What's new

Donald Trump - Former President of the USA's legal troubles

bones said:
One of things we were all waiting for was the derail in the indictment but there is none. I'm no lawyer but even I know when something is fishy and this case against trump is fishy. There is nothing absolutely nothing to support the case and next hearing 8 months? That's a long time for such a bog standard case. If this was anyone but Donald trump the case would not have even made it to a court hearing.
Click to expand...

Indictment is not a full case file. It is basically a formal charge sheet to inform accused what he/she is being charged of. They are handed out after a grand jury reviews the evidence and other facts to determine whether the indictment should be handed out or not.

So i am sure those details will eventually emerge but we are already aware of a lot of it. Stuff that has happened during trump presidency, involving michael cohen, murdoch, hush payments using campaign finance contributions, catch and release etc.

It still may not be enough to convict him by the way because they saw in america if you are rich, you can get away with murder. Just gotta hire the top legal representstion money can buy. Thats all.
 
Stewie said:
Indictment is not a full case file. It is basically a formal charge sheet to inform accused what he/she is being charged of. They are handed out after a grand jury reviews the evidence and other facts to determine whether the indictment should be handed out or not.

So i am sure those details will eventually emerge but we are already aware of a lot of it. Stuff that has happened during trump presidency, involving michael cohen, murdoch, hush payments using campaign finance contributions, catch and release etc.

It still may not be enough to convict him by the way because they saw in america if you are rich, you can get away with murder. Just gotta hire the top legal representstion money can buy. Thats all.
Click to expand...
I don't know American law so I have just watched a judge and some lawyers debate the indictment sheet and every single one of them said that Trump's legal team are going to have a field day. The indictment sheet is weak.
 
One weakness of the indictment sheet. They allege that his actions led to another crime without ststing the crime. It is a joke.
 
That does seem to be the consensus but i never believed for a minute a former pres will end up being a felon. This is the proverbial slap on the wrist to tell him you were being naughty, i think.
 
The charges seem flimsy.

It will be a heck of a ride though.

If he comes out the other side exonerated then he will have some major momentum behind him.

If he loses, they will claim the political machine got him and it was rigged.

Win win for Trump.
 
DeadlyVenom said:
The charges seem flimsy.

It will be a heck of a ride though.

If he comes out the other side exonerated then he will have some major momentum behind him.

If he loses, they will claim the political machine got him and it was rigged.

Win win for Trump.
Click to expand...
Thats what they said about the russian investigstions, the impeachments, etc, but we all know what happened. American people are not fooled easily. No biryani eaters here. Most neutrals see through his smoke and mirrors.
 
On YouTube in Judge Napolitano's channel he has a 15 min video about this. I suggest you watch it because both judge and lawyer are not not impressed.
 
Stewie said:
Thats what they said about the russian investigstions, the impeachments, etc, but we all know what happened. American people are not fooled easily. No biryani eaters here. Most neutrals see through his smoke and mirrors.
Click to expand...

With respect during my lifetime I've seen you guys vote for Bush, Trump and Sleepy Joe :))

Americans are fooled quite easily man.
 
NEW YORK (AP) — A stone-faced Donald Trump made a momentous courtroom appearance Tuesday when he was confronted with a 34-count felony indictment charging him in a scheme to bury allegations of extramarital affairs that arose during his first White House campaign.

The arraignment in a Manhattan courtroom was a stunning — and humbling — spectacle for the first ex-president to ever face criminal charges. With Trump watching in silence, prosecutors bluntly accused him of criminal conduct and set the stage for a possible criminal trial in the city where he became a celebrity decades ago.

The indictment centers on allegations that Trump falsified internal business records at his private company while trying to cover up an effort to illegally influence the 2016 election by arranging payments that silenced claims potentially harmful to his candidacy. It includes 34 counts of fudging records related to checks Trump sent to his personal lawyer and problem-solver to reimburse him for his role in paying off a porn actor who said she had an extramarital sexual encounter with Trump years earlier.

