#Trump loses fraud trial in New York

[ausetkmt]

Watch "N.Y. attorney general sues Trump for business fraud"

One year later this case was a slam dunk for attorney general Letitia James. A judge in New York state ruled today September 27th 2023 that Donald Trump committed massive fraud over 20 years in over declaring his assets values

Congrats to da Leticia James

[justinspoliticalcorner]

David Smith at The Guardian:

Losing an election for the highest office is a crushing blow that no candidate forgets. But when the American electorate delivers its verdict next week, the personal stakes for Donald Trump will be uniquely high. His fate will hover between the presidency and the threat of prison.

If he claims victory, Trump will be the first convicted criminal to win the White House and gain access to the nuclear codes. If he falls short, the 78-year-old faces more humiliating courtroom trials and potentially even time behind bars. It would be the end of a charmed life in which he has somehow always managed to outrun the law and duck accountability. For Trump, Tuesday is judgment day. “He branded himself as the guy who gets away with it,” said Gwenda Blair, a Trump biographer, adding that, should he lose, “he is facing a lot of moments of reckoning. He could go to jail. He could end up considerably less wealthy than he is. No matter what happens, and no matter whether he wins or loses, there will be a reckoning over his health. Death, ill health, dementia – those are things even he can’t escape.” The property developer and reality TV star has spent his career pushing ethical and legal boundaries to the limit, facing countless investigations, court battles and hefty fines. Worthy of a novel, his has been a life of scandal on a gargantuan scale.

In the 1970s Trump and his father were sued by the justice department for racial discrimination after refusing to rent apartments to Black people in predominantly white buildings. His property and casino businesses, including the Taj Mahal and Trump Plaza, filed for bankruptcy several times in the 1990s and early 2000s. Trump University, a business offering property training courses, faced multiple lawsuits for fraud, misleading marketing and false claims about the quality of its programmes. In 2016 Trump settled for $25m without admitting wrongdoing.

The Donald J Trump Foundation, a charitable organisation, was investigated and sued for allegedly using charitable funds for personal and business expenses. Trump eventually agreed to dissolve the foundation with remaining funds going to charity. Trump and his company were ordered to pay more than $350m in a New York civil fraud trial for artificially inflating his net worth to secure favourable loan terms. He is also known to have paid little to no federal income taxes in specific years which, although technically legal, was seen by some as bordering on unethical.

[...] He became the first president to be impeached twice, first for withholding military aid to pressure Ukraine’s government to investigate his political opponents, then for instigating a coup on 6 January 2021 following his defeat. He also became the subject of not one but four criminal cases, any one of which would have been enough to scuttle the chances of any other White House hopeful. In May Trump was found guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records relating to a hush-money payment to the adult film performer Stormy Daniels, making him the first former president to be convicted of felony crimes. Sentencing is scheduled for 26 November (the judge delayed it from 18 September after the Republican nominee asked that it wait until after the election). What was billed as the trial of the century has already begun to fade from public consciousness and played a relatively modest role in the election campaign. Jonathan Alter, a presidential biographer who was in court for every day of the trial, recalled: “I’ve covered some big stories over the years but there was nothing like the drama of watching the jury foreperson say, ‘Guilty, guilty, guilty’ 34 times and Donald Trump looking like he was punched in the gut.” Alter, who describes the experience in his new book, American Reckoning, reflects on how Trump has been able to act with impunity for so long. “It’s a combination of luck, galvanised defiance and the credulousness of a large chunk of the American people,” he said. “Demagoguery works. Playing on people’s fears works. It doesn’t work all the time but we can look throughout human history to political figures and how demagoguery and scapegoating ‘the other’ works.”

Alter, who covered the trial for Washington Monthly magazine, added: “We’ve had plenty of demagogues, scoundrels and conmen in politics below the level of president. Trump has been lucky to escape accountability but the United States has been lucky that we haven’t had something like this before. The founders were very worried about it. They felt we would face something like this for sure.” The US’s system of checks and balances has been racing to keep up. Trump was charged by the special counsel Jack Smith with conspiring to overturn the results of his election loss to Joe Biden in the run-up to the January 6 riot at the US Capitol. The former president and 18 others were also charged by the Fulton county district attorney, Fani Willis, with taking part in a scheme to overturn his narrow loss in Georgia. Trump was charged again by Smith with illegally retaining classified documents that included nuclear secrets, taken with him from the White House to his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida after he left office in January 2021, and then obstructing government demands to give them back.

With a such a caseload, it was widely assumed that Trump would spend this election shuttling between rallies one day and trials the next. But the courtroom campaign never really happened since, true to past form, he found ways to throw sand in the gears of the legal system and put off his moment of reckoning.

