Donald Trump Announces 2016 White House Bid

The_Foxer

House Member
Aug 9, 2022
3,084
1,840
113
I do get a kick out of the mental gymnastics the left has gone through trying to make something, anything stick to Trump.
Well - i think you're being very kind to them portraying years of expensive investigation by dozens of agents based on a phoney dossier created by the dems, and the millions of media hours of lefties pushing the idea he's guilty and will be charged any day now of russian collusion, corruption, obstruction of justice, presidential overreach, killing children at the border, bigotry and racism, jaywalking/ removing the tag from a mattress before selling it, passing go and collecting 200 dollars despite being specifically told not to, selling the caramilk secret and now inciting a riot.

Some might argue that goes beyond mere mental Gymnastics and is full on political parkour :) And having failed to charge or convict him of anything with all THAT much effort should have been a warning that the dems currently are not fit to lead the country seeing as they can't even run a simple smear campaign successfully with all the tools available.

Trump does some bad things. This is a simple truth. The american voters will have to decide if the number of good things he does outweights the bad things he does. (which is pretty much true of any politician, that's basically what the public's job is). But while the republicans CAN come across as a little bit blind and bias, the left is coming across as actual supervillans - massive resources no morals and they only have to win once but they keep loosing again and again to this guy when it comes to charging him with anything to the point where you have to wonder if the scriptwriters are going to be able to come up with a NEW story for them next week.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Taxslave2

pgs

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 29, 2008
27,939
7,678
113
B.C.
Does it matter? If half of them got the message that's still better than none of them getting the message. If even ONE got the message and told others around them "trump says we're special and we need to go home now" then he'd have tried something.

If your argument is that something has to be 100 percent effective instantly or it's not worth even trying, you're going to have a pretty hard time defending that logically.
If it saves one child !
 

The_Foxer

House Member
Aug 9, 2022
3,084
1,840
113
If it saves one child !
Might have saved one presidential campaign, and I think he kind of cares about that. As it is enough people are holding this and similar things against him on the republican side that what might have been an easy nomination is not looking so easy. Thats just a dumb move.

Anybody with more than a quarter of a brain could have seen that a) there were a number of things he could have tried, a tweet being the easiest and in fact something he did hours later, and b) that not doing so would make him look either complicit or incompetent.

But there is a difference between doing something stupid or moronic, and doing something criminal or illegal. And the dems always try to go overboard and claim his actions are illegal and that charges are about to get laid any second now and the investigations are about to prove his guilt etc etc... only to never charge him with anything. And i suspect this will be another example for the pile.
 

Taxslave2

House Member
Aug 13, 2022
3,915
2,320
113
Unless not making a tweet is illegal, the dems really don't have much.
Might be somewhat of a generational thing too. I would never have thought about using social media to get a message out fast.
 

The_Foxer

House Member
Aug 9, 2022
3,084
1,840
113
Unless not making a tweet is illegal, the dems really don't have much.
Might be somewhat of a generational thing too. I would never have thought about using social media to get a message out fast.
Well they might argue that he had a duty of care to take SOME action. "Not" doing something actually IS a crime if you have a duty of care to do so - not going shopping isn't a crime but if you let your children starve because you didn't go to the grocery store....

However i think they seem to be coming at it from the point of view that he organized the attack, and that his inaction is proof that he was 'on their side'. I mean, if he DIDN'T approve of their actions why woudln't he do something? Call out the national guard, tweet at them to stop, whatever? Why would he let them destroy the place for hours before taking action? Or so the dems will argue. They will say it's proof that he knew it would happen or was likely to happen and he supported their actions.

But for that to fly you still need to prove that he was active in organizing it and knew that it was at least likely to happen that way and not just be a protest. And i think they've fallen well short of that. They're trying to make this look like circumstantial evidence pointing at that because they can't make the case straight up.
 

spaminator

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 26, 2009
37,785
3,331
113
Trump's tax returns released after long fight with Congress
Author of the article:Associated Press
Associated Press
Michael R. Sisak, Jill Colvin And Chris Rugaber
Published Dec 30, 2022 • 6 minute read

Democrats in Congress released thousands of pages of former President Donald Trump’s tax returns Friday, providing the most detailed picture to date of his finances over a six-year period, including his time in the White House, when he fought to keep the information private in a break with decades of precedent.


The documents include individual returns from Trump and his wife, Melania, along with Trump’s business entities from 2015-2020. They show how Trump used the tax code to lower his tax obligation and reveal details about foreign accounts, charitable contributions and the performance of some of his highest-profile business ventures, which had largely remained shielded from public scrutiny.


The disclosure marks the culmination of a yearslong legal fight that has played out everywhere from the presidential campaign to Congress and the Supreme Court as Trump persistently rejected efforts to share details about his financial history — counter to the practice of transparency followed by all his predecessors in the post-Watergate era. The records release comes just days before Republicans retake control of the House and weeks after Trump announced another campaign for the White House.


The records show how Trump limited his tax liability by offsetting his income against corporate losses as well as millions of dollars in business expenses, asset depreciation and other deductions.

While Trump paid $641,931 in federal income taxes in 2015, the year he began his campaign for president, he paid just $750 in 2016 and 2017, according to a report released last week by Congress’ nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation. He paid nearly $1 million in 2018, but only $133,445 in 2019 and nothing in 2020, the year he unsuccessfully sought reelection.

The records also detail Trump’s foreign holdings.

Trump, according to the filings, reported having bank accounts in China, Ireland and the United Kingdom in 2015 through 2017, even as he was commander in chief. Starting in 2018, however, he only reported an account in the U.K. The returns also show that Trump claimed foreign tax credits for taxes he paid on various business ventures around the world, including licensing arrangements for use of his name on development projects and his golf courses in Scotland and Ireland.


In several years, Trump appears to have paid more in foreign taxes than he did in net U.S. federal income taxes, with income reported in countries including Azerbaijan, China, India, Indonesia, Panama, the Philippines, St. Martin, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates.

The documents also show that Trump’s charitable donations often represented only a sliver of his income. In 2020, the year the coronavirus ravaged the economy, Trump reported no charitable donations at all. In 2019 and 2018 he reported writing checks for about $500,000 in donations. In earlier years the numbers were higher — $1.8 million in 2017 and $1.1 million in 2016.

It’s unclear whether the reported sums included Trump’s $400,000 annual presidential salary, which he had said, as a candidate, that he would forgo and which he claimed he donated to various federal departments.