“The defendant, Donald J. Trump, falsified New York business records in order to conceal an illegal conspiracy to undermine the integrity of the 2016 presidential election and other violations of election laws,” said Assistant District Attorney Christopher Conroy.

Trump, somber and silent as he entered and exited the Manhattan courtroom, said “not guilty” in a firm voice while facing a judge who warned him to refrain from rhetoric that could inflame or cause civil unrest. All told, the ever-verbose Trump, who for weeks before Tuesday’s arraignment had assailed the case against him as political persecution, uttered only 10 words in the courtroom. He appeared to glare for a period at Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, the prosecutor who brought the case.

As he returned to his Florida estate, Mar-a-Lago, where he delivered a primetime address to hundreds of supporters, Trump again protested his innocence and asserted on his Truth Social platform that the “hearing was shocking to many in that they had no ‘surprises,’ and therefore, no case.”

In his speech, Trump lashed out anew at the prosecution and attacked in bitter terms the prosecutor and the judge presiding over the case despite being admonished hours earlier about incendiary rhetoric. In a sign of that other probes are weighing on him, Trump also steered his speech into a broadside against a separate Justice Department investigation into the mishandling of classified documents.

“I never thought anything like this could happen in America,” Trump said of the New York indictment. “This fake case was brought only to interfere with the upcoming 2024 election and it should be dropped immediately.”

The crowd at Mar-a-Lago included supporters like failed Arizona gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake and longtime ally Roger Stone. Trump’s wife, Melania, was absent from his side and was also not seen with him in New York.

Even so, the indictment amounts to a remarkable reckoning for Trump after years of investigations into his personal, business and political dealings. It shows how even as Trump is looking to reclaim the White House in 2024, he is shadowed by investigations related to his behavior in the two prior elections, with prosecutors in Atlanta and Washington scrutinizing efforts by Trump and his allies to undo the 2020 presidential election — probes that could produce even more charges.

In the New York case, each count of falsifying business records, a felony, is punishable by up to four years in prison — though it’s not clear if a judge would impose any prison time if Trump is convicted. The next court date is Dec. 4 — two months before Republicans begin their nominating process in earnest — and Trump will again be expected to appear.

A conviction would not prevent Trump from running for or winning the presidency in 2024.

The arraignment also delved into Trump’s rhetoric on the case, with prosecutors at one point handing printouts of his social media posts to the judge and defense lawyers as Trump looked on. Supreme Court Judge Juan Merchan did not impose a gag order but told Trump’s lawyers to urge him to refrain from posts that could encourage unrest.

The broad contours of the case have long been known, focusing on a scheme that prosecutors say began months into his candidacy in 2015, as his celebrity past collided with his presidential ambitions.

Though prosecutors expressed confidence in the case, a conviction is no sure thing given the legal complexities of the allegations, the application of state election laws to a federal election and prosecutors’ likely reliance on a key witness, Trump’s former lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen, who pleaded guilty in 2018 to false statements.

It centers on payoffs to two women, porn star Stormy Daniels and Playboy model Karen McDougal, who said they had extramarital sexual encounters with Trump years earlier, as well as to a Trump Tower doorman who claimed to have a story about a child he alleged the former president had out of wedlock.

“It’s not just about one payment. It is 34 false statements and business records that were concealing criminal conduct,” Bragg told reporters, when asked how the three separate cases were connected.

All 34 counts against Trump are linked to a series of checks that were written to Cohen to reimburse him for his role in paying off Daniels. Those payments, made over 12 months, were recorded in various internal company documents as being for a legal retainer that prosecutors say didn’t exist. Cohen testified before the grand jury and is expected to be a star prosecution witness.

Nine of those monthly checks were paid out of Trump’s personal accounts, but records related to them were maintained in the Trump Organization’s data system.

