Donald Trump Announces 2016 White House Bid

spaminator

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 26, 2009
35,784
3,025
113
Trump fined $10,000 over comment he made outside court in his fraud trial
Author of the article:Associated Press
Associated Press
Jennifer Peltz And Jake Offenhartz
Published Oct 25, 2023 • Last updated 1 day ago • 4 minute read

NEW YORK — Donald Trump was abruptly called to the witness stand and then fined $10,000 on Wednesday after the judge in his civil fraud trial said the former president had violated a gag order. It was the second time in less than a week that Trump was penalized for his out-of-court comments.


Before imposing the latest fine, Judge Arthur Engoron summoned Trump from the defense table to testify about his comment to reporters hours earlier about “a person who’s very partisan sitting alongside” the judge.


Engoron had already ordered all participants in the trial not to comment publicly about his staff. That restriction from Oct. 3 followed a Trump social media post that maligned the judge’s principal law clerk, who sits next to him.

Trump and his lawyers insisted that his comment Wednesday was not about the clerk. They said he was referring to Michael Cohen, a former Trump attorney who had been testifying.

Engoron said Trump’s claim was “not credible,” noting that he sat closer to the clerk than to Cohen.


“The idea that the statement would refer to the witness,” Engoron said, “doesn’t make any sense to me.”

Five days earlier, Trump had been fined $5,000 after Engoron learned that the offending social media post from early October had lingered on Trump’s campaign website for weeks after being taken down — on the judge’s orders — from Trump’s Truth Social media platform.

Then, on Wednesday, the Republican presidential front-runner complained in a courthouse hallway that Engoron, a Democrat, is “a very partisan judge, with a person who’s very partisan sitting alongside of him, perhaps even much more partisan than he is.”

Under oath on the witness stand, Trump told the judge that the remark was aimed at “you and Cohen.”


But Trump did not conceal his frustration with the clerk. “I think she’s very biased against us. I think we’ve made that clear,” Trump said during his roughly two minutes on the stand.

Three of Trump’s lawyers objected to the $10,000 fine, and they reiterated Trump’s claim that the clerk was partial.

Not long after he was fined and moments after one of his lawyers finished questioning Cohen, Trump stood up and walked out of the courtroom, trailed by his son Eric. Donald Trump has attended the trial voluntarily, and he can leave whenever he likes.

The episodes raise questions about whether Trump can abide by court directives that are aimed at reining in his rhetoric while respecting his free speech rights as he campaigns to return to the White House.


Last week in Washington, the judge in Trump’s federal election interference criminal case imposed a gag order barring public statements targeting prosecutors, court staff and potential witnesses. U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan’s order came after prosecutors raised concerns that Trump’s remarks could inspire his supporters to threaten or harass his targets.

Chutkan temporarily lifted the order Friday so she could consider a defense request to pause the restrictions while Trump appeals it.

In the New York case, Cohen returned to the witness stand on Wednesday as the defense team tried to undermine his credibility and question his motives.

After a decade of working as Trump’s fixer, Cohen came under federal scrutiny and broke with his boss in 2018. Cohen soon pleaded guilty to and went to prison for tax evasion, making false statements on a bank loan application, lying to Congress and making illegal contributions to Trump’s campaign. The contributions were in the form of payouts to women who said they had extramarital sexual encounters with Trump, who denied it.


Cohen became an outspoken Trump foe and a key witness in the New York trial, which stems from a lawsuit brought by the state’s attorney general, Letitia James. She alleges that Trump habitually exaggerated the value of his real estate holdings on financial documents that helped him get loans and insurance and make deals.

Trump denies any wrongdoing and says James, a Democrat, is targeting him for partisan reasons.

Cohen testified Tuesday that he and other executives at Trump’s company worked to inflate the estimated values of their employer’s holdings so his financial statements would match a net worth that Trump had set “arbitrarily.”

On cross-examination Wednesday, Trump lawyer Alina Habba confronted Cohen with comments he had made praising Trump, before turning on him, and asked whether he had “significant animosity” toward Trump.


“Do I have animosity toward him? Yes, I do,” Cohen replied.

“You have made a career out of publicly attacking President Trump, haven’t you?” Habba asked.

After a long pause, Cohen said, “Yes.”

Trump’s lawyers also emphasized Cohen’s federal criminal convictions and worked to portray him as a liar. The defense pounced on Cohen’s testimony Tuesday that he had lied when he pleaded guilty to tax evasion and loan application falsehoods — rather, he maintained, his conduct was just a matter of omissions and failure to correct paperwork.

Trump attorney Clifford Robert pressed Wednesday on whether Cohen also lied in congressional testimony in which he said he did not recall being asked by Trump to inflate Trump’s net worth.