Jeff Hoopes, an accounting professor at the University of North Carolina’s Kenan-Flagler Business School, described Trump’s returns as “large and complicated” with “hundreds of entities scattered all over the globe.”

He noted that many of those entities are slightly unprofitable, which he described as “pretty magical as far as the tax code.”

“It’s hard to know if someone’s really bad at business or really good at tax planning, because they both look like the same thing,” he said.

Daniel Shaviro, a taxation professor at New York University, cited the large financial losses from so many of Trump’s businesses, despite their often healthy sales, as something that should raise suspicions from auditors. “There’s fishy looking stuff here.”


Shaviro also cited examples of suspicious or sloppy math even in smaller businesses, such as an aviation firm dubbed “DT Endeavor I LLC,” which in 2020 reported both sales and expenses of $160,144. Such exact matches are unusual, Shaviro said. Yet the form also reported an $18,923 loss.

“The return doesn’t say, ‘Guess what? I’m committing fraud,”’ Shaviro said, “but there are red flags.”

The release marks the latest setback for Trump, who has been mired in investigations, including federal and state inquiries into his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. The Department of Justice also has been investigating reams of classified documents found at his Mar-a-Lago club and possible efforts to obstruct the investigation.

In a statement Friday, Trump lashed out at Democrats and the Supreme Court for the release.

“It’s going to lead to horrible things for so many people,” he said. “The radical, left Democrats have weaponized everything, but remember, that is a dangerous two-way street!”



He said the returns demonstrated “how proudly successful I have been and how I have been able to use depreciation and various other tax deductions” to build his businesses.

The returns were released by the House Ways and Means Committee, which held a party-line vote last week to make the returns public after years of legal wrangling.

The returns detail how Trump used tax law to minimize his liability, including carrying forward massive losses from previous years. Trump said during his 2016 campaign that paying little or no income tax in some years “makes me smart.”

In 2020, more than 150 of Trump’s business entities listed negative qualified business income, which the IRS defines as “the net amount of qualified items of income, gain, deduction and loss from any qualified trade or business.” In total for that tax year, combined with nearly $9 million in carryforward loss from previous years, Trump’s qualified losses amounted to more than $58 million.


Another of Trump’s money losers: the ice rink his company operated until last year in New York City’s Central Park. Trump reported a total of $2.6 million in losses from Wollman Rink over the six years made public. The rink, an early Trump Organization jewel run through a contract with New York City’s government, reported a loss of $1.3 million in 2015 despite taking in $9.3 million in revenue, according to the tax returns. The rink turned a $298,000 profit in 2016, but was back to melting cash in each of the next four years.

“Trump seems to be creating huge losses that are suspicious or questionable under current law,” said Steven Rosenthal, a senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, who said he had spent 20 years preparing taxes for corporations and wealthy individuals and “never saw anyone lose money as regularly and as large as Trump lost money year after year.”


“To me, Trump’s business operations were phenomenally unsuccessful and I struggle to figure out how much of it is attributable to Trump’s unluckiness as a businessman and how much of it is attributable to Trump’s inflation,” he said.

Aspects of Trump’s finances had been shrouded in mystery since his days as an up-and-coming Manhattan real estate developer in the 1980s.

Trump, known for building skyscrapers and hosting a reality TV show before winning the White House, did offer limited details about his holdings and income on mandatory disclosure forms and financial statements he provided to banks to secure loans and to financial magazines to justify his ranking on lists of billionaires.

Trump’s longtime accounting firm has since disavowed the statements, and New York’s attorney general has filed a lawsuit alleging Trump and his Trump Organization fraudulently inflated asset values on the statements. Trump and his company have denied wrongdoing.


In October 2018, The New York Times published a Pulitzer Prize-winning series based on leaked tax records that contradicted the image Trump had tried to sell of himself as a self-made businessman. It showed that Trump received a modern-day equivalent of at least $413 million from his father’s real estate holdings, with much of that money coming from what the Times called “tax dodges” in the 1990s.

A second series in 2020 showed that Trump paid no income taxes at all in 10 of the previous 15 years because he generally lost more money than he made.

In its report last week, the Ways and Means Committee indicated the Trump administration may have disregarded a requirement mandating audits of a president’s tax filings.

The IRS only began to audit Trump’s 2016 tax filings on April 3, 2019 — more than two years into his presidency — when the Ways and Means chairman, Rep. Richard Neal, D-Mass., asked the agency for information related to the returns.

Every president and major-party candidate since Richard Nixon has voluntarily made at least summaries of their tax information available to the public.

— Associated Press writers Gary Fields, Paul Wiseman and Farnoush Amiri in Washington, Meg Kinnard in Columbia, South Carolina, and Nicholas Riccardi in Denver contributed to this report.
 

spaminator

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 26, 2009
37,785
3,331
113
Jan. 6 panel shutting down after referring Trump for crimes
Author of the article:Associated Press
Associated Press
Mary Clare Jalonick
Published Jan 02, 2023 • Last updated 1 day ago • 3 minute read

WASHINGTON — The House Jan. 6 committee is shutting down, having completed a whirlwind 18-month investigation of the 2021 Capitol insurrection and having sent its work to the Justice Department along with a recommendation for prosecuting former President Donald Trump.


The committee’s time officially ends Tuesday when the new Republican-led House is sworn in. With many of the committee’s staff already departed, remaining aides have spent the last two weeks releasing many of the panel’s materials, including its 814-page final report, about 200 transcripts of witness interviews, and documents used to support its conclusions.


Lawmakers said they wanted to make their work public to underscore the seriousness of the attack and Trump’s multi-pronged effort to try to overturn the election.

“Accountability is now critical to thwart any other future scheme to overturn an election,” Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., and Vice Chairwoman Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., wrote in a departing message on Monday. “We have made a series of criminal referrals, and our system of Justice is responsible for what comes next.”


Some of the committee’s work — such as videotape of hundreds of witness interviews — will not be made public immediately. The committee is sending those videos and some other committee records to the National Archives, which by law would make them available in 50 years. Members of the committee said they didn’t release that videotape now because it would have been too difficult to edit it and redact sensitive information.

Incoming Republican leaders may try to get those materials much sooner, though. A provision in a package of proposed House rules released Sunday calls for the National Archives to transfer “any records related to the committee” back to the House no later than Jan. 17.

It is unclear whether the GOP-led House could enforce the provision and what they would do with the materials.