Prosecutors allege that the first instance of Trump directing hush money payments came in the fall of 2015, when a former Trump Tower doorman was trying to sell information about an alleged out-of-wedlock child fathered by Trump.

David Pecker, a Trump friend and the publisher of the National Enquirer, made a $30,000 payment to the doorman to acquire the exclusive rights to the story, pursuant to an agreement to protect Trump during his presidential campaign, according to the indictment. Pecker’s company later determined the doorman’s story was false, but is alleged to have enforced the doorman’s confidentiality at Cohen’s urging until after Election Day.

Trump denies having sexual liaisons with both Daniels and McDougal and has denied any wrongdoing involving payments.

Tuesday’s schedule, with its striking blend of legal and political calendar items, represents the new split-screen reality for Trump as he submits to the dour demands of the American criminal justice system while projecting an aura of defiance and victimhood at celebratory campaign events.

Wearing his signature dark suit and red tie, Trump turned and waved to crowds outside the building before heading inside to be fingerprinted and processed. He arrived at court in an eight-car motorcade from Trump Tower, communicating in real time his anger at the process.

“Heading to Lower Manhattan, the Courthouse,” he posted on his Truth Social platform. “Seems so SURREAL — WOW, they are going to ARREST ME. Can’t believe this is happening in America. MAGA!”

Afterward, Trump lawyer Todd Blanche told reporters that it was a “sad day for the country.”

“You don’t expect this to happen to somebody who was president of the United States,” he said.

AP
 
‘US going to hell’: Donald Trump attacks hush money case in grievance-filled Mar-a-Lago speech
The former president appeared subdued in New York, only to return to his campaigning, inflammatory ways hours later in Florida

Simmering with anger and defiance, Donald Trump returned to the safe space of Mar-a-Lago and his loyal supporters on Tuesday night, seeking to turn his status as an accused criminal into a political war cry.

The former president ignored a plea from the judge in the case to refrain from inflammatory rhetoric, even launching a broadside at the judge’s daughter over her political connections.

Trump flew back to Florida from New York, where prosecutors had accused him of orchestrating hush-money payments to cover up claims of affairs before the 2016 election. Sitting in a Manhattan court, Trump pleaded not guilty to 34 felony counts of falsifying business records.

But on the evening of a sombre day for America and its judicial system, the frontrunner for the 2024 Republican nomination walked into the opulent ballroom at the Mar-a-Lago estate to the familiar strains of Lee Greenwood’s God Bless the USA, a staple of his campaign rallies.

Supporters wore “Make America Great Again” and “Trump 2024” caps and snapped pictures of the president turned defendant. The audience included Trump’s son Eric and his wife, Lara, Florida congressman Matt Gaetz and pillow maker and conspiracy theorist Mike Lindell.

...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...riminal-charges-from-the-safety-of-mar-a-lago
 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Congratulations to President Trump on this final attorney fee victory in his favor this morning. Collectively, our firm obtained over $600,000 in attorney fee awards in his favor in the meritless litigation initiated by Stormy Daniels. <a href="https://t.co/ld7SVvZOp6">https://t.co/ld7SVvZOp6</a> <a href="https://t.co/1b5P3flxFb">pic.twitter.com/1b5P3flxFb</a></p>— Harmeet K. Dhillon (@pnjaban) <a href="https://twitter.com/pnjaban/status/1643331602511011848?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 4, 2023</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Stewie said:
Thats what they said about the russian investigstions, the impeachments, etc, but we all know what happened. American people are not fooled easily. No biryani eaters here. Most neutrals see through his smoke and mirrors.
Click to expand...

hey you guys voted Trump in, and even gave George Bush a second term.

Atleast we Pakistanis didnt given a second term right away.
 
DeadlyVenom said:
With respect during my lifetime I've seen you guys vote for Bush, Trump and Sleepy Joe :))

Americans are fooled quite easily man.
Click to expand...

Sometimes you dont have options so you get crap like that. But Americans vote them out like they did Trump.

