Judicial Watch Lawsuit: Did Democratic Arizona Attorney General Announce ‘Investigation’ of Trump to Sway Election?

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced an open records lawsuit revealing that Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes seems to have used her office for political purposes in threatening a prosecution of President Trump on the eve of the 2024 presidential election (Judicial Watch Inc. v. Kris Mayes et al (No. CV 2025 00675)). Only one document was found (and kept secret) relating to a criminal investigation, while dozens of media-related documents were revealed.

In an October 31, 2024, interview with Tucker Carlson at Desert Diamond Arena in Glendale, Arizona, Trump said of Cheney: “She’s a radical war hawk. Let’s put her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her, OK? Let’s see how she feels about it. You know, when the guns are trained on her face. They’re all war hawks when they’re sitting in Washington in a nice building saying, ‘Oh, gee, well let’s send 10,000 troops right into the mouth of the enemy.’ “

On November 1, 2024, Mayes, a Democrat, said during the taping of the Channel 12 “Sunday Square-Off” news show: “I have already asked my criminal division chief to start looking at that statement, analyzing it for whether it qualifies as a death threat under Arizona’s laws.” She conducted multiple media interviews within days of the election.

Mayes’ office provided comments to CBS, NBC, CNN, AZ Family, Forbes, Fox, News Nation, Sky View Networks, Law and Crime News Network, Newsweek, and Reuters in what appears to be an attempt to paint Donald Trump as a criminal shortly before the election.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton made the following statement about the lawsuit’s findings:

The records show the threatened “investigation” of President Trump was merely an oral request from the Arizona General Mayes to a top staffer to evaluate the Liz Cheney statement.  The only record of the investigation that exists is a 3-page memo from the Attorney General’s criminal division chief back to Mayes, which the Court reviewed in camera and determined was protected attorney work product and therefore can be withheld.  Presumably (and probably from media sources) the memo declined to open a more substantial investigation or initiate a prosecution. 

The lack of records further supports our theory that the investigation—purportedly launched on the Friday before the 2024 presidential election and dropped shortly thereafter—was a sham to try to influence the outcome of the election in an important swing state. This is yet another example of “lawfare” abuse targeting Trump.

Mayes ended the “investigation” on November 13, 2024, telling the Arizona Republic that Trump’s comment “very likely may have been an effort to intimidate Cheney” but the investigation showed there was “no reasonable likelihood that we could obtain a conviction for Trump’s statements. We think it’s equally likely a reasonable person could conclude Trump was discussing war, and Liz Cheney not wanting to go to war.”

The lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court for the State of Arizona Maricopa County this past January after Mayes’ office failed to comply with a November 12, 2024, Arizona Public Records Act request by Judicial Watch for records regarding Mayes’ office and/or the criminal division chief analyzing Trump’s statement as qualifying as a death threat; the determination whether the statement was analyzed to be a violation of Arizona and/or federal law; the costs to carry out the investigation; and any documents in which Mayes addresses the limits of free speech as addressed in the First Amendment.

Additionally, Judicial Watch asked for records regarding the dismissal of criminal charges against Arizona citizen Rebekah Massie, who was arrested during an August 20, 2024, Surprise City Council meeting after she criticized a proposed pay increase for the city attorney.

Maricopa County Judge Gerald Williams dismissed with prejudice the trespassing charge against Massie, writing: “No branch of any federal, state, or local government in this country should ever attempt to control the content of political speech. In this case, the government did so in a manner that was objectively outrageous.”

###