The committee’s conclusion comes after one of the most aggressive and wide-ranging congressional investigations in recent memory. The panel formally or informally interviewed more than 1,000 witnesses, collected more than 1 million documents and held 10 well-watched hearings. The two Republicans and seven Democrats on the panel were able to conduct the investigation with little interference after House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy declined to appoint minority members, angry that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had rejected two of his suggested appointments.

In the end, the panel came to a unanimous conclusion that Trump coordinated a “conspiracy” on multiple levels, pressuring states, federal officials and lawmakers to try to overturn his defeat, and inspired a violent mob of supporters to attack the Capitol and interrupt the certification of President Joe Biden’s win. The panel recommended that the Justice Department prosecute Trump on four crimes, including aiding an insurrection.


While a so-called criminal referral has no real legal standing, it is a forceful statement by the committee and adds to political pressure already on Attorney General Merrick Garland and special counsel Jack Smith, who is conducting an investigation into Jan. 6 and Trump’s actions.

“This is the most intense investigation I’ve been involved in,” said California Rep. Zoe Lofgren, who has been in the House for almost three decades and served as an aide to a member on the House Judiciary Committee in the 1970s when Congress was preparing to impeach then-President Richard Nixon. Lofgren was also in the House for former President Bill Clinton’s impeachment and served as an impeachment manager during Trump’s first impeachment three years ago.


“I have never been involved in anything as wide ranging and intense,” Lofgren said.

She said that at the beginning of the probe, she felt it would be a success if there was a renewed enthusiasm for protecting democracy. In the November midterm elections, 44% of voters said the future of democracy was their primary consideration at the polls, according to AP VoteCast, a national survey of the electorate.

Lofgren said she believes the committee made clear that Trump was responsible for the insurrection and “it was not done at the last minute.”

“I think we proved that and we sent it all to the Department of Justice,” Lofgren said. “We’ll see what they do.”
 

spaminator

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 26, 2009
37,785
3,331
113
Court rules teacher wearing MAGA hat fell under protected speech
Author of the article:Associated Press
Associated Press
Published Jan 04, 2023 • 1 minute read

VANCOUVER, Wash. — The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in favour of a former teacher in Vancouver, Washington, concluding that his wearing a hat supporting former President Donald Trump to school was protected speech under the First Amendment.


Court documents show that science teacher Eric Dodge brought the “Make America Great Again” baseball cap with him to an Evergreen Public Schools building twice before the 2019-2020 school year. The Columbian reported. The first occasion was to a staff-only cultural sensitivity and racial bias training.


Wy’east Middle School Principal Caroline Garret allegedly told him to use better judgment. Dodge said he was “verbally attacked” by Garret and other school employees after bringing the hat again, and that retaliation amounted to a violation of his First Amendment rights.

The appeals panel concluded in a Dec. 29 ruling that the district failed to show evidence of a “tangible disruption” to school operations necessary to outweigh the teacher’s First Amendment rights, the court ruled.


“That some may not like the political message being conveyed is par for the course and cannot itself be a basis for finding disruption of a kind that outweighs the speaker’s First Amendment rights,” Judge Danielle J. Forrest wrote in the opinion.

The country’s freedom of expression does have significant exceptions. “There is hate speech, there is threatening speech,” First Amendment expert and dean emeritus at the Lewis & Clark Law School, Stephen Kanter, told The Oregonian/OregonLive, “but a MAGA hat falls far short of that.”

The appeals panel also found that both the Evergreen Public Schools and chief human resources officer Janae Gomes did not take any improper administrative action against Dodge.

Neither Dodge nor Garrett could be reached for comment by The Oregonian/OregonLive.

Michael McFarland, a lawyer representing the school district and Gomes, said his clients are happy with the ruling.

Dodge resigned in 2020.
 

spaminator

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 26, 2009
37,785
3,331
113
Prince Andrew case cited by woman who accused Trump of rape
Author of the article:Associated Press
Associated Press
Larry Neumeister
Published Jan 04, 2023 • 2 minute read

NEW YORK — Lawyers for a former advice columnist who says Donald Trump raped her in a department store dressing room in the 1990s are fighting his efforts to toss out a lawsuit by reminding a judge of his own ruling in a similar lawsuit against Prince Andrew.


The former president’s lawyers are trying to toss out E. Jean Carroll’s lawsuit on the grounds that a temporary New York state law letting adult sex abuse victims sue decades later is invalid. In a submission in Manhattan federal court on Wednesday, Lawyers for Carroll wrote that Judge Lewis A. Kaplan should reject Trump’s request.


When the law took effect in November, Carroll’s attorneys immediately sued. They made the rape claim after an earlier lawsuit Carroll brought against Trump, which asserted a defamation claim. While president, Trump had said the sexual assault never happened and that “she’s not my type.” Carroll, a longtime advice columnist for Elle magazine, made the rape claim for the first time publicly in a 2019 book.


In both lawsuits, Carroll asserted that a friendly chance encounter between herself and Trump at an upscale Manhattan department store turned violent when Trump cornered her in a dressing room in 1995 or 1996 and raped her.

Kaplan rejected a legal argument that is similar to the one made by Trump’s lawyers last January when Prince Andrew’s lawyers argued against the constitutionality of a temporary state law letting victims of child sexual abuse make claims years after the statute of limitations would otherwise have prevented the claims.

At the time, Kaplan said the argument that the temporary law was improper had “for good reason” been rejected by every New York state and federal court to have considered it.


Kaplan wrote that the “claim-revival window was a reasonable measure to address an injustice.”

Weeks later, Prince Andrew settled the lawsuit, agreeing to donate to the charity of the woman who claimed he had sexually abused her when she was 17 and to declare he never meant to malign her character.

Two weeks ago in seeking dismissal of Carroll’s lawsuit, Trump’s lawyers wrote that the state’s Adult Survivors Act, “well-intentioned as it may be, is a fundamentally flawed law that is unable to withstand constitutional scrutiny.”

They said that the law is unlike its predecessor, the Child Victims Act, because it was not narrowly tailored and it “arbitrarily revives long-expired claims without any viable justification under the law.”

The lawyers said the law violates the New York State Constitution, was an invasion of due process and a “clear abuse of legislative power.”