Or he simply got lucky. In Georgia, it emerged that Willis had a romantic relationship with the special prosecutor Nathan Wade, prompting demands that she be removed. Smith’s federal election case was thrown off track for months by a supreme court ruling that presidents have immunity for official actions taken in office. The classified documents case was thrown out by Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, although Smith is appealing and the charges could be reinstated. Such delays have made it easier to forget just how much of an outlier Trump is. Past presidential brushes with the law consisted of Ulysses S Grant being fined for speeding his horse-drawn carriage in Washington and Harry Truman receiving a ticket for driving his car too slowly on the Pennsylvania Turnpike in 1953. Richard Nixon resigned before he could be impeached over the Watergate scandal and was subsequently pardoned by his successor, Gerald Ford. Meanwhile the standard for presidential aspirants has been high. Joe Biden’s first run for the White House fell apart amid allegations that he had plagiarised a speech by Britain’s Labour leader Neil Kinnock. During the 2000 campaign, a last-minute revelation that Republican candidate George W Bush had a drunk driving conviction that he concealed for 24 years generated huge headlines and was seen as a possible gamechanger. Hillary Clinton still blames her 2016 defeat on an FBI investigation into her email server that produced no charges.

For Donald Trump, his run for the “Presidency” is all about avoiding any possible jail time for his indictments and felonies. If he loses, then Trump could be facing more trials and potentially jail time and/or massive fines.

Send Trump to prison, not the White House!

#TrumpForPrison #HarrisWalz2024

[reasonsforhope]

I keep seeing news about charges and what-not being piled onto Trump, and all I can keep saying to myself is "but is he going to experience one (1) single consequence of this?" So... is there any iota of a hope that something could come of this circus that will make the slightest ding in his capacity to run in 2024?

So, the answer to this is a bit complicated - partly because there are a lot of factors and a long time scale, and partly because it depends on how you define "consequences"

If you mean "any serious consequences at all," good news, that has already happened!

If you need to catch up on the whole "cases against Trump" situation, read this: The Cases Against Trump: A Guide. Via The Atlantic, November 1, 2023

1. The New York Fraud Case

A judge has ordered that the Trump Organization must be dissolved in a ruling that is being widely described as a "corporate death penalty." This is an incredibly rare ruling, and a huge deal.

The details will take a while to hash out - currently, Trump's kids are in the middle of testifying in a trial for this fraud case, but it's not to determine whether he's guilty - only the extent of the damages and the outline of how the org will be dissolved. It's extraordinarily unlikely Trump will be able to get out of this one. And high up on the list of things he's probably going to lose? Trump Tower itself.

Now, admittedly, this actually isn't because of, you know, the whole attempted coup thing. It's because the Trump Organization's finances were built on decades of absolutely massive fraud - including the very wealth that Trump lied about in order to explain why people should vote for him.

Oh, and let's not forget that in this case, Donald Trump spent weeks absolutely shit talking the judge to try to "poison the jury pool" (make sure that people on the jury would go in with a negative opinion of the judge already). ONLY TO FIND OUT THAT THERE IS NO JURY IN THIS CASE because his attorneys forgot to request one, so the sole arbiter of his fate is the judge he just spent weeks absolutely slandering in an attempt to win over the jury! And all else aside, judges very infamously do not like being insulted

Oh yeah, and the prosecutors are seeking a permanent ban on Trump doing business in the state of New York

Fraud trial explainer (New York Times, no paywall) Sources: x, x, x, x, x, x, x, x

2. 14th Amendment Lawsuit

Okay so I did all the other sections first, then came back and wrote this one. It's shorter because of that, and because this issue is a lot newer and doesn't have nearly as much legal stuff or investigations going on yet.

What's happening here is that several states have people who are filing petitions and lawsuits to try to get Trump taken off the ballot for the 2024 election, under the 14th Amendment, which was passed in the aftermath of the Civil War and bars anyone who has committed insurrection from holding office.

So far (as of the first week of November, there are cases to kick Trump off the ballot in about 20 states. Oral arguments have started in Colorado and Minnesota.

Basically, my take on the short version is that this could happen, but we'll have to wait at least a few more months to see how likely it is.

However, even if it does go through, Trump would only be kicked off the ballot on a state by state basis. So, if Colorado kicks him off the ballot, he'll still be on the ballot in the other 49 states, and the process would have to be repeated in each one. Still, even if it was just one state, that could be a big deal, voting-wise - and if he gets kicked off the ballot in more than a couple states, he might not end up being the Republican nominee anymore, given the size of that disadvantage.

Correction, 6 min after posting: It's expected that if Trump DOES get kicked off the ballot in any state, the Supreme Court will hear the case and weigh in. The decision would be binding for all states. Supreme Court probably unlikely to ban Trump from the ballot since they cheated their way into a conservative supermajority and 3 of them are Trump appointees

Explainer: Trial to kick Trump off the ballot in Colorado Explainer: Strengths and weaknesses of cases to kick Trump off the ballot Sources: x, x, x, x, x, x, x

3. The Classified Documents Case

So, the fraud case above is actually a civil case (that is, not a criminal case). The classified documents case, however, is a criminal case, and it's arguably the one most likely to lead to legal and political consequences for Trump, in large part because everything's very clear cut.