Cohen repeatedly declined to answer, but eventually said he stood by the earlier testimony. Robert said the state’s key witness was not credible and asked the judge immediately to issue a verdict in Trump’s favor. Engoron denied the request, and soon Trump left the court.

After Cohen’s testimony wrapped up Wednesday, he said outside court that he had seen “a defeated man” when looking at Trump across the courtroom.

Trump, for his part, said Cohen “was caught lying.”

Trump is expected to testify later in the trial about the allegations in the lawsuit.
 

spaminator

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 26, 2009
35,784
3,025
113
Federal prosecutors urge judge to reinstate Trump gag order, citing comments about ex-chief of staff
Author of the article:Associated Press
Associated Press
Eric Tucker
Published Oct 26, 2023 • 2 minute read

WASHINGTON (AP) — Federal prosecutors are urging a judge to reinstate a gag order on Donald Trump, citing recent social media posts about the former president’s chief of staff that they said represented an attempt to influence and intimidate a foreseeable witness in the case.


U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is presiding over the federal case charging Trump with plotting to overturn the results of the 2020 election, last week temporarily paused her order barring Trump from making inflammatory comments about prosecutors, court staff and potential witnesses. The ruling came as Trump’s lawyers challenge the limited gag order in higher courts.


In a motion filed Wednesday night, special counsel Jack Smith’s team encouraged Chutkan to put the restrictions back in place. Prosecutors cited in part statements in social media and at a news conference over the last day by Trump about his former chief of staff, Mark Meadows, who was reported by ABC News on Tuesday to have testified before a grand jury after receiving immunity from prosecution.


The former president mused on social media about the possibility that Meadows, a close ally in the White House who was charged alongside Trump in a separate state prosecution in Georgia related to efforts to undo the election, would give testimony to Smith in exchange for immunity. One part of the post said: “Some people would make that deal, but they are weaklings and cowards, and so bad for the future our Failing Nation. I don’t think that Mark Meadows is one of them but who really knows?”

In their motion, Smith’s team cited the post about Meadows as an example of the type of commentary that the original gag order was meant to prohibit and a reason why the restrictions should be reinstated.

Trump, prosecutors wrote, has “capitalized on the Court’s administrative stay to, among other prejudicial conduct, send an unmistakable and threatening message to a foreseeable witness in this case.”


They added: “Unless the Court lifts the administrative stay, the defendant will not stop his harmful and prejudicial attacks. In addition, to the extent that the defendant’s public message — directed to the Chief of Staff, with knowledge that it would reach him — is not already covered by his release conditions, it is an intentional end-run around them.”

Smith’s team also asked Chutkan to modify the conditions of Trump’s pretrial release by making compliance with the gag order a condition, or by “clarifying that the existing condition barring communication with witnesses about the facts of the case includes indirect messages to witnesses made publicly on social media or in speeches.”

In a separate matter Wednesday, Trump was fined $10,000 after the judge in his civil fraud trial in New York said the former president had violated a gag order.
 

spaminator

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 26, 2009
35,784
3,025
113
Judge in Trump’s N.Y. civil fraud case stands by $10,000 fine despite fresh objections from lawyers
Author of the article:Associated Press
Associated Press
Jennifer Peltz and Michael R. Sisak
Published Oct 26, 2023 • Last updated 1 day ago • 4 minute read

NEW YORK — A judge on Thursday reaffirmed Donald Trump’s $10,000 fine for an out-of-court comment during his New York civil business fraud trial, a penalty the former president’s lawyers argued was unfair and unconstitutional.


Judge Arthur Engoron fined Trump on Wednesday, ruling that his remarks to TV cameras outside the courtroom violated a limited gag order, which bars participants in the trial from commenting publicly about the judge’s staff.


Outside court Wednesday, the 2024 Republican presidential front-runner complained that Engoron, a Democrat, is “a very partisan judge with a person who’s very partisan sitting alongside of him, perhaps even much more partisan than he is.”

Those words came after one of Trump’s lawyers had groused earlier that morning about the judge’s principal law clerk — the same woman Trump disparaged weeks earlier in a social media post that prompted the gag order.

Summoned Wednesday to the witness stand to explain whom he meant when he mentioned the person “alongside” the judge, Trump said he was talking not about the clerk, Allison Greenfield, but former Trump lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen, who was testifying at the time.


On Wednesday, Engoron called Trump’s contention “not credible,” noting that the clerk is closer to him than is the witness stand.

Trump’s lawyers insisted anew Thursday that Trump was talking about Cohen.

Lawyer Christopher Kise pointed out that right after Trump’s reference to the person “sitting alongside” the judge, the former president said: “We are doing very well, the facts are speaking very loud. He is a totally discredited witness” — a reference to Cohen.

