Since Donald Trump’s term as president ended and his power to pardon vanished with it in January 2021, he has managed to keep a wide range of former aides, confidantes and associates close to him by dispensing the millions of dollars he’s raised for his political action committee as legal fees for allies who’ve been caught up in investigations into his conduct. According to a Federal Election Commission disclosure report filed late last month, his Save America political committee spent roughly $20m on legal fees during the first half of this year. And a separate review of FEC filings dating back to when Mr Trump first reentered life as a private citizen shows the legal costs to be twice that amount dating back to the end of the ex-president’s term. The commission’s data reveals that Save America’s legal costs since January 2021 were $38m, the largest set of expenditures for the group. According to advisers to the ex-president, that amount represents legal fees not just for Mr Trump, but for dozens of former aides and associates who have become involved in the criminal investigations that have led to him facing four sets of charges in four separate courts. That group of aides includes Mr Trump’s two co-defendants in the criminal case pending against him in the Southern District of Florida, his longtime valet Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, a maintenance supervisor at Mr Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club. In a superseding indictment filed against the ex-president, Mr Nauta and Mr De Oliveira last month, prosecutors alleged that Mr Trump personally telephoned Mr De Oliveira and assured him that he would pay for his legal representation. The indictment also alleges that prior to that call, Mr Nauta conferred with another employee of the ex-president’s who vouched for Mr De Oliveira’s loyalty. In a statement, Trump campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung said the ex-president’s political operation pays legal fees for his associates “to protect these innocent people from financial ruin and prevent their lives from being completely destroyed”. But Mr Trump’s legal largesse does not appear to extend to a small number of aides who’ve incurred the ex-president’s wrath even though their legal exposure has come as a result of their work for him. One of the 18 co-defendants who was indicted along with the former president in a sprawling racketeering case brought by the Fulton County, Georgia district attorney’s office is Jenna Ellis, an attorney and commentator who first came to public attention as part of the self-described “elite strike force” that pushed unfounded claims of election fraud after Mr Trump lost the 2020 presidential race to Joe Biden. Ms Ellis, who broke with Mr Trump and has endorsed Florida Governor Ron DeSantis in next year’s election, appears to be getting no help from the ex-president’s political operation. In a post on X (formerly known as Twitter) published on Tuesday, she included a link to a crowdfunding campaign on GiveSendGo, the right-wing competitor to GoFundMe that gained prominence in pro-Trump circles after the January 6 attack on the Capitol. Her attorney, Mike Melito, said on the campaign’s page: “We will fight for Jenna. If you would like to help support our efforts please consider donating by clicking the link below. America and the profession of law are worth the fight”. Another of her former “elite strike force” compatriots turned Georgia co-defendants, ex-New York City mayor Rudolph Giuliani, also appears to be struggling financially under a crush of legal fees brought on by his work for Mr Trump — work that has reportedly gone unpaid for nearly three years. According to CNN, Mr Giuliani and his longtime counsel, Robert Costello, journeyed to Mar-a-Lago earlier this year to plead for Mr Trump to turn on the financial spigot and alleviate some of the ex-mayor’s legal bills, which reportedly have reached the seven-figure mark. The former prosecutor, who now faces criminal charges under the same type of Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) law which he used against the Italian-American mob in the 1980s, left only with a promise by Mr Trump to pay for “a small fee from a data vendor” which hosts the contents of digital devices for discovery in a defamation suit against him by two Georgia election workers, Ruby Freeman and Wandrea Moss. Mr Giuliani, who recently listed his New York City apartment for sale was described in a court filing for that case as “having financial difficulties” that impede his ability to produce discovery. It’s not known exactly why Mr Trump has refused to cover his former lawyer and longtime friend’s legal costs, but according to multiple reports, he became disillusioned with Mr Giuliani’s work after it failed to result in him remaining in the White House despite having lost the 2020 election. Read More Trump judge makes barbed comment about Elon Musk as contents of Jack Smith’s Twitter warrant revealed Trump co-defendant Walt Nauta’s lawyer may have conflict of interest, prosecutors say All of Trump’s lawsuits and criminal charges - and where they stand Trump’s team creates legal defence fund to pay for growing number of allies caught up in his legal problems Connecticut official continues mayoral campaign despite facing charges in Jan. 6 case Biden’s approval rating on the economy stagnates despite slowing inflation Canadian woman sentenced to nearly 22 years for sending ricin letter to Trump

By Hanna Rantala CANNES The provocatively titled film "How to Have Sex," about three British teen girls who

An attorney for rapper Travis Scott says a grand jury has declined to indict him in a criminal investigation into a massive crowd surge that killed 10 people at the 2021 Astroworld music festival in Houston