Like, Trump has literally admitted he retained classified documents on purpose - which is super against the law! Trump is just arguing a variety of nonexistent technicalities for why that law doesn't apply to him. But he did it! We know he did! We have photos of classified documents stored in the Mar-a-Lago bathroom! We have testimony from the employees he ordered to secretly move the boxes before the FBI probe. We have records proving he asked Mar-a-Lago's IT guy about erasing the surveillance footage of the move! We even have proof that a) he stole nuclear secrets, and b) a recording of him waving around the "plans of attack," bragging about them to other people!

All super damning.

(Post continues below, at length; sources at the end of each section.)

And another thing that's extremely key: Trump is charged in this case with violating the Espionage Act. And the Espionage Act explicitly does not give a single fuck about why you retained documents, or whether there's any proof you intended to show anyone. Any and all hoarding of national defense documents is illegal under the Espionage Act - EVEN if they're not classified, which is great since "I declassified them with my brain" (not how it works) is Trump's main defense here.

So, this case is basically the surest criminal conviction - and the most likely to have electoral consequences. Partly because Republicans, as few issues as they care about, generally are security hawks - "Trump stole nuclear secrets and showed them to people" is giving Repubs pause in a way that the insurrection just isn't, probably esp in the military and ex-military demographic.

Trump could also serve jail time if convicted in this case (which again he probably will be).

However, violating the Espionage Act doesn't ban you from running for or holding public office, which imho seems like a pretty major oversight.

Classified documents case explainer Sources: x, x, x, x, x, x, x, x, x, x

4. The Insurrection

So, this is where things get really complicated, because the case is complicated and so many things about it are so unprecedented.

There are two different cases here: a criminal case in the state of Georgia and a federal criminal case (that's the one run by Special Counsel Jack Smith, who is also running the classified documents case).

I definitely can't summarize all of this huge situation here, but here's some key points re: whether there will be legal consequences:

I actually have a pretty high level of trust in Jack Smith, in large part due to his record: he's serving as special prosecutor while on sabbatical from his normal job of prosecuting war crimes at the Hague. And he's specifically been prosecuting war crimes from the wars and genocides in former Yugoslavia in the 80s and 90s. That specifically gives me a lot of confidence because - as someone whose family is from the region - I think it's a really strong demonstration of his abilities. It means he has a lot of experience prosecuting high-level government and army officials, in a complicated, multi-year, multi-war conflict, where there were way more sides and factions than we have, along with way less documentary evidence (bc 90s), and a lot of history of political corruption and coverups. I find that really reassuring, especially the "experience prosecuting high-level government and army officials" thing in a situation with, shall we say, extremely contested and variable national leadership, during the course of multiple civil wars

"Schwendiman compared it to prosecuting Kosovo’s equivalent of Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton. “If you indict these people, you’re saying, ‘The founding fathers of Kosovo have committed atrocities, and I’m ready to prove it, in an independent court, with independent judges and rules that apply to everyone.’” And that was Kosovo's founding president. So yeah, I think Jack Smith can handle Trump. Source

Okay now to the points you might have actually heard of lol

The Georgia case is a state level case, which means that no matter what, Trump can't pardon himself in that case

The Georgia case is also charging Trump under the RICO act - aka the rackeeting act, usually used to prosecute organized crime. And convictions under the Georgia RICO Act come with MANDATORY jail time

I think the evidence here is pretty compelling, see: the congressional Jan 6 hearings

There is a pretty high chance that, in a massively unusual step, filming will be allowed inside the trial/hearings. This is HUGE, especially because Trump supporters would actually be watching it too (unlike, generally, the congressional hearings), and that evidence all laid out looks really goddamn bad

Also, if yesterday's fraud trial testimony is any indication, Trump is likely to end up yelling and screaming at the judge, etc. in the trial, which is going to look wildly unprofessional

The federal trial will be taking place in Washington DC, where it should be very doable to get a jury that isn't stuffed with Trump cronies (unlike, say, if the case was brought in Florida)

Trump has attempted witness tampering on a lot of occasions, and tried to poison the jury pool, and he got caught so now he's under a gag order that restricts what he can say re: both of those.