Bush and Biden are different stories. Last time i checked, in-spite of all these "terrible" presidents, US is still the top of the pile.
 
Major said:
hey you guys voted Trump in, and even gave George Bush a second term.

Atleast we Pakistanis didnt given a second term right away.
Click to expand...

Pakistanis cant give crap. Its our military that decides who gets s second term. Everybody else is a puppet including your favorite Zerdari Bhuttos.
They killed BB, her dad, her brother and have been using Asif to do their dirty deeds. You would be a fool to think otherwise.
 
Stewie said:
Pakistanis cant give crap. Its our military that decides who gets s second term. Everybody else is a puppet including your favorite Zerdari Bhuttos.
They killed BB, her dad, her brother and have been using Asif to do their dirty deeds. You would be a fool to think otherwise.
Click to expand...

i fully agree with what you say
 
Having looked into this, it seems Trump was played by his lawyer. Trump signed cheques legally so imo will be found not guilty.
 
Stewie said:
Thats what they said about the russian investigstions, the impeachments, etc, but we all know what happened. American people are not fooled easily. No biryani eaters here. Most neutrals see through his smoke and mirrors.
Click to expand...

Not so sure about that. We have some NFL games played out here in London and I always see them after the matches. The waist sizes I've seen are astonishing.

If Azam Khan was American is what comes to mind.
 
topspin said:
Not so sure about that. We have some NFL games played out here in London and I always see them after the matches. The waist sizes I've seen are astonishing.

If Azam Khan was American is what comes to mind.
Click to expand...

Dont think you understood the reference.
In Pakistan, votes are easily bought for a plate of biryani or a few thousand rupees and Pakistanis gladly sell their soul to the highest bidder. PML and PPP have both used these tactics. Thats whdt i meant by biryani eaters.

You cant mass buy votes here like that. Yes there is lobbying and all that, etc but its targeted at specific interest groups. To me thats an ethical gray area but i digress.
Hope you understand the point now.
 
Trump ally and election conspiracy theorist ordered to pay $US 5 million

https://www.weny.com/story/48755544...lion-to-expert-who-debunked-his-election-data


My Pillow CEO Mike Lindell has been ordered to shell out $5 million to an expert who debunked his data related to the 2020 election, according to a decision by the arbitration panel obtained by CNN.

Lindell, a purveyor of election conspiracies, vowed to award the multimillion-dollar sum to any cyber security expert who could disprove his data. An arbitration panel awarded Robert Zeidman, who has decades in software development experience, a $5 million payout on Wednesday after he sued Lindell over the sum.

"Based on the foregoing analysis, Mr. Zeidman performed under the contract," the arbitration panel wrote in its decision. "He proved the data Lindell LLC provided, and represented reflected information from the November 2020 election, unequivocally did not reflect November 2020 election data. Failure to pay Mr. Zeidman the $5 million prized was a breach of the contract, entitling him to recover."

The decision marks yet another blow to the MyPillow CEO's credibility after he publicly touted unproven claims of widespread fraud in the 2020 presidential election. Lindell has also faced defamation suits related to his election claims.

"The lawsuit and verdict mark another important moment in the ongoing proof that the 2020 election was legal and valid, and the role of cybersecurity in ensuring that integrity," said Brian Glasser, founder of Bailey & Glasser, LLP, who represented Zeidman. "Lindell's claim to have 2020 election data has been definitively disproved."

Lindell convened a so-called "cyber symposium" in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, in 2021, designed to showcase the data he claimed to have obtained related to the 2020 election. He invited journalists, politicians and cybersecurity experts to attend.

"The symposium was to get the big audience and have all the media there and then they -- the cyber guys -- saying yes this data is from the 2020 election and you better look at how they intruded into our machines, our computers, and that was the whole purpose," Lindell said in a deposition obtained by CNN.

He also announced a "Prove Mike Wrong Challenge" -- in which anyone who could prove his data was unrelated to the 2020 election could win the multimillion payout -- to get more traction in the media for his election fraud claims.

