.

Both investigations are at least partly related to allegations made in news reports and by Trump’s former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, that Trump had a history of misrepresenting the value of assets.

The disclosures about the attorney general's investigation came the same day as Trump ally Rudy Giuliani and other members of the legal team that had sought to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election were subpoenaed by a House committee investigating the U.S. Capitol insurrection.

DirecTV says it plans to drop the right-wing TV channel One America News Network. The satellite television provider's move is expected to significantly shrink the reach of the channel loyal to former President Donald Trump.

OAN's owner, Herring Networks Inc., was notified of the decision and told DirectTV would cease to carry the network's two channels after their contract expires. A Friday report from Bloomberg confirmed the news and noted that the other channel, A Wealth of Entertainment, which is a lifestyle channel, would in fact be dropped as well.

In a statement to USA Today, DirecTV said, “We informed Herring Networks that, following a routine internal review, we do not plan to enter into a new contract when our current agreement expires."

Herring Networks' contract reportedly ends in April, as Bloomberg reported, but a spokesperson for DirecTV declined to confirm a date to USA Today.

OAN has been criticized for spreading misinformation including Trump's claim that he won the 2020 election.

Herring Networks did not immediately respond to an email from the Associated Press seeking comment.

WASHINGTON —

Intelligence reports compiled by the U.S. Capitol Police in the days before last year's insurrection envisioned only an improbable or remote risk of violence, even as other assessments warned that crowds of potentially thousands of pro-Trump demonstrators could converge in Washington and create a dangerous situation.

The documents, obtained by The Associated Press, underscore the uneven and muddled intelligence that circulated to Capitol Police officers ahead of the Jan. 6 riot, when thousands of Donald Trump loyalists swarmed the Capitol complex and clashed violently with law enforcement officers in their effort to disrupt the certification of the results of the 2020 presidential election. The intelligence reports in particular show how the police agency, up to the day of the riot itself, grievously underestimated the prospect of chaotic violence and disruptions.

The contradictory intelligence produced by law enforcement leading up to the riot has been at the forefront of congressional scrutiny about the Jan. 6 preparations and response, with officials struggling to explain how they failed to anticipate and plan for the deadly riot at the Capitol that day. The shortcomings led to upheaval at the top ranks of the department, including the ouster of the chief, though the assistant chief in charge of protective and intelligence operations at the time remains in her position.

There was, according to a harshly critical Senate report issued in June, “a lack of consensus about the gravity of the threat posed on January 6, 2021.”

“Months following the attack on the U.S. Capitol, there is still no consensus among USCP officials about the intelligence reports’ threat analysis ahead of January 6, 2021,” the report stated.

The documents, known as a “daily intelligence report” and marked “For Official Use Only,” have been described over the last year in congressional testimony and in the Senate report. The AP on Friday evening obtained full versions of the documents for Jan. 4, 5 and 6 of last year. The New York Times highlighted the Jan. 4 report in a story last year on intelligence shortcomings.

On each of the three days, the documents showed, the Capitol Police ranked as “highly improbable” the probability of acts of civil disobedience and arrests arising from the “Stop the Steal” protest planned for the Capitol. The documents ranked that event and gatherings planned for Jan 6. by about 20 other organizers on a scale of “remote” to “nearly certain” in terms of the likelihood of major disruptions. All were rated as either “remote," “highly improbable" or “improbable,” the documents show.

“No further information has been found to the exact actions planned by this group,” the Jan. 6 report says about the “Stop the Steal” rally.

The Million MAGA March planned by Trump supporters is rated in the document as “improbable,” with officials saying it was “possible” that organizers could demonstrate at the Capitol complex, and that though there had been talk of counter-demonstrators, there are “no clear plans by those groups at this time.”

Another event by a group known as Prime Time Patriots was similarly described as having a “highly improbable” chance for disruption, with the report again stating that “no further information has been found to the exact actions planned by this group.”

Those optimistic forecasts are tough to square with separate intelligence assessments compiled by the Capitol Police in late December and early January. Those documents, also obtained by AP, warned that crowds could number in the thousands and include members of extremist groups like the Proud Boys.

A Jan. 3, 2021, memo, for instance, warned of a “significantly dangerous situation for law enforcement and the general public alike" because of the potential attendance of "white supremacists, militia members and others who actively promote violence."

“Unlike previous post-election protests, the targets of the pro-Trump supporters are not necessarily the counter-protestors as they were previously, but rather Congress itself is the target on the 6th," the report states.

Adding to the mixed intelligence portrait is a Jan. 5 bulletin prepared by the FBI's Norfolk field office that warned of the potential for “war” at the Capitol. Capitol Police leaders have said they were unaware of that document at the time. FBI Director Chris Wray has said the report was disseminated through the FBI’s joint terrorism task force, discussed at a command post in Washington and posted on an internet portal available to other law enforcement agencies.

Capitol Police officials have repeatedly insisted that they had no specific or credible intelligence that any demonstration at the Capitol would result in a large-scale attack on the building. Despite scrutiny of intelligence shortcomings, Yogananda Pittman, the assistant chief in charge of intelligence at the time of the riot, remains in that position.

The current police chief, J. Thomas Manger, defended Pittman in a September interview with the AP, pointing to her decision when she was acting chief to implement recommendations made by the inspector general and to expand the department’s internal intelligence capabilities so officers wouldn’t need to rely so heavily on intelligence gathered by other law enforcement agencies.