Important note: Jack Smith has brought the narrower of two possible cases against Trump. He's filed against Trump with several conspiracy charges, including "conspiracy against rights," which was historically created to prosecute the KKK for racial terrorism

However, Jack Smith did not actually charge Trump with inciting an insurrection. There are a lot of possible reasons for this, but it mostly boils down to the fact that "inciting an insurrection" is significantly less objectively provable, in this case, esp since "insurrection" isn't actually defined in the relevant law

So, Jack Smith has traded a broader case (the one including insurrection charges) for a case that is much simpler and quicker to argue, and that he's sure he can prove

Jack Smith absolutely knows that he has an effective deadline of November 2024 (aka the next election, because a Republican president would shut down the investigation immediately), and he's planning accordingly

Look. Federal prosecutors - and the prosecutors in Georgia and the other NY case, for bribery of porn star Stormy Daniels - would not be bringing these charges if they did not feel sure they would win. Democracy aside, if any of them lose their cases? That is almost guaranteed to end their careers. So they have a very vested self-interest in only taking on what they are absolutely sure they can prove

The judge in the federal Jan 6 trial is the judge who has given the harshest sentences against any of the Jan 6 rioters, and she is the only judge to have sentenced rioters to more time than the prosecutors asked for

Jan 6 charges against Trump, explainer Sources: x, x, x, x, x, x, x, x

A Very Hot Take: It might not be a bad thing that Trump is still allowed to run

So, this is my personal take on the situation - I acknowledge that it's a very hot take on the Left, and that I might well be wrong about this. I might be totally misreading the field here. But I genuinely do think that Trump being the Republican candidate for president could be a good thing, and in fact I'll genuinely worry significantly more if Trump isn't the Republican nominee for president.

The why all basically comes down to this: I think Trump will be easier to defeat in the 2024 general election.

Again, look, I may totally be misreading this, and that would be really bad, but here are my thoughts:

Trump is super popular with the far right base - but that same strength makes him a huge liability in the general election. You CAN'T WIN a presidential election without the support of independents and moderates (including "moderates"). This is a really common problem for Republican candidates, actually: the more they move to the right to win the core Republican base, the more they risk hurting their chances in the general election

Independents and moderate Republicans - again, who Trump needs to win with to get the presidency - are significantly more likely to care about, you know, all the stealing classified documents and committing treason things

I can't think of anything that will guarantee people on the left get their asses to the polls better than "Vote or Trump is president again." A lot of the time, with someone who hasn't been president before, voters can lie to themselves and go "Oh it won't be that bad once he's in office," esp among moderates. But now we have proof that isn't the case!

Look, I don't know if Trump is getting dementia or what, but his faculties really do appear to be declining. They'll likely be significantly worse in another year - his speeches are already way worse than there were in 2016. He just can't track what he's saying well enough anymore. This makes it harder for him to make his case to the electorate

He's also the only actual Repub candidate that's about the same age as Biden - which will do a lot to stop the Right from using Biden's age as an effective weapon to get a Repub in office

Honestly, my biggest worry is that DeSantis will be the Republican nominee. I am way more scared of Biden vs. DeSantis than Biden vs. Trump.

Reasons I would absolutely rather Biden face Trump than DeSantis include: DeSantis is way younger and he has way less baggage. Because he hasn't been president yet, voters can do that self-delusion thing that he won't be that bad - that he'll be better than Trump - and that unlike Trump's, his plans will work. People on the left and in the center often don't know who he is yet, and there's not such a huge current of electoral energy to get them to the polls. And most of all - unlike Trump, DeSantis is actually smart. And as part of that, he is capable of a deep and absolutely premeditated cruelty that Trump just doesn't have the attention span or the patience for. Biggest example: actually literally kidnapping undocumented immigrants and sending them to Martha's Vineyard, and all the awfulness that went along with that, including the part where he started a goddamned trend.

Nikki Haley I'm less worried about because her core support base - conservatives - is also the country's core support base for misogyny. I hate to be glad about misogyny, but it genuinely would make it harder for her to turn out ultraconservative votes, especially evangelicals.

Sources: x, x, x, x, x, x, x, x, x, x, x, x

So, yeah, all told I don't actually have "Trump still gets to run for president" super high on the list of things I'm worried/mad about.

Also worth saying that we don't want just being indicted (aka charged with a crime) to disqualify people from running for office, because then all Republicans (or anyone) would have to do to disqualify an opposing candidate is find literally any excuse to charge them with something

But back to your original question! I genuinely DO think he'll face legal consequences, and I genuinely DO think he'll probably face jail time. Which obviously I am rooting for very hard

[reading-writing-revolution]

"From start to finish, every single thing we heard about today could not have gone worse. Whether it be Donald's temperament, whether it be his exchanges with the prosecutors, whether it be his admissions, today was a clusterf*** for the defense," Gallina said.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Trump is a loser. Tell a friend.

January 11, 2024

ROBERT B. HUBBELL

Readers frequently comment on my newsletters by writing, “You used word X; you should have used word Y.” Sometimes the comments are well-taken, but much of the time, my (silent) reaction is, “We aren’t going to change the course of history through vocabulary.” But Trump's effort to return to power may be the exception.