"I thought, well what if I put up a $5 million challenge out there, then it would get news, which it did," Lindell said in the deposition. "So, then you got some attention."

Zeidman signed up for the challenge, agreed to its contractual terms and discovered Lindell's data to be largely nonsensical.

While Lindell has made a variety of outlandish and unproven claims about the 2020 election, such as insisting foreign governments infiltrated voting machines, the arbitration panel made clear its judgment was solely focused on whether the data Lindell provided to experts was related to the 2020 election.

"The Contest did not require participants to disprove election interference. Thus, the contestants' task was to prove the data presented to them was not valid data from the November 2020 election," the arbitration panel wrote.

"The Panel was not asked to decide whether China interfered in the 2020 election. Nor was the Panel asked to decide whether Lindell LLC possessed data that proved such interference, or even whether Lindell LLC had election data in its possession," according to the arbitration panel. "The focus of the decision is on the 11 files provided to Mr. Zeidman in the context of the Contest rules."

The panel's decision ticked through each of the data files provided Zeidman, determining repeatedly that the data was unrelated to the 2020 election.

It's unclear when or if Zeidman will ever be able to collect his payout. Lindell recently told right-wing podcaster and former Trump administration official Steve Bannon that his company took out nearly $10 million in loans as he battles defamation suits related to his false election claims.

During his deposition, Lindell said he was never concerned someone might actually win the challenge.

"No, because they have to show it wasn't from 2020 and it was," Lindell said, chuckling.
 
And more...

==

Former President Donald Trump is facing a civil trial over an allegation that he raped an advice columnist nearly three decades ago.

Jury selection is due to begin on Tuesday in a New York federal court.

Mr Trump has denied E Jean Carroll's accusation that he attacked her in a Manhattan department store. He has said she made up the claim for publicity.

Though this is not a criminal case, the consequences for Mr Trump could nevertheless be serious.

If Ms Carroll wins the lawsuit, it would be the first time the former president - who has been the subject of more than two dozen such allegations - would be found legally responsible for a sexual assault.

Mr Trump is facing a wave of other legal troubles, including more than two dozen felony counts over payment of hush money to an adult film actress and an investigation into his alleged role in the US Capitol riot on 6 January 2021.

Mr Trump is also juggling his ongoing bid for the White House next year.

Here's what to expect at the trial.

What are the accusations?

Ms Carroll, 79, says the attack occurred at a Bergdorf Goodman store in Manhattan in late 1995 or early 1996.

The pair had bumped into each other while shopping, she said. Mr Trump then allegedly asked her for advice when buying lingerie for another woman and jokingly asked her to model it for him. But once in the changing rooms, Ms Carroll said the real estate tycoon lunged at her, pinned her against a wall and assaulted her.

Ms Carroll, whose "Ask E. Jean" advice column has appeared in Elle magazine since 1993, claims she managed to push him off after a "colossal struggle".

She did not report the alleged encounter to police, her complaint said, because she "was in shock and did not wish to think of herself as a rape victim".

Two of Ms Carroll's friends, Carol Martin and Lisa Birnbach, have said the writer told them about the alleged incident within days. Ms Martin and Ms Birchbach are on the list of witnesses that Ms Carroll may call to testify.

What has Trump said?
Mr Trump has issued multiple denials in the years since Ms Carroll came forward with her allegations in 2019.

He has described her claims as a "complete con job" on his social media platform Truth Social, saying the alleged rape "never happened". And during an October deposition for the case, Mr Trump repeated his denials, adding that his accuser is "not my type".

It is so far unclear if Mr Trump will make an appearance during the trial, which is expected to last up to two weeks.

He is not required to attend and Ms Carroll's lawyers have said they do not plan to call him as a witness.