Kise argued that it meant the person “alongside” the judge was also Cohen, and he asked Engeron to rethink the fine. Kise also argued that if the judge maintained that the remark was indeed about the clerk, the fine would infringe on Trump’s First Amendment rights.


“His business is being attacked, and he’s entitled to comment, fairly, on what he perceives in open court,” Kise said.

Engoron was cool to the constitutional argument: “I don’t think it’s impinging on anybody’s First Amendment rights to protect my staff,” he explained. But he agreed to examine the full remarks and reconsider the fine.

Engoron subsequently decided to stand by the penalty, citing “a brief but clear transition” between the mention of the person “alongside” the judge and the comment about the “discredited witness.”

“That was, to me, a clear transition from one person to another, and I think the person originally referred to was my clerk,” Engoron said.

Kise later suggested that Trump would appeal the fine. He asked for and received Engoron’s permission to have a photograph taken of the judge’s bench “for the record” to show the proximity of the judge’s seat, his law clerk’s perch and the witness stand.


Kise’s initial thought was to have the photograph taken while the bench was empty, but Engoron offered that it would be better to have people in the picture for scale.

“Mr. Kise, you’re about Michael Cohen’s size,” Engoron said. “Why don’t you sit there?”

The lawyer demurred, quipping: “I’m not nearly as photogenic.”



Trump wasn’t in court Thursday, having flown to Florida after attending Tuesday and Wednesday. He was previously in court for the trial’s first three days and returned for two days last week.


The trial involves a lawsuit that New York Attorney General Letitia James filed last year against Trump, his company and top executives. The Democratic attorney general said Trump and his business chronically lied about his wealth on financial statements given to banks, insurers and others. Trump denies any wrongdoing.

Before trial, Engoron found that Trump, chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg and other defendants committed years of fraud with the financial statements.

The civil trial concerns allegations of conspiracy, insurance fraud and falsifying business records. James is seeking $250 million in penalties and a ban on Trump doing business in New York.

Engoron already ordered that a court-appointed receiver take control of some Trump companies, putting the future oversight of Trump Tower and other marquee properties in question. An appeals court has blocked enforcement of that aspect of Engoron’s ruling, at least for now.


Trump and his two eldest sons, Eric and Donald Trump Jr., are expected to testify later in the trial. His daughter, Ivanka Trump, is fighting a subpoena for her testimony. Engoron will hold a hearing Friday morning before the resumption of testimony in an attempt to resolve that dispute.

Ivanka Trump was initially a defendant, but an appeals court dropped her from the case in June after finding that claims against her were outside the statute of limitations. Her lawyer is arguing that state lawyers failed to properly serve her subpoena and that she shouldn’t be forced to testify because she isn’t a party to the case and lives outside the court’s New York jurisdiction.

State lawyers countered in court papers Thursday that Ivanka Trump “was a key participant” in many events discussed in the case and “remains financially and professionally intertwined” with the family business and its leaders.
 

spaminator

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 26, 2009
35,784
3,025
113
Pence ends campaign for White House after struggling to gain traction
Author of the article:Associated Press
Associated Press
Jill Colvin
Published Oct 28, 2023 • Last updated 1 day ago • 6 minute read

NEW YORK — Former Vice President Mike Pence on Saturday dropped his bid for the Republican presidential nomination, ending his campaign for the White House after struggling to raise money and gain traction in the polls.


“It’s become clear to me: This is not my time,” Pence said at the Republican Jewish Coalition’s annual gathering in Las Vegas. “So after much prayer and deliberation, I have decided to suspend my campaign for president effective today.”


“We always knew this would be an uphill battle, but I have no regrets,” Pence went on to tell the friendly audience, which reacted with audible surprise to the announcement and gave him multiple standing ovations.

Pence is the first major candidate to leave a race that has been dominated by his former boss-turned-rival, Donald Trump, and his struggles underscore just how much Trump has transformed the party. A former vice president would typically be seen as a formidable challenger in any primary, but Pence has struggled to find a base of support.


He chose the Las Vegas event to announce his decision, in part so he could continue to voice his support for Israel and to make his case one last time as a candidate that the isolationist and populist tides that have swept the Republican Party pose a danger to its future and embolden the nation’s enemies, according to two people close to Pence who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss his thinking.

Pence’s decision, more than two months before the Iowa caucuses that he had staked his campaign on, saves him from accumulating additional debt, as well as the embarrassment of potentially failing to qualify for the third Republican primary debate, on Nov. 8 in Miami.

But his withdrawal is a huge blow for a politician who spent years biding his time as Trump’s most loyal lieutenant, only to be scapegoated during their final days in office when Trump became convinced that Pence somehow had the power to overturn the results of the 2020 election and keep both men in office — which he did not.