Trump is a loser. A spectacular one. He is the living embodiment of the punchline to the joke, “How do you make a small fortune in New York real estate?” Answer: “Start out with a large one.” His companies have been through half-a-dozen bankruptcies. The failure of his Taj Mahal Casino helped turn Atlantic City into a “ghost town.” He is such an unreliable credit risk that American banks stopped dealing with him in the 1990s.

Trump is a loser. He is the only president ever to be impeached twice. He is the only major presidential candidate to lose the popular vote twice. He is the only major presidential candidate to be indicted once—let alone four times. He is the first president in nearly a century to lose the House, the Senate, and re-election. He is the only major presidential candidate who has been adjudged (in a civil case) to have raped a woman.

Trump is a loser. When he traveled internationally as president, foreign leaders laughed at him behind his back. When he addressed the UN Assembly, world leaders laughed at him to his face. He has made some of the most ignorant comments ever by a US president, suggesting that Covid victims “inject bleach” and that they “shine a light inside their bodies.” And during an eclipse visible from Washington, D.C., Trump did the one thing that observers of eclipses are NEVER supposed to do—he removed his protective eye gear to look directly at the sun.

Despite the fact that Trump is a historic loser, he has somehow convinced tens of millions of Americans that he is “a stable genius” who would defeat a combined presidential ticket of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. We should not add to Trump's false mythology by unintentionally ascribing stature or influence he does not have.

Two days ago, readers of this newsletter posted a link in the Comment section to an article by Jason Sattler published on the Substack blog, Framelab. The article is entitled, Why Trump wants you to compare him to Hitler | Because then you’re not calling him a loser.

Sattler’s article is brilliant, and I highly recommend it. But in case you don’t get around to reading the article, the gist of Sattler’s argument is that Trump wants us to compare him to Hitler—because that comparison normalizes the notion that Trump will regain power as an autocratic strongman.

Sattler writes:

Ruth Ben-Ghiat, an expert on authoritarianism, seems to think the Hitler stuff is a trial balloon. Trump is seeking to “dehumanize immigrants now so the public will accept your repression of them when you return to office.” [T]hat thought gets us talking about exactly what Trump wants on our minds — him in power. He’s preemptively framing himself — as a strongman, an agent of revenge, and the ultimate enforcer of unsustainable hierarchies.

Sattler goes further, asserting that we are doing a favor for Trump by calling him Hitler:

When you’re calling Trump a dictator, think about what you’re not calling him. You’re not calling him a loser who never has and never will win the popular vote. A fraud. A traitor. Instead, you’re repeating his slander of immigrants and propping up his stature. You’re doing him a huge favor. Basically, we’re getting fooled again.

There is wisdom in Sattler’s analysis—to a point. We should not fall into the trap of assuming that Trump will succeed in becoming a Hitler-like dictator who will impose martial law on “day one” of his second term in office. If we do that, we make it more likely that Trump will succeed in his effort to be re-elected.

In other words, we should not grant Trump superpowers he does not possess. The man is a loser and a miserable human being who is disliked by almost everyone who has the misfortune of dealing directly with him.

But Trump is not only a small, insecure, petulant loser; he also exercises outsized influence over tens of millions of Americans. It would be foolish to stop talking about the existential danger that Trump presents to our democracy. For example, we know that Trump asked his former Secretary of Defense why federal troops couldn’t “shoot protestors” on the National Mall protesting the murder of George Floyd.

Two things are simultaneously true—and they are not in contradiction: Trump is a loser and he is a dangerous threat to our democracy. We can prevent him from becoming Hitler’s protege by reminding voters that he is a loser who has lost more than any other presidential candidate in history—and that he will lose again in 2024.

Don’t build an aura of inevitable victory around Trump. Instead, build an aura of inevitable defeat around Trump. He is a loser. He has always been a loser. And he will always be a loser.

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[baronfulmen]

https://href.li/?https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23991872-ny-ruling-on-trump-business-fraud

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

The judge in charge of Trump's fraud trial that's starting on Monday is already SO fed up with his defense that he's fined each lawyer $7500 and ordered Trump's businesses (in New York) to be handed over to a neutral 3rd party.

And remember this isn't a jury trial, this judge is the one that will be deciding everything.

What happened:

I'm not a lawyer or legal expert but apparently his shitty lawyers (the good ones all turned him down or demanded payment up front which is a deal breaker for Trump) kept trying to argue that essentially it doesn't matter if he committed fraud because everyone turned out fine. The judge made it VERY clear that argument was invalid, and they kept making it anyway.

What this means:

Again not an expert, but someone will be put in charge of his New York shit which - for anyone that didn't know - is most of it. We'll probably find out how much he's actually worth, and then once he loses this case (which he will) that 3rd party can do whatever they need to to make sure all the fines are paid which will almost certainly mean selling all his shit. Goodbye Trump Tower!