'The Kardashians' star Kim Kardashian channels Stuart Weitzman in new photos

Jamie Foxx is being accused of sexually assaulting a woman in 2015 in New York City

Korean Air Lines Co. has offered concessions to the European Union competition regulator as it seeks approval for

Christine has claimed that Costner unexpectedly canceled one of her credit cards and significantly reduced the credit limit on another

Special Counsel Jack Smith’s office accused Donald Trump of trying to “litigate this case in the media,” after the former president objected on Monday to a proposal to limit public discussion of the discovery evidence against him for allegedly conspiring to overturn the 2020 election. "The defendant’s principal objection to it—as defense counsel stated publicly yesterday, and in conference with Government counsel—is that it would not permit the defendant or his counsel to publicly disseminate, and publicise in the media, various materials obtained from the Government in discovery," the the office wrote in a Monday night filing. “But there is no right to publicly release discovery material, because the discovery process is designed to ensure a fair process before the Court, not to provide the defendant an opportunity to improperly press his case in the court of public opinion." The filing came just hours after Mr Trump’s legal team asked the judge overseeing the criminal case for permission to use a large swath of discovery materials while he campaigns for the Republican nomination in next year’s presidential election. In a 13-page response to the government’s original motion for a protective order barring him from disclosing any of the materials that will be turned over by prosecutors as part of the pre-trial discovery process before he is tried on charges of conspiracy and obstruction of an official proceeding, Mr Trump’s defence team claimed that the standard protective order requested by prosecutors would mean Judge Tanya Chutkan would be a “censor” who would impose “content-based restrictions” on the ex-president’s “political speech”. Prosecutors, citing Mr Trump’s penchant for “public statements on social media regarding witnesses, judges, attorneys, and others associated with legal matters pending against him,” had asked Judge Chutkan to impose an order barring the former president from disclosing discovery materials “directly or indirectly to any person or entity other than persons employed to assist in the defense, persons who are interviewed as potential witnesses, counsel for potential witnesses, and other persons to whom the Court may authorize disclosure”. The government also cited social media posts made by the ex-president on his Truth Social platform, including one recent social media post in which he appeared to threaten to “come after” anyone he believes to have been “after” him. In a more recent post on Monday, the ex-president also claimed that he “shouldn’t have a protective order placed on [him] because it would impinge upon [his] right to FREE SPEECH”. Mr Trump’s attorneys largely echoed this claim in their court filing, and said the government had to demonstrate a “compelling reason” with “no narrower alternative” before the court could impose the restrictions requested by prosecutors. While the ex-president’s legal team did concede that the government does have some interest in “restricting some of the documents it must produce,” including secret grand jury materials and documents pertaining to the identities of witnesses, they said those needs did not require a “blanket gag order over all documents produced by the government”. They also complained that Special Counsel Jack Smith and his team did not explain why it would be insufficient to impose restrictions only on materials deemed “sensitive” by the government, and asked Judge Chutkan to impose an order which only restricts “sensitive” materials from use by Mr Trump in his political campaign. Additionally, the ex-president’s attorneys asked Judge Chutkan to impose an order which allows them to “bring on ... volunteer attorneys or others without paid employment arrangements” as Mr Trump prepares for trial, and argued that the government “cannot preclude the assistance” of such volunteers or require Mr Trump to ask permission before allowing them access to discovery materials. “Such a limitation or requirement would unduly burden President Trump and impede the efficient preparation of his defense. Indeed, the defense cannot predict its future needs for the case, especially for a case of this magnitude and complexity,” they said. They did add, however, that they would not object to an order restricting those volunteers from accessing materials deemed “sensitive”. Read More Trump and Biden tied in hypothetical 2024 rematch, poll finds Pelosi doubles down on ‘beautiful’ Trump indictments after attracting ex-president’s ire ‘HUGE WIN!!’: E Jean Carroll praises legal team as judge dismisses Trump defamation lawsuit against her Judge tosses Trump's defamation suit against writer who won sexual abuse lawsuit against him Trump insists he isn’t a ‘scared puppy’ in defiant attack on Nancy Pelosi Jeff Gunter, a dermatologist who was Trump's ambassador to Iceland, is running for Nevada Senate Judges halt a Biden rule offering student debt relief for those alleging colleges misled them Pelosi doubles down on ‘beautiful’ indictments after receiving Trump’s ire

Several videos and photos taken by fans showed Lana Del Rey working behind the counter at the restaurant in Alabama

Police say six people including former NFL player D

Wanda Sykes had once canceled her guest appearance on 'The View' over Alyssa Farah Griffin's previous association with former president Donald Trump

"Crossing the Channel, it's playing with our lives," Hajji...