While Pence averted a constitutional crisis by rejecting the scheme, he drew Trump’s fury, as well as the wrath of many of Trump’s supporters, who still believed his lies about the election and see Pence as a traitor.

Among Trump critics, meanwhile, Pence was seen as an enabler who defended the former president at every turn and refused to criticize even Trump’s most indefensible actions.

As a result, an Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research from August found that the majority of U.S. adults, 57%, viewed Pence negatively, with only 28% having a positive view.

Throughout his campaign, the former Indiana governor and congressman had insisted that while he was well-known by voters, he was not “known well” and set out to change that with an aggressive schedule that included numerous stops at diners and Pizza Ranch restaurants.


Pence had been betting on Iowa, a state with a large white Evangelical population that has a long history of elevating religious and socially conservative candidates such as former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and former Pennsylvania Rick Santorum. Pence often campaigned with his wife, Karen, a Christian school teacher, and emphasized his hard-line views on issues such as abortion, which he opposes even in cases when a pregnancy is unviable. He repeatedly called on his fellow candidates to support a minimum 15-week national ban and he pushed to ban drugs used as alternatives to surgical procedures.

He tried to confront head-on his actions on Jan. 6, 2021, explaining to voters over and over that he had done his constitutional duty that day, knowing full well the political consequences. It was a strategy his campaign and outside supporters believed would help defuse the issue and earn Pence the respect of a majority of Republicans, whom they were were convinced did not agree with Trump’s actions.


But even in Iowa, Pence struggled to gain traction.

He had an equally uphill climb raising money, despite yearslong relationships with donors. Pence ended September with just $1.18 million in the bank and $621,000 in debt, according to his most recent campaign filing. That debt had grown in the weeks since and adding to it could have taken Pence, who is not independently wealthy, years to pay off.

The Associated Press first reported earlier this month that people close to Pence had begun to feel that remaining a candidate risked diminishing his long-term standing in the party, given Trump’s dominating lead in the race for the 2024 nomination. While they said Pence could stick it out until the Jan. 15 Iowa caucuses if he wanted — campaigning on a shoestring budget and accumulating debt — he would have to consider how that might affect his ability to remain a leading voice in the conservative movement, as he hopes.


Some said that Hamas’ attack on Israel in October, which pushed foreign policy to the forefront of the campaign, had provided Pence a renewed sense of purpose given his warnings throughout the campaign against the growing tide of isolationism in the Republican Party. Pence had argued that he was the race’s most experienced candidate and decried “voices of appeasement” among Republican, arguing they had emboldened groups such as Hamas.

But ultimately, Pence concluded that he could still speak out on the issue without continuing the campaign.

Still, his announcement came as a surprise even to Matt Brooks, the CEO of the Republican Jewish Coalition, who said he spent about 10-15 minutes backstage with Pence before the former vice president’s speech and had gotten no indication from Pence that he intended to end his candidacy.


“Look, he picked an incredibly appropriate audience to do this,” Brooks said. “I think you saw the love for him in that room. And it was obviously a difficult decision for him and his family. But he was in the right place at the right time to share it with us all.”

Pence did not immediately endorse any of his rivals, but continued to echo language he has used to criticize Trump.

“I urge all my fellow Republicans here, give our country a Republican standard-bearer that will, as Lincoln said, appeal to the better angels of our nature,” he said, “and not only lead us to victory, but lead our nation with civility.”

Trump did not acknowledge Pence’s announcement in his own remarks at the same event.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who spoke immediately after Pence, also made no mention of Pence in his speech, but later praised him on social media as a “principled man of faith who has worked tirelessly to advance the conservative cause.” Former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, in contrast, began her speech by saying the country owed Pence “a debt of gratitude.” South Carolina Gov. Tim Scott in a statement called him ”a man of integrity and deep conviction.“


Pence is expected to remain engaged, in part through Advancing American Freedom, the conservative think tank he founded after leaving the vice presidency and that he envisions it as an alternative to The Heritage Foundation. He also has a book coming out next month that offers advice on balancing work and family.

Pence’s group is expected to continue to advocate for policies that he supported in his run, including pushing for more U.S. support for Ukraine’s defense against the Russian invasion and proposed cuts to Social Security and Medicare to rein in the debt. Such ideas were once the bread-and-butter of Republican establishment orthodoxy but have fallen out of a favor as the party has embraced Trump’s isolationist and populist views.
 

spaminator

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 26, 2009
35,784
3,025
113
Federal judge reimposes limited gag order in Trump's election interference case
Author of the article:Associated Press
Associated Press
Alanna Durkin Richer And Eric Tucker
Published Oct 29, 2023 • 2 minute read

WASHINGTON — The federal judge overseeing Donald Trump’s 2020 election interference case in Washington on Sunday reimposed a narrow gag order barring him from making public comments targeting prosecutors, court staff and potential witnesses.