[theconstitutionisgayculture]

I think the weirdest thing about the Trump arrest is that it's not going to change a single thing? Like, Trump is surging in the GOP nomination polls because of the arrest, but he was always going to win the nomination. The left thinks being convicted or charged will keep him from legally being able to be president, but it won't. Him being on trial during a presidential run will hurt him with the never Trumpers (who would never vote for him anyway) and the low info normies (who weren't going to vote for him anyway); it also won't get anyone to vote for him who wouldn't have voted for him anyway, so it's not going to hurt or hinder his chances. He won't get convicted, because there's no crime to charge him for. Everything he could have done is either, A, past the statute of limitations or, B, a misdemeanor at best. They're throwing 30 charges at him in the hopes that something sticks, but they're not gonna send Trump to jail, even in New York. But the most important thing that won't change is that the fraud machines in PA, AZ, and NV have pretty much assured that no Republican is ever going to win the presidency ever again. Or at least not until California is broken up or falls into the ocean, or every state that isn't a blue lock goes red at the same time. So all this time and effort and angst and energy that's being put into ether saving Trump or "getting" him is pointless, because the results will be the same as if it never happened.

Trump gets the nomination.

Trump loses the election.

The Republicans probably pick up a few senate seats and a handful of house seats.

DeSantis becomes the new face of the Republican party.

The Dems spend the next four years desperately scraping the bottom of their bench for a fresh candidate who isn't insane enough to flip Wisconsin, Virginia, and Georgia red in the same year.

[airyairyaucontraire]

How satisfying.

Note that this is one pre-trial ruling in a case that isn’t finished yet (the trial begins in October) and the absolute most that will happen to Trump if he loses would be a $250 million fine and being banned from doing business in the state of New York - but is is still very pleasant to hear.

[longwindedbore]

Q: how can you tell when Trump is lying?

A: his lips are moving.

Donald Trump is LYING when he said he was ‘denied’ a Jury trial.

See the above article. But also…

=======Commentary======

FOR THE OFFICIAL RECORD of the Trial, the Judge noted on Monday, Oct. 02, 2023 that neither the Plaintiff (the State) nor the Defendant (DJT) requested a Jury Trial.

The only way that any attorney could ‘forget’ to ask for a jury trial in a civil case is if they had some kind of head trauma that created amnesia.

Even then…

There are a plethora of pre-trial hearings for motions as well as to work out the details of the trial. The question of jury trial would have come up.

Also, the Defense received a filing from the the State indicating that the State was waiving Trial by Jury (see below)that serves to remind them.

In the non-TV world of the Civil legal process attorneys for both sides in a case this large will be concerned with presenting too much evidence. They’ll have to work together to stipulate that both sides agree to some/a lot of material facts.

This occurred in several of the Civil cases I was involved in. As well as a much simpler criminal case where I served on a jury.

Of course the Defense Strategy sessions with the Client would have included discussing with their client (DJT) the New York State option of whether some issues could be decided by the Bench while others by Jury. (See below)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~Expert Witness~~~~~~~~~~~

Self-proclaimed Law Professor Donald Trump may only be IGNORANT after 3,500 lawsuits when he denigrated the Judge on on Monday because the Judge - per Donald - said that the testimony of Expert Witnesses wasn’t presenting Evidence.

Well, golly, as an Expert Witness who was disposed 25 times in cases and testified in open court - yes, I never presented Evidence. Nor did any of the several hundred Experts I worked with or against in cases who were deposed and testified in Court.

The legal purposes of an Expert Witnesses is a bit more complicated. You can do your own research.

Or you can just watch “My Cousin Vinnie” (1992) which is used in Law Schools since it is an accurate depiction of qualifying, challenging qualifications and extracting testimony from an Expert. As well as an Oscar winning comedic performance by Marisa Tormei as the Expert.

~~~~~~~~~~~So, Why No Jury~~~~~~~~~~~~

SPECULATION: One reason the Defense may have decided on a Bench Trial is that in Civil Cases the Plaintiff (the State) has the RIGHT to call the Defendants (DJT, the sons, the indicted employees) to Testify under Oath on the Witness stand.

DJT would have to Testify and answer all questions not overruled.

Potentially confessng in Open Court to fraud this opening him to possible criminal prosecution. In multiple states and even overseas.

Or he would invoke his 5th Amendment rights through most of the questioning. Likely lose his temper at some point. This would certainly prejudice a Jury against him.

A Judge is more likely to coldly weigh the evidence presented.

I can’t imagine any attorney thought they could ever win this case. The strategy has to have been that if it went to court the Defense would work toward the least onerous outcome.

~~~~~~~New York’s Filing re Jurt Trial~~~~~~~~

This is a copy of the State’s filing. At some point we’ll see a similar one filed by DJT’s attorneys

These type of pre-trial decisions play out in accordance with a timeline set between the Court and the two Sides early in the process.