They also wrote that the state, in enacting the Adult Survivors Act, had provided no reason “why Plaintiff’s own neglect or refusal to bring an action within the applicable time period should be construed as an injustice against her.” The statute of limitations, they said, expired after five years.
 

spaminator

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 26, 2009
37,785
3,331
113
U.S. Capitol police officer's family sues Donald Trump over death
Lawsuit claims former U.S. president incited his supporters to commit violence at Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021

Author of the article:Reuters
Reuters
Dan Whitcomb
Published Jan 05, 2023 • 1 minute read

The estate of a U.S. Capitol Police officer who died a day after the Jan. 6, 2021, riots sued former President Donald Trump for wrongful death on Thursday, claiming that he incited his supporters to commit violence that day.


The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Washington against Trump on behalf of the estate of Officer Brian Sicknick, who died at age 42 from a series of strokes on Jan. 7.


A medical examiner said that Sicknick had not suffered any injuries during the attack on the U.S. Capitol, where lawmakers were certifying results of the presidential election, ruling that Sicknick’s death was due to natural causes, but said the violent events of Jan. 6 likely “played a role in his condition.”

“Defendant Trump intentionally riled up the crowd and directed and encouraged a mob to attack the U.S. Capitol and attack those who opposed them,” Sicknick’s estate claims in the court papers.

“The violence that followed, and the injuries that violence caused, including the injuries sustained by Officer Sicknick and his eventual death, were reasonable and foreseeable consequences of Defendant Trump’s words and conduct,” the lawsuit alleges.


A spokeswoman for Trump could not be reached for comment on Thursday evening.

In addition to wrongful death, the lawsuit accuses Trump of violating Sicknick’s civil rights, assault and negligence. The estate seeks $10 million in damages. Two Jan. 6 protesters were also named in the complaint.

A Democrat-led U.S. House of Representatives panel probing the events of Jan. 6 asked federal prosecutors in December to charge Trump with obstruction and insurrection.

The committee’s request to the U.S. Department of Justice marked the first time that Congress referred a former president for criminal prosecution.
 

spaminator

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 26, 2009
37,785
3,331
113
Trump sued over U.S. Capitol Police officer’s death after Jan. 6 riot
Author of the article:Bloomberg News
Bloomberg News
Sabrina Willmer and Zoe Tillman
Published Jan 06, 2023 • 1 minute read

Donald Trump is being blamed for the death of Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick, who was assaulted during the Jan. 6, 2021, riot, in a lawsuit that claims the former president is responsible because he riled up his supporters with false election claims and calls to take action.


That “cost” Sicknick his life, Sandra Garza, Sicknick’s former girlfriend and representative of his estate, said in a complaint filed in Washington Thursday.


It’s the latest civil lawsuit seeking to hold Trump legally responsible for the violence at the Capitol. He’s previously argued that he’s immune against being sued over his words and actions in connection with the events of Jan. 6. A federal appeals court is set to weigh in on the merits of that defence later this year.


Garza also sued Julian Khater and George Tanios, both of whom pleaded guilty last year to offences tied to the riot. As part of his plea, Khater admitted to spraying Sicknick and other officers with bear spray. Tanios admitted to buying the bear spray and bringing it to the Capitol. Khater then took the canister from Khater’s backpack and used it on the officers, according to the complaint.


Sicknick later collapsed at police headquarters and died the next day. A medical examiner determined that he died of natural causes, though Garza’s complaint notes the examiner also previously stated that “all that transpired played a role in his condition.” The government didn’t charge the men in connection with Sicknick’s death.

Garza’s lawyers placed the blame squarely on the former president.

“Trump put out a clear call to action, and the crowd — including defendants Khater and Tanios — responded,” Garza’s lawyers said.

Garza is seeking at least $10 million in monetary damages from each defendant as well as punitive damages.

The case is Garza v. Trump, 1:23-cv-00038, US District Court, District of Columbia (Washington).
 

spaminator

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 26, 2009
37,785
3,331
113
Georgia grand jury probing Trump ends work, unclear if charges coming
Author of the article:Reuters
Reuters
Joseph Ax and Kanishka Singh
Published Jan 09, 2023 • 2 minute read

WASHINGTON — The Georgia special grand jury investigating whether former President Donald Trump and his allies unlawfully sought to interfere in the state’s 2020 U.S. presidential election results has issued its final report, a court filing showed on Monday, but it remained unclear whether criminal charges will follow.


In an order, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney dissolved the grand jury now that its work is complete and set a Jan. 24 hearing to determine whether the report will be made public. The jurors recommended that their findings be released, McBurney said in the order.


The special grand jury, which was convened at the request of Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, had subpoena power but not the ability to issue indictments. Willis will ultimately decide whether to bring charges against Trump or anyone else, though the jury’s report could include recommendations.

Willis, a Democrat, opened a criminal investigation soon after a January 2021 phone call in which Trump, a Republican, urged top election officials to “find” enough votes to overturn Democrat Joe Biden’s statewide victory.


The grand jury heard testimony from numerous state officials including Georgia Governor Brian Kemp and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, as well as key Trump advisers such as U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham and attorney Rudy Giuliani, many of whom unsuccessfully attempted to quash their subpoenas.

Prosecutors have told Giuliani he is a target and could face criminal charges, as well as Trump allies who backed a scheme to appoint alternate electors in a bid to deliver Georgia’s electoral votes to Trump, rather than Biden, in the Electoral College process that determines the outcome of presidential elections.

A spokesperson for Trump did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Monday. Trump has denied wrongdoing in Georgia and has continued to claim falsely that his 2020 election loss was the result of widespread voting fraud.


A spokesperson for Willis’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The Georgia investigation was one of several civil and criminal probes threatening Trump and his inner circle. The Justice Department has separate investigations into Trump’s actions following the 2020 election and his retention of classified materials after leaving the White House in 2021.

In New York, Democratic Attorney General Letitia James has sued Trump, his children and his business, accusing them of lying to banks and insurers about the true value of his assets. Manhattan prosecutors are pursuing a parallel criminal investigation. The Trump Organization, his real estate business, was convicted of tax fraud last month in a New York court.
 

spaminator

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 26, 2009
37,785
3,331
113
Lynette Hardaway, of pro-Trump duo Diamond and Silk, dies at 51
Author of the article:Associated Press
Associated Press
Hannah Schoenbaum
Published Jan 10, 2023 • 2 minute read

RALEIGH, N.C. — Lynette Hardaway, known by the moniker “Diamond” of the conservative political commentary duo Diamond and Silk, has died, former President Donald Trump and the pair’s official Twitter account announced. She was 51.


Hardaway and her sister, Rochelle “Silk” Richardson, rose to prominence during the 2016 presidential campaign cycle when they appeared on stage in support of Trump, who embraced the two Black women amid widespread accusations of racism and sexism.