The reinstatement of the gag order was revealed in a brief notation on the online case docket Sunday night, but the order itself was not immediately available, making it impossible to see the judge’s rationale or the precise contours of the restrictions.


U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is presiding over the federal case charging Trump with plotting to overturn the results of the 2020 election, had temporarily lifted the gag order as she considered the former president’s request to keep it on hold while he challenges the restrictions on his speech in higher courts.

But Chutkan agreed to reinstate the order after prosecutors cited Trump’s recent social-media comments about his former chief of staff they said represented an attempt to influence and intimidate a likely witness in the case.



The order is a fresh reminder that Trump’s penchant for incendiary and bitter rants about the four criminal cases that he’s facing, though politically beneficial in rallying his supporters as he seeks to reclaim the White House, carry practical consequences in court. Two separate judges have now imposed orders mandating that he rein in his speech with the jurist presiding over a civil fraud trial in New York issuing a monetary fine last week.

A request for comment was sent Sunday to a Trump attorney, Todd Blanche. Trump acknowledged in a social-media post late Sunday that the gag order was back in place, calling it “NOT CONSITUTIONAL!”


Trump’s lawyers have said they will seek an emergency stay of the order from the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The defence has said Trump is entitled to criticize prosecutors and “speak truth to oppression.”

Trump has denied any wrongdoing in the case. He has made a central part of his 2024 campaign for president vilifying special counsel Jack Smith and others involved in the criminal cases against him, casting himself as the victim of a politicized justice system.

Prosecutors have said Trump’s verbal attacks threaten to undermine the integrity of the case and risk inspiring his supporters to violence.

Smith’s team said Trump took advantage of the recent lifting of the gag order to “send an unmistakable and threatening message” to his former chief of staff Mark Meadows, who was reported by ABC News to have received immunity to testify before a grand jury.

The former president mused on social media about the possibility that Meadows would give testimony to Smith in exchange for immunity. One part of the post said: “Some people would make that deal, but they are weaklings and cowards, and so bad for the future our Failing Nation. I don’t think that Mark Meadows is one of them but who really knows?”

In a separate case, Trump was fined $10,000 last week after the judge in his civil fraud trial in New York said the former president had violated a gag order.
 

spaminator

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 26, 2009
35,784
3,025
113
Lawyers argue whether the Constitution’s ‘insurrection’ clause blocks Trump from the 2024 ballot
Author of the article:Associated Press
Associated Press
Nicholas Riccardi
Published Oct 30, 2023 • Last updated 1 day ago • 4 minute read

DENVER (AP) — Lawyers for a group of Colorado voters on Monday focused on the January 2021 assault on the U.S. Capitol and former President Donald Trump’s role, opening a trial that could determine whether the Constitution’s insurrection clause bars Trump from running again for the White House.


Attorney Eric Olson recounted Trump’s violent rhetoric preceding the Jan. 6 attack and his encouraging a crowd that came within “40 feet” of the vice president when it stormed the Capitol. He said Trump “summoned and organized the mob.”


“We are here because Trump claims, after all that, that he has the right to be president again,” Olson said. “But our Constitution, the shared charter of our nation, says he cannot do so.”

Trump’s legal team and presidential campaign assailed the lawsuit as little more than an attempt by Democrats to derail his attempt to reclaim his old job. Trump is so far dominating the Republican presidential primary.

Before the trial on the lawsuit began, his lawyers filed a motion to have the judge recuse herself because she had donated in the past to a liberal group in the state. She said no. The campaign also noted the current lawsuit was filed by a liberal nonprofit in a state that voted for Democrat Joe Biden in 2020.


“They send money to these dark money groups — they go to a Democratic jurisdiction and a Democratic judge,” Trump spokesman Jason Miller said.

Monday’s hearing in Colorado state court is the first of two lawsuits that could end up reaching the U.S. Supreme Court. On Thursday, the Minnesota Supreme Court hears oral arguments in a similar case.

Ultimately, either the Colorado or Minnesota case is expected to land at the U.S. Supreme Court, which has never ruled on the Civil War-era provision. Section Three of the 14th Amendment prohibits those who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution and then “engaged in insurrection” against it from holding higher office.

The Colorado testimony began with details about the Jan. 6 assault that was intended to stop Congress from certifying Biden’s election win. Witnesses included some who were there.


Officer Daniel Hodges of Washington’s Metropolitan Police Department recalled being beaten and having someone try to gouge out his eye as he defended the Capitol from the rioters. Footage from the body camera he was wearing that day was shown in court.

