“Washington D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine sued President Trump’s inaugural committee and business, alleging that the committee violated its nonprofit status by spending more than $1 million to book a ballroom at Trump’s D.C. hotel that its staff knew was overpriced and that it barely used,” the Washington Post reports.

“During the lead-up to Trump’s January 2017 inauguration, the committee booked the hotel ballroom for $175,000 a day plus more than $300,000 in food and beverage costs, over the objections of its own event planner.”

“A fundraiser and donor to President Trump was charged by federal prosecutors in New York with obstructing an investigation into his activities, including back-dating a check to a fellow donor and deleting emails,” Bloomberg reports.

“The former adviser to first lady Melania Trump, who has come under fire for the cost of President Trump’s inauguration, was among the event planners who raised concerns about excessive spending in the weeks before the events,” according to documents obtained by CNN.

“Stephanie Winston Wolkoff, a former friend of Melania Trump, has emerged as a witness for investigators and received a subpoena last month by Washington DC’s attorney general.”

Nearly 100 internal Trump transition vetting documents leaked to Axios identify a host of “red flags” about officials who went on to get some of the most powerful jobs in the U.S. government. 

A sampling:

• Scott Pruitt, who ultimately lost his job as EPA administrator because of serial ethical abuses and clubbiness with lobbyists, had a section in his vetting dossier flagging “coziness with big energy companies.”
• Tom Price, who ultimately resigned as Health and Human Services secretary after Trump lost confidence in him in part for stories about his use of chartered flights, had sections in his dossier flagging “criticisms of management ability.”
• Mick Mulvaney, now Trump’s acting chief of staff, had a striking assortment of red flags, including his assessment that Trump “is not a very good person.”
• Nikki Haley, who became Trump’s U.N. ambassador, had a note that she’d said Trump is everything “we teach our kids not to do in kindergarten.”

“A Ukrainian-Russian developer who wanted access to President Trump’s inauguration filed a lawsuit on Tuesday saying he was bilked out of the $200,000 he paid for what he thought would be V.I.P. tickets to the event,” the New York Times reports.

“The lawsuit sheds new light on efforts to accommodate foreign politicians and business executives who sought to attend Mr. Trump’s inauguration to press their agendas, curry favor or make influential connections with the incoming administration.”

“Federal prosecutors in New York are scrutinizing tens of thousands of documents relating to Donald Trump’s inauguration in a sign that the investigation into the committee’s finances is advancing,” CNN reports.

“The end of the document production indicates the investigation is moving into the next stage. Authorities are investigating whether any of the record $107 million in donations for the inaugural was misspent, used to improperly benefit certain individuals, or came from foreign donors in violation of campaign finance laws that prohibit foreign money in US elections.”

Washington Post: “The gathering, which cost the inaugural committee roughly $8,000 a person, was the brainchild of billionaire Thomas J. Barrack Jr., Trump’s close friend and his inaugural committee chairman, and gave foreign guests an unparalleled chance to mingle with the incoming vice president, other members of the new administration and lawmakers.”

“The dinner was an extravagant symbol of Trump’s inaugural festivities, which involved record fundraising, lavish spending and a large concentration of foreign guests. Now, state, federal and congressional investigators are scrutinizing those issues as part of five inquiries of activities related to the inaugural committee.”

“Donald Trump’s inauguration received tens of thousands of dollars from shell companies that masked the involvement of a foreign contributor or others with foreign ties,” The Guardian reports.

“The Guardian has identified the creators of three obscure firms that contributed money to Trump’s inaugural committee, which collected a record $107m as he entered the White House in 2017.”

Bloomberg Businessweek: “Trump registered his opinion on inaugural plans big and small, from allocation of broadcasting rights to procurement of tablecloths, according to three people familiar with the planning and the transition effort who requested anonymity to describe the decision-making process… Barrack told staff that Trump wanted to know everything about the inauguration’s finances, an admonition to keep budgets in check… Trump’s interest in keeping tabs on spending was familiar to anyone who’d worked on the campaign.”

“Trump’s involvement in inaugural planning started early. He wanted to give exclusive broadcasting rights to Fox News, with on-air talent that was broadly supportive of his candidacy. But in a late November phone call with Trump, Jeff Zucker, the president of CNN, argued it would be a mistake to broadcast only to his most loyal supporters.”

The White House has repeatedly denied that Trump had any role in planning it.

“The attorney general for the District of Columbia has subpoenaed documents from President Trump’s inaugural committee, the third governmental body to delve into how the fund raised $107 million and spent it to celebrate Mr. Trump’s swearing in,” the New York Times reports.

“The latest subpoena follows similar demands for documents by federal prosecutors in Manhattan and by New Jersey’s attorney general. The attorney general in Washington is a local official who enforces statutes governing the operation of nonprofit organizations like the inaugural committee.”

“Federal prosecutors in New York are circling Donald Trump’s inaugural committee as part of a wide-ranging investigation into possible money laundering, illegal contributions and cash-for-access schemes. Now, WNYC and ProPublica have identified evidence of potential tax law violations by the committee.”

“A spokesman confirmed that the nonprofit 58th Presidential Inaugural Committee paid the Trump International Hotel a rate of $175,000 per day for event space — in spite of internal objections at the time that the rate was far too high. If the committee is deemed by auditors or prosecutors to have paid an above-market rate, that could violate tax laws prohibiting self-dealing.”

“Tax law prohibits nonprofits from paying inflated prices to entities that are owned by people who also control or influence the nonprofit’s activities.”

During their raid of Michael Cohen’s home and office, FBI agents seized tapes of conversations between Trump’s former attorney and Stephanie Winston Wolkoff, who oversaw Trump’s inaugural festivities, Vanity Fair reports.

“According to people familiar with the recordings, some of the taped conversations dealt directly with the inauguration. In them, Wolkoff detailed her own contemporaneous concerns with the inauguration—about how money was being spent, the general chaos of the process, and the involvement of Trump’s adult children. During these conversations, Wolkoff also raised her issues with the two men in charge of the committee: Rick Gates and Tom Barrack. These recordings, in part, led the Southern District of New York to launch a criminal investigation into how the inaugural committee spent its record $107 million.”

“Prosecutors in New York’s Southern District have reached out to President Trump’s inauguration committee and plan to subpoena the organization for documents, indicating that even as the special counsel probe appears to be nearing an end, another investigation that could hamstring the president and his lawyers is widening,” ABC News reports.

“The contact from the Southern District, which came from its public corruption section, is the latest activity focusing on Trump’s political fundraising both before and immediately after his 2016 election.”

New York Times: “A lawyer working with the inaugural committee received a subpoena on Monday evening seeking documents related to all of the committee’s donors and event attendees; any benefits handed out, including tickets and photo opportunities with the president; federal disclosure filings; vendors; contracts; and more.”

“Prosecutors also showed interest in whether any foreigners illegally donated to the committee, as well as whether committee staff knew that such donations were illegal, asking for documents laying out legal requirements for donations.”