Lawyers for the accuser plan to play to jurors a recording, known as the Access Hollywood tape, in which Mr Trump is heard boasting about grabbing women's genitals. Lawyers for Ms Carroll also plan to call other women who say they were attacked by Mr Trump to testify at the trial.

Why is it a civil case?

The criminal statute of limitations for this case has long expired.

And typically, the statute of limitations for people to bring civil lawsuits over sexual assault in New York is three years, meaning it too has long lapsed.

But in 2022, New York passed the Adult Survivors Act, which allowed a one-year period for victims to file sexual assault lawsuits in the state over claims that would have otherwise exceeded statute limitations.

Ms Carroll filed her lawsuit against Mr Trump almost immediately after the law took effect.

Before this case, the writer had also sued Mr Trump for defamation after he called her a liar following the publication of her memoir. That lawsuit is currently stalled as courts debate whether there is a legal right to sue ex-presidents.

Who is paying Carroll's legal fees?

Reid Hoffman, co-founder of LinkedIn and a Democratic donor, has helped pay Ms Carroll's legal bills, according to court filings.

Mr Trump's lawyers tried to delay the trial after they learned of Mr Hoffman's role, saying it raised questions about Ms Carroll's motives. The judge dismissed this motion, but allowed lawyers to ask Ms Carroll about the financing.

In a statement, Mr Hoffman defended his support of Ms Carroll, saying he had "never taken any steps to hide the financial support that I have provided to this lawsuit after it started".

"Our courts are a mechanism of justice for all citizens, not just those with enough money and power to rig the game in their favour," he said.

BBC
 
judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed by former US President Donald Trump against the New York Times.

The $100m (£79m) lawsuit accused the newspaper and Mr Trump's estranged niece, Mary Trump, of "an insidious plot" to obtain his tax records.

It was filed in 2021 and relates to a Pulitzer Prize-winning series on Mr Trump's financial affairs.

On Wednesday, Judge Robert Reed said the claims in the lawsuit "fail as a matter of constitutional law".

"Courts have long recognised that reporters are entitled to engage in legal and ordinary newsgathering activities... as these actions are at the very core of protected First Amendment activity," he wrote in his ruling.

The judge, a Democrat, also ordered Mr Trump to pay the legal costs for the newspaper and the three reporters listed as defendants.

"The New York Times is pleased with the judge's decision today," a spokesman said. "It is an important precedent reaffirming that the press is protected when it engages in routine newsgathering."

A lawyer for Mr Trump, quoted by the Associated Press, said "we will weigh our client's options"
 
Trump declines to testify in New York rape, defamation trial
Writer E Jean Carroll has accused former US president of assaulting her at a Manhattan department store in 1996.

Former President Donald Trump has rejected his last chance to testify at a civil trial where a longtime advice columnist has accused him of raping her in a luxury department store dressing room in 1996.

Trump, a Republican candidate for president in 2024, was given until 5pm local time (21:00 GMT) Sunday by US District Judge Lewis A Kaplan to file a request to testify. Nothing was filed.

It was not a surprise. Trump has not shown up once during the two-week New York City trial where writer E Jean Carroll testified for several days, repeating claims she first made publicly in a 2019 memoir. She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages totalling millions of dollars.

The jury has also watched lengthy excerpts from an October videotaped deposition in which Trump vehemently denied raping Carroll or ever really knowing her.

Without Trump’s testimony, lawyers were scheduled to make closing arguments Monday, with deliberations likely to begin on Tuesday.

After plaintiffs rested their case Thursday, Trump lawyer Joe Tacopina immediately rested the defence case as well without calling any witnesses. He did not request additional time for Trump to decide to testify. Tacopina declined to comment to the Associated Press news agency after the deadline passed Sunday.

...
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/5/8/trump-declines-to-testify-in-new-york-rape-defamation-trial
 
Durham report: FBI criticised by special counsel for Trump-Russia inquiry

A long-awaited report has strongly criticised the FBI's handling of its investigation into alleged ties between Russia and the 2016 Trump campaign.