“I was afraid for my life and my colleagues,” Hodges said. “I was afraid for the people in the U.S. Capitol building — congressmen, the vice president and what these people would do to them and how it would affect our democracy.”

Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell testified that members of the House watched the attack on their phones with mounting alarm as they grabbed gas masks and contemplated how to defend themselves. He said they all followed Trump’s messages on Twitter carefully.


“We connected the president’s tweets to our own safety in the chamber and also the integrity of the proceedings,” said Swalwell, who was manager of the House’s impeachment of Trump for the attack and also filed a federal lawsuit against him for inciting the riot.

The trial is unfolding in stages, starting with a description of the attack and Trump’s words and actions, followed by arguments over whether the assault actually constituted an insurrection. Later in the week, lawyers are expected to call constitutional experts to delve into the meaning of the amendment’s insurrection clause.

Trump’s lawyers contend the former president never “engaged in insurrection” and was simply exercising his free speech rights to warn about election results he did not believe were legitimate. They noted cases where the congressional authors of Section Three declined to use it more than a century ago against people who only rhetorically backed the confederacy.


His lawyers said none of the issues are simple in a provision of the Constitution that hasn’t been used in 150 years. In court filings, they said the insurrection clause was never meant to apply to the office of president, which is not mentioned in the text, unlike “Senator or Representative in Congress” and “elector of President and Vice President.”

“This is a legal Hail Mary by the Democrats,” said Mike Davis, an attorney who appeared with representatives of the Trump campaign outside court before the trial began. “This case is going to fail.”

An attorney representing Trump, Scott Gessler, called the lawsuit “anti-democratic” and noted that at least one other presidential candidate — socialist labor organizer Eugene Debs — ran from prison without people trying to disqualify him.


A former Colorado secretary of state, Gessler said there is an informal principle in election law known as “the rule of democracy,” which essentially means to “err on the side of letting people vote” whenever there is an ambiguity.

At the start of Monday’s hearing — held in a large downtown Denver courtroom filled with attorneys, journalists and several armed sheriff’s deputies — the judge rejected the motion by Trump’s attorneys that asked her to step aside because she once contributed money to a liberal group.

Trump’s campaign said it had filed a motion for the judge, Sarah B. Wallace, to recuse herself because she had made a $100 donation in October 2022 to the Colorado Turnout Project, a group whose website says it was formed to “prevent violent insurrections” such as the Jan. 6 attack.

She was appointed to the bench in August of that year by Gov. Jared Polis, a Democrat. Wallace denied the motion, saying she didn’t recall the donation until the motion was filed and has no preconceptions about the legal issues in the case.

“I will not allow this legal proceeding to turn into a circus,” she said.
 

Serryah

Executive Branch Member
Dec 3, 2008
8,948
2,063
113
New Brunswick
Despite the fact that he never pays his bills, Jabba the Trump has been very good for the profession.

Considering the legal stuff I'm watching on the NY case... yeah, absolutely; at least, good for the GOOD lawyers. Not so much the poor idiots who are representing him.
 

Twin_Moose

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 17, 2017
21,355
5,764
113
Twin Moose Creek
Charging Trump for over evaluating his properties to maximize his borrowing potential for loans that he paid back on time with full interest, yeah I can see that is a crime LOL
 

Twin_Moose

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 17, 2017
21,355
5,764
113
Twin Moose Creek
Considering the legal stuff I'm watching on the NY case... yeah, absolutely; at least, good for the GOOD lawyers. Not so much the poor idiots who are representing him.
And this is from the NY Times

What We Know About New York’s Fraud Case Against Donald Trump

WebOct. 2, 2023 When a New York judge ruled on Sept. 26 that Donald J. Trump had committed fraud by inflating his assets, he effectively said that the heart of the case against the …
 

Serryah

Executive Branch Member
Dec 3, 2008
8,948
2,063
113
New Brunswick
Hahahaha I don't think you understand what the case is about, over and under valuing his properties for asset value and property tax value that is pretty much it

Actually I'm learning a lot about how NY law works - Specific to this kind of case of Fraud, Section 63(12)- and it's a bit more than just over and/or under valuing his properties.

 

Twin_Moose

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 17, 2017
21,355
5,764
113
Twin Moose Creek
Actually I'm learning a lot about how NY law works - Specific to this kind of case of Fraud, Section 63(12)- and it's a bit more than just over and/or under valuing his properties.
I'm confident you will be an expert about it within a short while

You do understand every indictment and trial is to keep Trump from running in 2024 right?
 

Serryah

Executive Branch Member
Dec 3, 2008
8,948
2,063
113
New Brunswick
I'm confident you will be an expert about it within a short while

You're obsessed with trying to label me an expert; why is that? Cause I'm not, nor do I claim to be, on a lot of things. Like you I have opinions, maybe facts. I certainly would never claim you to be an expert in anything at all.