[william-r-melich]

If Nefarious Breach, You Must Impeach - 04/26/2024

Presidential immunity is something that I haven't previously given much thought to, probably because it's something that hasn't surfaced much as an issue until recently. Yesterday at Trump's hearing on presidential immunity, US Supreme court justice Samuel Alito questioned whether prosecuting former presidents would harm the country's governance. Trump's lawyers argued that former presidents should have absolute immunity for official acts they made during their tenure as president. They said if they didn't, then prosecuting former presidents would become routine and would undermine future presidents from being able to execute difficult decisions without worrying about future legal repercussions. After all, our country's presidents are commonly put in difficult positions wherein the right thing to do would be considered illegal if performed by any other citizen outside of the executive office.

While speaking to Michael Dreeban, an attorney for special counsel Jack Smith's team who are persecuting Trump in two other cases, the Bush-appointed justice (Samuel Alito) asked him this. “I’m sure you would agree with me that a stable, democratic society requires that a candidate who loses an election, even a close one, even a hotly contested one, leave office peacefully, if that candidate is the incumbent?” “Of course,” replied Dreeban. Alito further posited this, “if an incumbent who loses a very close, hotly contested election, knows that a real possibility after leaving office is not that the president is going to be able to go off into a peaceful retirement, but that the president may be criminally prosecuted by a bitter political opponent, will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy?” Dreeban replied that he believes there are “lawful mechanisms to contest the results in an election and outside the record” but claimed that President Trump and others “filed dozens of electoral challenges and my understanding is they lost all but one” in the courts following the 2020 election. He continued, “There was an appropriate way to challenge things through the courts with evidence, if you lose, if you accept the results, that has been the nation’s experience. I think the court is well familiar with that.”

Alito rebutted those assertions on whether there are enough legal safeguards to handle prosecutors acting politically. Dreeban and Jack Smith's team have said that prosecutors must go to grand juries for securing indictments as a check against prosecutions that are politically motivated. The justice responded by saying, "prosecutors could convince a jury to indict a ham sandwich."

Trump's lawyers also argued that their client was merely performing his duties as president while looking to uncover voting fraud during the 2020 election.

This week in New York, the former President, in reference to the Supreme Court case, told reporters the following. “If you don’t have immunity, you’re not going to do anything. You’re going to become a ceremonial president, you’re not going to be taking any of the risks, both good and bad.”

Chief Justice John Roberts, along with at least four other justices didn't seem to support the claim that absolute immunity would stop Trump from being prosecuted on charges of supposedly conspiring to overturn his loss in the 2020 election. Roberts was also with several of the other justices who indicated that the case might need to go back to the lower courts previous to the start date of any trial.

Roberts also showed his dismay with the reasoning brought by the Washington appeals court who gave the ruling against President Trump. During the hearing, the chief justice said this. “You know how easy it is in many cases for a prosecutor to get a grand jury to bring an indictment and reliance on the good faith of the prosecutor may not be enough in some cases.”

So, it appears to me that it's likely they will uphold limited presidential immunity, not absolute immunity. As such there's a good chance that it will go back to the lower courts to determine if he was actually performing his official duties while he was questioning the legitimacy of the 2020 election results. If it's determined that he was, then immunity would apply, if not then it won't.

Oh, and by the way, there's something I forgot to mention. In the framer's wisdom they installed an important mechanism should the POTUS (President of the United States) engage in severely unlawful, egregious acts; Impeachment, - Duh! (I can't believe I forgot that and it's so important that I had to change the title of this post from, SCOTUS Hearing on Presidential Immunity.) Under impeachment it would require a 2/3rds majority vote in the senate to convict the President or one of his office holders. So, in deference to a famous Johnnie Cochran line, "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit;" although with the opposite intention: "If nefarious breach, you must impeach."

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Dean Obeidallah at The Dean's Report:

Donald Trump’s first of four criminal trials is scheduled to begin Monday in New York. After what is expected to be two to three weeks for jury selection, Trump’s criminal trial—where he is facing 34 felonies--is predicted to take six weeks. That means by mid-June, Donald Trump will be a convicted felon. It’s really that simple. Is there a chance Trump is not convicted? Sure, as a former trial lawyer, I can vouch firsthand that juries can surprise you. But based on the evidence developed in the criminal investigation and disclosed during the pre-trial portion of this case, it is clear that Trump falsified documents to conceal other federal and state crimes. Thus, Trump committed numerous felonies. Everyone knows the core allegation, namely that Trump—via his then lawyer Michael Cohen--paid $130,000 shortly before the 2016 election to stop Stormy Daniels from going public with the tale of her affair with Trump.  Now, if Trump had paid Daniels solely to keep his wife from finding out about his affair, that would be one thing. It wasn’t.  

