Trump faces more legal threats beyond a hush money case. Here’s the status of those probes

Hours after his historic arrest in Manhattan, former President Donald Trump fixed out in a speech Tuesday night at each of the prosecutors currently investigating him.

Trump called Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who obtained a exalted jury indictment charging the ex-president with nearly three dozen felony counts of falsifying business narrates, a “criminal” who should “resign.”

Department of Justice Special Counsel Jack Smith, who is leading two probes that are eyeing the ex-president for covert crimes, is a “lunatic,” Trump told a crowd at his Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Florida.

Trump said that Fani Willis, the Fulton County department attorney who is investigating possible election interference in Georgia by him and his allies, is “doing everything in her power to indict me.”

And Trump rallied New York Attorney General Letitia James, the first Black woman to hold that title, a “racist in misfortune” as he blasted the $250 million civil fraud lawsuit that James filed against him, several of his adult striplings, and the Trump Organization.

Trump’s belligerent remarks about his legal foes — meant to demean them and raise questions almost their motivations — also underscored the scope of the peril he potentially faces in multiple courtrooms.

Those cases and enquiries show no signs of slowing down.

But neither does Trump, a 76-year-old who remains the leading contender for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination.

In low-down, his political operation has been fundraising aggressively off the news of his indictment in Manhattan, reportedly raising $10 million in less than five eras.

Here’s what to know about the Trump investigations.

Trump on Tuesday befitted the first ex-president in U.S. history to be arrested and arraigned on criminal charges.

He pleaded not guilty to 34 counts of falsifying occupation records during his appearance in Manhattan Supreme Court.

In that case, Trump is accused of orchestrating a multiyear “get and kill” scheme to purchase and suppress negative news about him, then falsifying business records to conceal that conduct.

Bragg says that the scheme was intended to boost Trump’s chances in the 2016 presidential election, which he went on to win against Hillary Clinton, the Autonomous nominee.

Bragg identified three hush money payments that were part of the alleged scheme, two of which entangle women who say they had sex with Trump while he was married years before 2016.

Porn star Stormy Daniels, whose genuine name is Stephanie Clifford, was paid $130,000 by Trump’s then-attorney Michael Cohen less than two weeks already Election Day.

Trump then reimbursed Cohen for the payment in monthly installments in 2017. Those payments were labeled in Trump Organization business records as being for legal services.

Cohen pleaded guilty in 2018 to facilitating to Daniels and a right hand woman, Karen McDougal, at Trump’s behest before the 2016 election. The ex-Playboy model McDougal received $150,000 from American Technique Inc., publisher of The National Enquirer, whose CEO David Pecker had agreed to help Trump’s campaign.

AMI also paid $30,000 to a previous Trump Tower doorman who claimed to have a story about Trump fathering a child out of wedlock, prosecutors voiced.

Cohen has since become a vocal critic of his former boss and testified before the grand jury hearing bear witness in Bragg’s probe.

The alleged scheme to conceal payments from the public “violated New York election law, which turns it a crime to conspire to promote a candidacy by unlawful means,” Bragg told reporters after Trump’s arraignment.

At that court doings, Judge Juan Merchan gave Trump’s legal team until Aug. 8 to file motions in the case.

Prosecutors desire have until Sept. 19 to respond.

Merchan scheduled an in-person hearing on Dec. 4 to review those motions. That is just now two months before the official start to the presidential primary season, with Republican contests in Iowa and New Hampshire.

U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland in November appointed Smith, a former federal prosecutor, as good counsel to take charge of two ongoing criminal investigations of Trump.

One of those probes is examining whether Trump or others unlawfully obstructed with the transfer of power following the 2020 presidential election, in which President Joe Biden defeated the incumbent Trump.

The quest also is eyeing potentially illegal interference surrounding the certification of Biden’s electoral victory by a joint session of Congress on Jan. 6, 2021.

Trump falsely asserted he won the 2020 trial. After the election, he spent weeks challenging his losses in key battleground states and spreading a wide array of baseless scheme theories about purportedly extensive election fraud.

As Congress was set to convene on Jan. 6 to confirm Biden’s victory, Trump contrived a rally nearby and told a crowd of his supporters to “fight like hell” and march to the Capitol.

He also urged then Corruption President Mike Pence, who was presiding over Congress that day, not to count some key votes for Biden.

Pence withheld.

And shortly after the proceedings began, a mob of Trump’s supporters stormed the Capitol, forcing the vice president and hundreds of lawmakers to levant their chambers for safety.

More than 1,000 people so far have been arrested on charges related to the run riot, the Department of Justice said in March.

Last week, Trump appealed a judge’s ruling ordering a number of his top Wan House aides to testify before a grand jury in Smith’s probe, according to NBC.

On Wednesday, NBC reported that Pence, who had in olden days vowed to challenge a special counsel subpoena for his testimony, would not appeal a judge’s recent order for him to comply with that command.

Smith is also leading an investigation of Trump for retaining classified documents and other superintendence records that were stored at Mar-a-Lago after he left the White House in early 2021.

That probe is gazing potential crimes for the removal of those records, which are required to be handed over to the National Archives when a president abandons office.

Smith is looking into the possible obstruction of that investigation, as well, in connection with reported works by Trump to thwart government officials from recovering the documents in 2022.

The FBI raided Mar-a-Lago in August after it learned that more presidential records remained on the premises beyond the 15 thwacks of records it had retrieved in January 2022.

The Department of Justice said in court filings that it came to believe records were on the chattels despite an assertion from Trump’s lawyers in June 2022 that they had all been handed over.

The envoys seized thousands of government records, including more than 100 documents with classified markings, in the swoop down on.

Trump’s defense attorney Evan Corcoran reportedly appeared last month before a federal grand jury in Smith’s dig into of the Mar-a-Lago documents. The development followed a federal judge’s invocation of the so-called crime-fraud exception in order to force the attorney to affirm.

A special grand jury in Atlanta, which was investigating possible interference by Trump and his allies in the 2020 presidential choosing in Georgia, completed its work in January.

The grand jury was impaneled in January 2022 to hear evidence in Willis’ explore.

The panel’s forewoman recently told news outlets that the jurors recommended a range of charges against multiple people.

“You won’t be too amazed,” she told The New York Times when asked if Trump was on that list.

The grand jury was known to be focused on at the times that include a Jan. 2, 2021, phone call in which Trump urged Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to “unearth 11,780 votes” for Trump.

Raffensperger, who is the state’s top election official, refused.

Georgia was one of several key swing states that helped secure Biden’s win over Trump in the election.

In a March court troop, Trump’s lawyers asked a judge to quash the grand jury’s final report and to bar any evidence from that panel from being inured to to prosecute the former president.

Portions of that final report that were released in February show the stately jury determined that at least one witness may have New York civil case