Hardaway’s cause of death hasn’t been released. Trump, who called her death “really bad news for Republicans” in a Monday night post on his Truth Social platform, said it was “totally unexpected.”

“Our beautiful Diamond of Diamond and Silk has just passed away at her home in the State she loved so much, North Carolina,” Trump wrote. “There was no better TEAM anywhere, at any time!”

The pair’s verified Twitter account had asked people to “please pray for Diamond” in a November tweet but did not elaborate on the circumstances.


“The World just lost a True Angel and Warrior Patriot for Freedom, Love, and Humanity,” the account wrote Monday night, linking to a memorial fundraising page.

A memorial ceremony will be announced.

The sisters, who called themselves Trump’s “most outspoken and loyal supporters,” have said they switched political parties to support his first presidential bid, in which he carried only about 8% of Black voters in the 2016 general election.

Raised in the Tar Heel state, the two amassed a following of 347,000 subscribers on YouTube and leveraged their internet stardom to land many network television appearances and regular roles at Fox News.

The network removed them from its list of contributors in 2020 after they came under fire for spreading false information about the COVID-19 pandemic and vaccines.

Landing at Newsmax, a right-wing cable news and digital media company, they hosted three seasons of the show “Diamond and Silk: Crystal Clear” and published the co-written autobiography “Uprising” in 2020.

— Hannah Schoenbaum is a corps member for the Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.
 

spaminator

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 26, 2009
37,785
3,331
113
Trump executive Allen Weisselberg gets 5-month jail sentence
Author of the article:Associated Press
Associated Press
Michael R. Sisak
Published Jan 10, 2023 • 4 minute read

NEW YORK — Allen Weisselberg, a longtime executive for Donald Trump ‘s business empire was taken into custody Tuesday to begin serving a five-month jail term for dodging taxes on $1.7 million in job perks — a punishment the judge who sentenced him said was probably too lenient.


Weisselberg, 75, was promised that sentence in August when he agreed to plead guilty to 15 tax crimes and to be a witness against the Trump Organization, where he’s worked since the mid-1980s. His testimony helped convict the former president’s company, where he had served as chief financial officer, of tax fraud.


But when he made the sentence official Tuesday, Judge Juan Manuel Merchan said that after listening to Weisselberg’s testimony during that trial, he regretted that the penalty wasn’t tougher. He said he was especially appalled by testimony that Weisselberg gave his wife a $6,000 check for a no-show job so that she could qualify for Social Security benefits.

Had he not already promised to give Weisselberg five months, Merchan said, “I would be imposing a sentence much greater than that.”


“I’m not going to deviate from the promise, though I believe a stiffer sentence is warranted, having heard the evidence,” he added.

Weisselberg, who came to court dressed casually for jail, rather than in his usual suit, was handcuffed and taken into custody moments after the sentence was announced. He was expected to be taken to New York City’s notorious Rikers Island jail complex. He will be eligible for release after a little more than three months if he behaves behind bars.


As part of the plea agreement, Weisselberg had also been required to pay nearly $2 million in back taxes, penalties and interest — which he has paid as of Jan. 3. Additionally, the judge ordered Weisselberg to complete five years of probation after his jail term is finished.


Defence lawyer Nicholas Gravante had asked the judge for a lighter sentence than the one in the plea bargain.

“He has already been punished tremendously by the disgrace that he has brought not only on himself, but his wife, his sons and his grandchildren,” Gravante said.

Weisselberg faced the prospect of up to 15 years in prison — the maximum punishment for the top grand larceny charge — if he were to have reneged on the deal or if he didn’t testify truthfully at the Trump Organization’s trial. He is the only person charged in the Manhattan district attorney’s three-year investigation of Trump and his business practices.

Weisselberg testified for three days, offering a glimpse into the inner workings of Trump’s real estate empire. Weisselberg has worked for Trump’s family for nearly 50 years, starting as an accountant for his developer father, Fred Trump, in 1973 before joining Donald Trump in 1986 and helping expand the family company’s focus beyond New York City into a global golf and hotel brand.


Weisselberg told jurors he betrayed the Trump family’s trust by conspiring with a subordinate to hide more than a decade’s worth of extras from his income, including a free Manhattan apartment, luxury cars and his grandchildren’s private school tuition. He said they fudged payroll records and issued falsified W-2 forms.

A Manhattan jury convicted the Trump Organization in December, finding that Weisselberg had been a “high managerial” agent entrusted to act on behalf of the company and its various entities. Weisselberg’s arrangement reduced his own personal income taxes but also saved the company money because it didn’t have to pay him more to cover the cost of the perks.

Prosecutors said other Trump Organization executives also accepted off-the-books compensation. Weisselberg alone was accused of defrauding the federal government, state and city out of more than $900,000 in unpaid taxes and undeserved tax refunds.


The Trump Organization is scheduled to be sentenced on Friday and faces a fine of up to $1.6 million.

Weisselberg testified that neither Trump nor his family knew about the scheme as it was happening, choking up as he told jurors: “It was my own personal greed that led to this.” But prosecutors, in their closing argument, said Trump “knew exactly what was going on” and that evidence, such as a lease he signed for Weisselberg’s apartment, made clear “Mr. Trump is explicitly sanctioning tax fraud.”

A Trump Organization lawyer, Michael van der Veen, has said Weisselberg concocted the scheme without Trump or the Trump family’s knowledge.

Weisselberg said the Trumps remained loyal to him even as the company scrambled to end some of its dubious pay practices following Trump’s 2016 election. He said Trump’s eldest sons, entrusted to run the company while Trump was president, gave him a $200,000 raise after an internal audit found he had been reducing his salary and bonuses by the cost of the perks.


Though he is now on a leave of absence, the company continues to pay Weisselberg $640,000 in salary and $500,000 in holiday bonuses. It punished him only nominally after his arrest in July 2021, reassigning him to senior adviser and moving his office.

He even celebrated his 75th birthday at Trump Tower with cake and colleagues in August, just hours after finalizing the plea agreement that ushered his transformation from loyal executive to prosecution witness.

Rikers Island, a compound of 10 jails on a spit of land in the East River, just off the main runway at LaGuardia Airport in Queens, has been plagued in recent years by violence, inmate deaths and staggering staffing shortages.

Though just 8 kilometres from Trump Tower, it’s a veritable world away from the life of luxury Weisselberg schemed to build — a far cry from the gilded Fifth Avenue offices where he hatched his plot and the Hudson River-view apartment he reaped as a reward.
 