Trump paid Daniels the money because he feared that if information went public at the time, he would lose the 2016 election. That at the very least made the secret payment a violation of federal election laws—which is one of the felonies Cohen pled guilty to committing in 2018, telling the court he made the payment “in coordination with, and at the direction of,” a presidential candidate who was Trump. This is why Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg has repeatedly stated  the “core” of this case “is not money for sex,” it’s election corruption.  Indeed, the very first line of the Statement of Facts that details the basis for the charges against Trump tells us that, “The defendant DONALD J. TRUMP repeatedly and fraudulently falsified New York business records to conceal criminal conduct that hid damaging information from the voting public during the 2016 presidential election.”

When you look at the timing of when Trump first hatched this scheme to pay off Daniels, you get why this was all about the campaign.  The charging documents tell us point blank: “About one month before the election, on or about October 7, 2016, news broke that the Defendant had been caught on tape saying to the host of Access Hollywood: “I just start kissing them [women]. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything…Grab ’em by the [genitals]. You can do anything.”   The political firestorm caused by the release of the Access Hollywood tape is why just three days later, Trump—with the help of Cohen and his publisher friend AMI Editor-in-Chief David Pecker-- moved swiftly to pay off Daniels. They heard she was shopping around the story of her affair with Trump. And Trump, former Trump aide Hope Hicks (who the State will be calling as a witness), Cohen and others knew that it would have been devastating for his campaign if voters learned in the midst of the Access Hollywood tape backlash that Trump had an affair with a “porn star” a mere four months after Melania gave birth to their only child. 

Indeed, the statement of facts tells us this was all about the campaign: “The evidence shows that both the Defendant and his campaign staff were concerned that the tape would harm his viability as a candidate and reduce his standing with female voters in particular.” That is why Daniels was approached on October 10, 2016, with a deal to “prevent disclosure of the damaging information in the final weeks before the presidential election.”  Under the agreement, Daniels was paid $130,000. But here is where the crimes come in. As the pleadings explain, Trump “did not want to make the $130,000 payment himself” so he asked Cohen to come up with a way to do that. “After discussing various payment options,” Cohen agreed he would make the payment and Trump would pay him back. It all worked as planned, Daniels never told America about the affair and Trump won the election.

Then, “shortly after being elected President, the Defendant arranged to reimburse” Cohen for the payoff he made to Daniels on Trump’s behalf. The plan they came up was that Cohen would be paid monthly for “legal fees” until the amount he advanced was repaid. In reality, as the pleadings note, “At no point did Lawyer A [Cohen] have a retainer agreement with the Defendant or the Trump Organization.”   Yet Cohen still submitted monthly invoices to Trump’s company for legal services. Some were paid by Trump’s company while nine of the reimbursement checks to Cohen for fabricated legal services came from Trump’s personal bank account and Trump “signed each of the checks personally.” And as alleged, “The Defendant caused his entities’ business records to be falsified to disguise his and others’ criminal conduct.”

Dean Obeidallah wrote in his Dean's Report Substack that Donald Trump will likely have the words "convicted felon" attached to his name by sometime in June or early July should the jury find him guilty in the Manhattan election interference case. Most of America wants to see charges levied against him.

[tearsinthemist]

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

David Whamond, Toronto Star

+

Trump's $175 million bond in NY civil fraud trial may be fraudulent

Among the many problems with the bond obtained by Trump to forestall collection of the $464 million civil judgment in the NY fraud trial, the company that issued the bond is not admitted to issue bonds in New York and does not have the cash reserves required under New York law to issue the bond.

On Monday, The Daily Beast reported that experts who examined the bond said that it does not obligate the bonding company to pay the judgment if Trump loses on appeal—which is the essential feature of an appeal bond. Instead, the language of the bond says that Donald Trump “shall pay the bond.” See Salon, “Incomprehensible”: Experts say Trump’s $175 million bond makes no sense.

In essence, the insurance company filed a bond that said that Donald Trump would pay the underlying judgment, which he was required to do in any event.

I haven’t read the bond (I don’t have access to a copy), so I am relying on reporting from secondary sources. However, if those reports are true, Trump has filed a sham document that misrepresents the facts. The irony is that the sham bond was provided to secure a judgment against Trump for misrepresenting his financial position.

Judge Engoron will hear evidence regarding the sufficiency of the bond on April 22. We should expect that Judge Engoron will scrutinize the bond closely—and may require Trump to secure a different bond. But, if all goes according to plan, Trump will be otherwise occupied on April 22—he will be sitting at the defendant’s table in Judge Merchan’s courtroom, defending himself against felony charges of election interference.

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[meret118]

Very detailed explanation of all trump just lost! :) Based on this ruling, it sounds like he's almost guaranteed to lose a whole lot more in the trial that starts Monday. :D