You do understand every indictment and trial is to keep Trump from running in 2024 right?

Along with that property in Gaza, how about a Bridge?
 

Twin_Moose

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 17, 2017
21,355
5,764
113
Twin Moose Creek
You're obsessed with trying to label me an expert; why is that? Cause I'm not, nor do I claim to be, on a lot of things. Like you I have opinions, maybe facts. I certainly would never claim you to be an expert in anything at all.



Along with that property in Gaza, how about a Bridge?
Keep the blinders on Peace Out
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Serryah

spaminator

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 26, 2009
35,784
3,025
113
As Trump tried to buy Buffalo Bills, bankers doubted he’d get NFL’s OK, emails show at fraud trial
Author of the article:Associated Press
Associated Press
Jennifer Peltz
Published Oct 31, 2023 • 4 minute read
When Trump tried to buy the Buffalo Bills in 2014, investment bankers doubted the NFL would allow it but encouraged him to stay in the running, according to internal emails aired at the former president's civil fraud trial Tuesday, Oct. 31, 2023.
When Trump tried to buy the Buffalo Bills in 2014, investment bankers doubted the NFL would allow it but encouraged him to stay in the running, according to internal emails aired at the former president's civil fraud trial Tuesday, Oct. 31, 2023.
NEW YORK (AP) — When Donald Trump tried to buy the Buffalo Bills in 2014, investment bankers doubted the NFL would allow it but encouraged him to stay in the running, according to internal emails aired Tuesday at the former president’s civil fraud trial.


“Trump has little chance of being approved by the NFL,” given that he had owned casinos and had a role in the rival USFL’s 1980s antitrust suit against the NFL, then-Morgan Stanley executive K. Don Cornwell wrote to colleagues in April 2014. “That being said, his strong show of support doesn’t hurt the process.”


“He probably does have the dough” and claimed he’d been courting the NFL, another Morgan Stanley banker, Jeffrey Holzschuh, wrote back, adding: “but never know the real facts with him.”

Three months later, Trump offered $1 billion cash for the Bills, becoming one of three known finalists seeking to buy the team after the death of founder and Hall of Fame owner Ralph Wilson. The owners of the NHL’s Buffalo Sabres, Terry and Kim Pegula, ultimately bought the Bills for $1.4 billion. A group led by rock star Jon Bon Jovi had also been interested in acquiring the team.


A decade later, Trump’s failed Bills bid is one of the business moves under scrutiny in the trial of a lawsuit brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James. She accuses the ex-president and current Republican 2024 front-runner of deceiving banks, insurers and others by giving them financial statements that massively inflated the values of his assets.

Trump denies any wrongdoing and says his annual “statements of financial condition” actually lowballed his wealth. He casts the lawsuit as part of an effort by James and other Democrats to choke his campaign.

Trump owned the USFL’s New Jersey Generals and led the upstart league to sue the NFL in the mid-1980s, alleging its established rivals had monopolized professional football. The USFL achieved a Pyrrhic victory, with a jury awarding just $1 in damages _ multiplied to $3 via court rules and totaling $3.76 with interest once upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. The USFL, which had sought $1.3 billion, folded shortly after.


Trump testified in the antitrust case that then-NFL Commissioner Pete Rozelle floated the idea that Trump could own an NFL franchise and urged him not to sue. Trump said Rozelle also unsuccessfully urged him to abandon plans to switch the USFL’s season from spring to fall. The schedule change, which Trump spearheaded, pitted the USFL against the NFL and was widely blamed for the newer league’s demise.

In offering to buy the Bills, Trump cited his net worth as over $8 billion in an initial offer letter but never provided his financial statements. His then-lawyer Michael Cohen told the bankers that Trump wouldn’t release his financial records until told he was “the final bidder,” according to an email shown in court Tuesday.


Instead, at a presentation to the bankers, Trump handed out copies of one of Forbes magazine’s lists of wealthy celebrities, Cornwell testified. Trump was the star of NBC’s “The Apprentice” at the time.

Throughout the sale process, Cohen insisted Trump was serious about his bid and his commitment to keeping the Bills in Buffalo. Cohen disputed reports that Trump didn’t have the financial resources to pull off the deal, claiming his then-boss was worth billions of dollars and pointing to his many properties as proof.

“There’s nobody more serious than Donald Trump,” Cohen said in an interview with The Associated Press in 2014.

Once the bids were being formally submitted, Cohen conceded to the AP that Trump’s bid was not going to win. Cohen said the businessman wasn’t interested in paying more than market value for the Bills, a team that had an estimated worth of $870 million but was projected to sell for up to $1.2 billion.