The_Foxer

House Member
Aug 9, 2022
3,084
1,840
113
I actually think she likes being a power behind the throne more than she likes the idea of being on the throne. All of the things mentioned serve just as well to be an influencer as much as it does to be a leader. And being a powerful organizer and power broker gives you all the benefits of power without having to be open to criticisms.

But there's no doubt she'll keep that option wide open and if she feels it's worth it she'll take that step, of course she will. He's quite right that she's a 100 percent political animal and this 'i hate politics' thing is complete bullshit in every sense of the word. She immerses herself in it.

We'll see - but i suspect she'll be the puppet master a little longer rather than the puppet. At least for now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dixie Cup

spaminator

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 26, 2009
37,785
3,331
113
Proud Boys attacked 'heart' of U.S. democracy on Jan. 6: Prosecutor
Jurors began hearing opening statements for seditious conspiracy trial more than two years after Capitol riot

Author of the article:Associated Press
Associated Press
Michael Kunzelman, Lindsay Whitehurst And Alanna Durkin Richer
Published Jan 12, 2023 • 5 minute read

WASHINGTON — Former Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio and four lieutenants led a coordinated attack on “the heart of our democracy” in a desperate attempt to keep Donald Trump in the White House, a federal prosecutor said Thursday at the start of their seditious conspiracy trial.

Jurors began hearing attorneys’ opening statements for the trial more than two years after members of the far-right extremist group joined a pro-Trump mob in storming the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.


Assistant U.S. Attorney Jason McCullough said the Proud Boys knew that Trump’s hopes for a second term in office were quickly fading as Jan. 6 approached. So the group leaders assembled a “fighting force” to stop the transfer of presidential power to Joe Biden, McCullough said. Tarrio saw a Biden presidency as a “threat to the Proud Boys’ existence,” the prosecutor said.

McCullough showed jurors a video clip of Trump infamously telling the Proud Boys to “stand back and stand by” during his first presidential debate with Biden in 2020, a moment that led to an explosion of interest in the group.


“These men did not stand back. They did not stand by. Instead, they mobilized,” the prosecutor said.

Proud Boys leaders recruited new members “to help them achieve their goals,” McCullough said. On Jan. 6, they gathered at a pre-arranged spot and began to advance on the Capitol before Trump finished his speech.

“The time for action had arrived,” the prosecutor said.

The trial comes on the heels of the seditious conspiracy convictions of two leaders of the Oath Keepers, another far-right extremist group.

The case against Tarrio and his four associates is one of the most consequential to emerge from the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol. The trial will provide an in-depth look at a group that has become an influential force in mainstream Republican politics.


Defence attorneys argue that the group’s high profile made Tarrio a target for the authorities looking for a scapegoat for the riot. His lawyer Sabino Jauregui accused prosecutors of deceptively stitching together offensive online messages and said Tarrio actually tried to keep his Proud Boys out of fights by talking to police before rallies.

“They’re trying to build this conspiracy that does not exist,” Jauregui said. He acknowledged Tarrio and other self-described “Western chauvinists” in the Proud Boys shared “offensive” messages, but said it was Trump who unleashed the mob that attacked the Capitol.

“It’s too hard to blame Trump,” Jauregui said. “It’s easier to blame Enrique as the face of the Proud Boys.”


Defence attorneys also say there was never any plan to go into the Capitol or stop Congress’ certification of the electoral vote won by Biden.

“Over and over and over and over the government has been told by witnesses there was no plan for January 6,” said Nicholas Smith, attorney for Ethan Nordean, a Proud Boys chapter president from Auburn, Washington. Nordean went into the Capitol looking for friends and did not damage anything or hurt anyone there, he said.

The defence has also accused prosecutors of trying to silence potential defence witnesses. Tarrio’s lawyers have not said whether he will take the stand in his defence.

His other co-defendants are Joseph Biggs, of Ormond Beach, Florida, a self-described Proud Boys organizer; Zachary Rehl, who was president of the Proud Boys chapter in Philadelphia; and Dominic Pezzola, a Proud Boys member from Rochester, New York.


The trial will lay out private communications between them, as well as their public statements, their coordinated actions at the Capitol and their celebrations of the riot before they tried to cover their tracks.

A message that Tarrio posted on social media before Jan. 6 said, “Lords of War” over a photo of Pezzola with hashtags ”#J6 and ”#J20.”

“These lords of war joined together to stop the transfer of presidential power,” McCullough said.

Tarrio’s lieutenants were part of the first wave of rioters to push onto Capitol grounds and charge past police barricades toward the building, according to prosecutors.

Jurors saw a video of Pezzola using a stolen riot shield to smash in a window, allowing rioters to pour into the Capitol. Pezzola took a video of himself taking a “victory smoke” on a cigar inside the Capitol, the prosecutor said.


Tarrio, who’s from Miami, wasn’t in Washington on Jan. 6 because he was arrested two days before the riot and charged with vandalizing a Black Lives Matter banner at a historic Black church during a protest in December 2020. He was ordered to leave the capital, but prosecutors say he remained engaged in the extremist group’s planning for Jan. 6.

Monitoring the riot from afar, Tarrio posted a message urging Proud Boys to stay at the Capitol.

“Make no mistake,” he wrote. “We did this.”

A day after the attack, Tarrio wrote a message that said, “God didn’t put me there for a reason.”

“We would still be there,” he added.

The Justice Department has charged nearly 1,000 people across the United States over the deadly Jan. 6 insurrection, and its investigation continues to grow. Among those are Oath Keepers leader Stewart Rhodes and Florida chapter leader Kelly Meggs, who were convicted of conspiring to block the transfer of presidential power from Trump, a Republican, to Biden, a Democrat. Three other Oath Keepers were acquitted of the charge. They were, however, convicted of other serious charges.


The Proud Boys’ trial is the first major trial to begin since the House committee investigating the insurrection urged the department to bring criminal charges against Trump and associates who were behind his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss.

While the criminal referral has no real legal standing, it adds to political pressure already on Attorney General Merrick Garland and the special counsel he appointed, Jack Smith, who’s conducting an investigation into Jan. 6 and Trump’s actions.

Jury selection in the case took two weeks as a slew of potential jurors said they associated the Proud Boys with hate groups or white nationalism. The Capitol can be seen in the distance from parts of the courthouse, where a second group of Oath Keepers is also currently on trial for seditious conspiracy, which carries up to 20 years behind bars upon conviction.