In a 306-page report, special counsel John Durham said the agency's inquiry had lacked "analytical rigor".

He concluded the FBI had not possessed "actual evidence" of collusion between Donald Trump's campaign and Russia before launching an inquiry.

The FBI said it had addressed the issues highlighted in the report.

In the report, Mr Durham - who was appointed by then-Attorney General William Barr in 2019 - accused the FBI of acting on "raw, unanalysed and uncorroborated intelligence".

Among the investigative mistakes it made were repeated instances of "confirmation bias", in which it ignored information that undercut the initial premise of the investigation.

The report noted significant differences in the way the FBI had handled the Trump investigation when compared with other potentially sensitive inquiries, such as those involving his 2016 electoral rival Hillary Clinton.

Mr Durham noted that Mrs Clinton and others had received "defensive briefings" from the FBI aimed at "those who may be the targets of nefarious activities by foreign powers". Mr Trump had not.

"The Department [of Justice] and the FBI failed to uphold their important mission of strict fidelity to the law," the report concluded.

...
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65602909
 
I don't think this will help Trump politically but it does show how much people got caught up in the campaign to discredit Trump. Some people could not see through the muddied waters and they were consumed by the orchestrated media witch-hunt and developed a hatred towards Trump and anyone that did not conform to the hate Trump campaign. Many neutral voters were attacked and demonized because they could see through the witch-hunt and how could they then support the very group that was attacking them.

The left did not run a campaign to vote for them, it was more of if you vote for Trump you are racist, homophobic, white supremacist, Russian sympathizer and many other derogatory names.

A lot of introspection for a lot of people, but I don't hold much hope.
 
I saw an interview of Trump where he spoke about the sexual abuse charge.

He says he didn't do anything and I 100% believe him.
 
DeadlyVenom said:
I saw an interview of Trump where he spoke about the sexual abuse charge.

He says he didn't do anything and I 100% believe him.
Click to expand...

That was another political hit job. They had no date or time of the incident. How can a person defend themselves if they can't prove they were not there, what if he was out of the country when the incident happened. If he was guilty then yes but it was not proven that he was guilty, that was a miscarriage of justice.
 
@Technic 1210

Did you watch the Trump live intervew with CNN? :))

Trump destroys the interviewer.

Different kettle of fish but the attacks on IK and Trump have some earie similarities. Both men are different, have different views but both are against the establishment , so now are being attacked.
 
KingKhanWC said:
@Technic 1210

Did you watch the Trump live intervew with CNN? :))

Trump destroys the interviewer.

Different kettle of fish but the attacks on IK and Trump have some earie similarities. Both men are different, have different views but both are against the establishment , so now are being attacked.
Click to expand...

Yup! My favourite part was when Trump pulled out the list of Tweets that totally destroyed the narrative and agenda of the CNN host!

IK and Trump both stand against the establishment, and the establishment uses every single tricks, from lies, to setups, media attacks/blackouts, to bring these men down.

Trumpism isn't going anywhere, and neither is IK, their views and vision will last for generations to come.
 
Technics 1210 said:
Yup! My favourite part was when Trump pulled out the list of Tweets that totally destroyed the narrative and agenda of the CNN host!

IK and Trump both stand against the establishment, and the establishment uses every single tricks, from lies, to setups, media attacks/blackouts, to bring these men down.

Trumpism isn't going anywhere, and neither is IK, their views and vision will last for generations to come.
Click to expand...

Both also have the popular support.

My favourite bit was the story he told of the fake woman claiming he raped her. Classic :))
 
Donald Trump charged with illegal retention of classified documents
Ex-president is being prosecuted for violating Espionage Act and obstruction over documents held at Mar-a-Lago and has been summoned to court next week

Federal prosecutors have charged Donald Trump over his retention of national security documents and obstructing the government’s efforts to retrieve them, according to people familiar with the matter, a historic development that poses the most significant legal peril yet for the former president.