In the early going in May 2014, some Morgan Stanley bankers and an NFL official met to talk about dozens of possible Bills buyers, according to an email shown in court Tuesday.

When it came to Trump, the upshot of the conversation was: “question his liquidity and ability to get votes” from other team owners in an approval vote, according to the email. It also said the league would want to examine management contracts for any Trump-branded casinos, to see whether he had any influence, even if not ownership.

Three months later, Trump hadn’t provided his financial documents, and his bid wasn’t the highest. Still, the bankers prepared talking points that told him his bid was below several others, but “you could prevail if during the diligence process you can move up in value.”


Separately, Cornwell wrote to colleagues in August 2014 that they “still want to keep him around” and said that Trump had asked to be “pre-vetted” privately, so the bank would do so.

“Well… he will stay in process,” Holzschuh wrote to Cornwell a week later, adding that Trump “is very sensitive about his rep” and didn’t want to spend money on the process if the price was going to be too high. But, Holzschuh added, “I encouraged him to put his best offer forward and let the process work.”

Cornwell testified that since the sale was an open process, the bankers “had to talk to all interested parties.”

But Trump lawyer Christopher Kise suggested the bank essentially strung the businessman along, saying: “They never considered him a serious bidder. They took him in to use his name to bid up the price.”

Trump told the AP in 2016 that had he been able to buy the Bills, it’s unlikely that he would’ve run for president.

“If I bought that team, I wouldn’t be doing what I’m doing,” he said.
 

spaminator

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 26, 2009
35,784
3,025
113
Judge indicates she may delay Trump trial on charges he hid classified documents at Mar-a-Lago
Author of the article:Associated Press
Associated Press
Terry Spencer And Eric Tucker
Published Nov 01, 2023 • 2 minute read
A federal judge in Florida has indicated she may delay the start of former President Donald Trump's trial on charges that he hid classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon questioned prosecutors Wednesday about whether starting the trial in May as scheduled is feasible.
A federal judge in Florida has indicated she may delay the start of former President Donald Trump's trial on charges that he hid classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon questioned prosecutors Wednesday about whether starting the trial in May as scheduled is feasible.
FORT PIERCE, Fla. (AP) — A federal judge in Florida indicated Wednesday that she may delay the start of the classified documents trial of Donald Trump, pointing to the other criminal cases the former president is facing as well as the mounds of evidence his attorneys need to review.


Trump’s trial on charges that he hid classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate and obstructed government efforts to get them back is currently scheduled for May 20, 2024.


But U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon appeared ready to side with Trump’s attorneys in their request to postpone the trial, saying she “has a hard time seeing how realistically this (current schedule) would work” even as prosecutors pushed her to keep the scheduled start date.

The classified documents case filed by special counsel Jack Smith’s team is one of four Trump is facing that could go to trial next year. Another federal case, also brought by Smith and charging him with scheming to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, is scheduled for trial in March in Washington.


A trial in Georgia on state charges that Trump tried to subvert the election could also start next year, though no date has been set, as could a New York trial on charges that Trump falsified business records to cover up a hush money payment to a porn actor in advance of the 2016 election. He is already on trial on a civil case in New York alleging business fraud.

Cannon also pointed to the 1.3 million pages of evidence that prosecutors in the Mar-a-Lago case have provided to the defense along with thousands of hours of security video shot at Trump’s resort. She questioned whether Trump’s lawyers will have adequate time to review the evidence in the next six months.

“I am not quite seeing a level of understanding on your part to these realities,” Cannon told prosecutor Jay Bratt, a member of Smith’s team.


Bratt told Cannon that Trump’s attorneys from the beginning have pushed to delay the trial until after the November 2024 election, where he hopes to win back the White House from President Joe Biden.

He said that because of defense motions to delay the Washington trial and dismiss those charges, there is a chance that trial will be postponed.

He told Cannon she “should not let the D.C. trial drive the schedule here.”

He said his team has provided Trump’s lawyers with a directory to the Mar-a-Lago documents to assist their preparation and advised them of the portions of security video they plan to play at trial _ footage that prosecutors have said shows boxes being moved in and out of a storage room at the property in an effort to conceal them from investigators.

A Trump valet, Walt Nauta, and a Mar-a-Lago property manager, Carlos De Oliveira, have been charged alongside Trump with conspiring to obstruct the FBI’s investigation. All three defendants have pleaded not guilty.

Trump attorney Todd Blanche told Cannon that she and prosecutors need to be realistic, particularly since the classified documents can only be read in special government rooms that have heightened security.

“It has been extremely difficult to have access,” Blanche said.

Cannon said she will make a decision on the trial date in the coming days.