Tensions bubbled over at times as jury selection slowed to a crawl and defence lawyers complained that too many potential jurors were biased against the Proud Boys. Defence attorneys challenged jurors who expressed support for causes such as Black Lives Matter, saying that could indicate prejudice against the Proud Boys.

Lawyers and the judge clashed during sometimes chaotic pretrial legal wrangling to the point where two defence attorneys threatened to withdraw from the case. U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, a Trump appointee, lashed out after defence lawyers repeatedly interrupted and talked over him on Wednesday, warning that he would find them in contempt if it continued.

— Richer reported from Boston.
 

spaminator

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 26, 2009
37,785
3,331
113
Trump loses bid to dismiss rape accuser's second defamation lawsuit
Author of the article:Reuters
Reuters
Jonathan Stempel
Published Jan 13, 2023 • 2 minute read

NEW YORK — A U.S. judge on Friday rejected as “absurd” former President Donald Trump’s effort to dismiss writer E. Jean Carroll’s lawsuit accusing him of defamation and battery after he denied raping her in the mid-1990s.


U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan in Manhattan said there was no merit to Trump’s argument that Carroll’s battery claim under New York’s Adult Survivors Act must be dismissed because the law denied him due process under the state’s constitution.


The judge also said state law did not require Carroll, a former Elle magazine columnist, to prove that she suffered an economic loss from Trump’s comments, as Trump had argued.

Alina Habba, a lawyer for Trump, said “we are disappointed with the court’s decision” and planned an immediate appeal.

Carroll’s lawyer Roberta Kaplan said “we are pleased though not surprised” at the decision.

The lawsuit is one of two in which Carroll accuses Trump of defamation when he denied raping her in a Bergdorf Goodman department store dressing room in late 1995 or early 1996.


Carroll first sued Trump after he denied the accusation in June 2019, telling a reporter at the White House that he did not know Carroll, that “she’s not my type,” and that she concocted the claim to sell her new memoir.

The second lawsuit arose from an October 2022 social media post where Trump called the rape claim a “hoax,” “lie,” “con job” and “complete scam,” and said “this can only happen to ‘Trump’!”

That lawsuit included the battery claim under the Adult Survivors Act, which starting last Nov. 24 gave adults a one-year window to sue their alleged attackers even if statutes of limitations have expired.

‘DEMONSTRABLY INCORRECT’
Judge Kaplan said Trump was “demonstrably incorrect” to claim that the law was unconstitutional because lawmakers did not sufficiently explain why it was needed.


The judge said lawmakers passed the law to help sexual abuse victims who might have suppressed memories of their attacks, or like Carroll were deterred from suing out of fear.

“To suggest that the ASA violates the state due process clause because the legislature supposedly did not describe that injustice to the defendant’s entire satisfaction in a particular paragraph of a particular type of legislative document – itself a dubious premise – is absurd,” Judge Kaplan wrote.

Trump is seeking another White House term in 2024.

He and Carroll are awaiting a decision from a Washington, D.C., appeals court on whether, under local law, Trump should be immune from Carroll’s first lawsuit over his June 2019 comments.

That lawsuit would likely be dismissed if the court decided that Trump spoke within his role as president, and continue if Trump spoke in his personal capacity as Carroll argued.

Any decision would have no effect on Carroll’s second defamation lawsuit. A trial in the first lawsuit is scheduled for April 10.
 

spaminator

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 26, 2009
37,785
3,331
113
Trump Organization fined $1.6 million for tax fraud
Author of the article:Associated Press
Associated Press
Michael R. Sisak
Published Jan 13, 2023 • 4 minute read

NEW YORK — Donald Trump’s company was fined $1.6 million Friday for a scheme in which the former president’s top executives dodged personal income taxes on lavish job perks — a symbolic, hardly crippling blow for an enterprise boasting billions of dollars in assets.


A fine was the only penalty a judge could impose on the Trump Organization after its conviction last month for 17 tax crimes, including conspiracy and falsifying business records. The amount was the maximum allowed by law. Judge Juan Manuel Merchan gave the company 14 days to pay. A person convicted of the same crimes would’ve faced years in prison.


Trump himself was not on trial and denied any knowledge that a small group of executives were evading taxes on extras including rent-free apartments, luxury cars and private school tuition. Prosecutors said such items were part of what they dubbed the Trump Organization’s “deluxe executive compensation package.”

The company denied wrongdoing and said it would appeal.


“These politically motivated prosecutors will stop at nothing to get President Trump and continue the never ending witch-hunt which began the day he announced his presidency,” the company said in a statement after the fine was announced.

Neither the former president nor his children, who helped run the Trump Organization, were in the courtroom.

While the fines — less than the cost of a Trump Tower apartment — aren’t big enough to impact the company’s operations or future, the conviction is a black mark on the Republican’s reputation as a savvy businessman as he mounts a campaign to regain the White House.

Outside the courtroom, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a Democrat, said he wished the law had allowed for a more serious penalty.


“I want to be very clear: we don’t think that is enough,” he said. “Our laws in this state need to change in order to capture this type of decade-plus systemic and egregious fraud.”

Besides the company, only one executive was charged in the case: former Trump Organization Chief Financial Officer Allen Weisselberg, who pleaded guilty last summer to evading taxes on $1.7 million in compensation. He was sentenced Tuesday to five months in jail.

The criminal case involved financial practices and pay arrangements that the company halted when Trump was elected president in 2016.

Over his years as the company’s chief moneyman, Weisselberg received a rent-free apartment in a Trump-branded building in Manhattan with a view of the Hudson River. He and his wife drove Mercedes-Benz cars, leased by company. When his grandchildren went to an exclusive private school, Trump paid their tuition. A handful of other executives received similar perks.


When called to testify against the Trump Organization at trial, Weisselberg said that he didn’t pay taxes on that compensation, and that he and a company vice president conspired to hide the perks by having the company issue falsified W-2 forms.

Assistant District Attorney Joshua Steinglass told jurors Trump had a role, showing them a lease that the Republican signed himself for Weisselberg’s apartment.

“Mr. Trump is explicitly sanctioning tax fraud,” Steinglass argued.

Weisselberg also attempted to take responsibility on the witness stand, saying nobody in the Trump family knew what he was doing. He choked up as he told jurors, “It was my own personal greed that led to this.”

At the trial, Trump Organization lawyers repeated the mantra, “Weisselberg did it for Weisselberg.” In its statement Friday, the company took a different tone.


“Allen Weisselberg is a victim,” it said. “He was threatened, intimidated and terrorized. He was given a choice of pleading guilty and serving 90 days in prison or serving the rest of his life in jail — all of this over a corporate car and standard employee benefits.”

A jury convicted the company of tax fraud on Dec. 6.

The Trump Organization was charged through two corporate entities: The Trump Corporation, which was fined $810,000; and Trump Payroll Corporation, which was fined $800,000.

Those fines “constitute a fraction of the revenue” generated by Trump’s real estate empire, Steinglass said in court. It could face more trouble outside of court from reputational damage, such as difficulty finding new deals and business partners.


“We all know that these corporations won’t go to jail, as Allen Weisselberg has,” Steinglass said. “The only way to deter such conduct is to make it as expensive as possible.”

The Trump Organization’s sentencing doesn’t end Trump’s battle with Bragg, who said the sentencing “closes this important chapter of our ongoing investigation into the former president and his businesses. We now move onto the next chapter.”

Bragg, in office for little more than a year, inherited the Trump Organization case and the investigation into the former president from his predecessor, Cyrus Vance Jr.

At the same time, New York Attorney General Letitia James is suing Trump and the Trump Organization, alleging they misled banks and others about the value of its many assets, including golf courses and skyscrapers — a practice she dubbed the “art of the steal.”


James, a Democrat, is asking a court to ban Trump and his three eldest children from running any New York-based company and is seeking to fine them at least $250 million. A judge has set an October trial date and appointed a monitor for the company while the case is pending.

Trump faces several other legal challenges as he ramps up his presidential campaign.

A special grand jury in Atlanta has investigated whether Trump and his allies committed any crimes while trying to overturn his 2020 election loss in Georgia.

Last month, the House Jan. 6 committee voted to make a criminal referral to the Justice Department for Trump’s role in sparking the violent insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. The FBI is also investigating Trump’s storage of classified documents.
 

spaminator

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 26, 2009
37,785
3,331
113
Under oath, Trump hurled insults at woman who alleges rape
'I know nothing about this nut job,' he said, according to the transcript

Author of the article:Associated Press
Associated Press
Larry Neumeister
Published Jan 13, 2023 • 4 minute read

NEW YORK — Questioned for a lawsuit, former President Donald Trump angrily hurled insults and threatened to sue the columnist who accused him of raping her in a department store in the 1990s, according to excerpts of his videotaped testimony unsealed by a court on Friday.


Portions of his 5 1/2-hour October deposition in a lawsuit filed by columnist E. Jean Carroll were released publicly after a federal judge rejected his lawyers’ request that it remained sealed.


“She said that I did something to her that never took place. There was no anything. I know nothing about this nut job,” he said, according to the transcript.


The excerpts reveal a contentious battle between Trump and Roberta Kaplan, a lawyer for Carroll, who questioned him as Trump called the former longtime Elle magazine columnist the perpetrator of “a complete scam” in which she described the rape as she “was promoting a really crummy book.”

“I will sue her after this is over, and that’s the thing I really look forward to doing. And I’ll sue you too,” he told Kaplan.


The release of excerpts from the deposition came the same day as Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, unrelated to the lawyer, also refused a request by Trump’s attorneys to toss out two lawsuits by Carroll alleging defamation and rape. An April trial is planned.

Trump has repeatedly said the encounter with Carroll in the mid-1990s at an upscale Manhattan department store never happened.

In his testimony, Trump repeatedly attacked Carroll’s depiction of him as a rapist.

Trump said he knew it wasn’t “politically correct” to say “she’s not my type” when he responded to claims shortly after Carroll’s 2019 book was published. The writer alleged she was attacked by Trump in a dressing room after they had a chance meeting in the store and she agreed to help him pick out lingerie for a friend.


“But I’ll say it anyway,” he said. “She’s accusing me of rape, a woman that I have no idea who she is. It came out of the blue. She’s accusing me of raping her, the worst thing you can do, the worst charge.”

Speaking to her attorney, he added: “And you know it’s not true too. You’re a political operative also. You’re a disgrace. But she’s accusing me and so are you of rape, and it never took place.”

At one point in the deposition, Trump called Carroll “sick, mentally sick.” He mischaracterized an interview Carroll had given on CNN, falsely claiming she had talked about enjoying being sexually assaulted. “She actually indicated that she loved it. Okay? She loved it until commercial break,” Trump said. “In fact, I think she said it was sexy, didn’t she? She said it was very sexy to be raped. Didn’t she say that?”


Kaplan, Carroll’s attorney, then tried to elicit from Trump that he raped her client.

“So, sir, I just want to confirm: It’s your testimony that E. Jean Carroll said that she loved being sexually assaulted by you?”

Trump answered: “Well, based on her interview with Anderson Cooper, I believe that’s what took place. And we can define that. … I think she said that rape was sexy — which it’s not, by the way.”

What Carroll has said in her writing, and in the interview with Cooper, is that she doesn’t like to use the word rape because some other people “think rape is sexy.” She said she preferred the term “fight.”

At another point in the deposition, Kaplan asked Trump if he had ever touched a woman on her breast or buttocks or any other sexual part without her consent.


“Well, I will tell you no, but you may have some people like your client that lie,” he responded.

Late Friday, Trump attorney Alina Habba issued a statement, saying: “While it was entirely unnecessary for the unsealing of a transcript both parties previously agreed would remain confidential, our client has nothing to hide and looks forward to resolving this meritless case.”

Roberta Kaplan declined to comment on the release of the deposition excerpts.

Kaplan, the Manhattan judge, earlier Friday upheld the lawsuits alleging rape and defamation and seeking unspecified damages by Carroll, saying they could proceed to trial because Trump’s challenges were without merit.

“The fact that Mr. Trump denies Ms. Carroll’s allegations does not enter into the analysis at this stage of the case,” the jurist wrote. “What, if anything, actually occurred must await further proceedings if the complaint withstands the present motion.”


Habba said in a statement: “While we are disappointed with the Court’s decision, we intend to immediately appeal the order and continue to advocate for our client’s constitutionally protected rights.”

In his ruling, the judge said the Adult Survivor’s Act was similar to the Child Victims Act, another New York state law that temporarily allowed victims of sexual assaults when they were children to sue their abusers years later.

Carroll initially sued Trump for defamation after he mocked her claims he sexually assaulted her. Carroll sued Trump with the rape claim in November, when the Adult Survivor’s Act took effect.