The exact nature of the seven-count indictment, filed in federal district court in Miami, is unclear because it remains under seal and the justice department had no immediate comment.

Trump confirmed the indictment on his Truth Social social media platform on Thursday afternoon, shortly after his lawyers received an email from prosecutors in the office of special counsel Jack Smith that outlined the charges and summoned the former president to surrender himself to authorities in Miami next Tuesday.

The charges listed in the summons included: wilful retention of national defense information, conspiracy to obstruct justice, withholding a document, corruptly concealing a document, concealing a document in a federal investigation, engaging in a scheme to conceal and false statements, people familiar with the matter said.

From his Bedminster golf club in New Jersey, Trump lashed out at the indictment in a series of posts on Truth Social. “I never thought it possible that such a thing could happen to a former President of the United States,” Trump said, adding: “I AM AN INNOCENT MAN!”

...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/08/donald-trump-charged-retention-classified-documents
 
daytrader said:
Donald Trump charged with illegal retention of classified documents
Ex-president is being prosecuted for violating Espionage Act and obstruction over documents held at Mar-a-Lago and has been summoned to court next week

Federal prosecutors have charged Donald Trump over his retention of national security documents and obstructing the government’s efforts to retrieve them, according to people familiar with the matter, a historic development that poses the most significant legal peril yet for the former president.

The exact nature of the seven-count indictment, filed in federal district court in Miami, is unclear because it remains under seal and the justice department had no immediate comment.

Trump confirmed the indictment on his Truth Social social media platform on Thursday afternoon, shortly after his lawyers received an email from prosecutors in the office of special counsel Jack Smith that outlined the charges and summoned the former president to surrender himself to authorities in Miami next Tuesday.

The charges listed in the summons included: wilful retention of national defense information, conspiracy to obstruct justice, withholding a document, corruptly concealing a document, concealing a document in a federal investigation, engaging in a scheme to conceal and false statements, people familiar with the matter said.

From his Bedminster golf club in New Jersey, Trump lashed out at the indictment in a series of posts on Truth Social. “I never thought it possible that such a thing could happen to a former President of the United States,” Trump said, adding: “I AM AN INNOCENT MAN!”

...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/08/donald-trump-charged-retention-classified-documents
Click to expand...

We also know documents were found in Bidens garage, home and offices so it will be interesting to see how they handle that.
 
Former President Donald Trump has been charged with mishandling hundreds of classified documents, including about US nuclear secrets and military plans.

The 37-count indictment accuses him of keeping the files at his Florida estate, including in a ballroom and a shower, and lying to investigators.

It alleges he then tried to obstruct the investigation into the handling of the documents.

Mr Trump, who is running for president again in 2024, denies any wrongdoing.

But legal experts say that the criminal charges against Mr Trump could lead to substantial prison time if he is convicted.

Could Donald Trump go to prison over secret files?

Charges have also been filed against Walt Nauta, a personal aide to Mr Trump. The former White House military valet is accused of moving files to hide them from the FBI.

The 49-page indictment contains the first-ever federal charges against a former US president. It says the classified documents Mr Trump stored in his boxes contained information about:

United States nuclear programmes
Defence and weapons capabilities of both the United States and foreign countries
Potential vulnerabilities of the United States and its allies to military attack
Plans for possible retaliation in response to a foreign attack
Prosecutors say that when Mr Trump left office, he took about 300 classified files to Mar-a-Lago - his oceanfront home in Palm Beach, which is also an expansive private members' club.

The charge sheet notes that Mar-a-Lago hosted events for tens of thousands of members and guests, including in a ballroom where documents were found.

Prosecutors say Mr Trump tried to obstruct the FBI inquiry into the missing documents by suggesting that his lawyer "hide or destroy" them, or tell investigators he did not have them.

"Wouldn't it be better if we just told them we don't have anything here?" Mr Trump said to one of his attorneys, according to the indictment.

Mr Trump's first court appearance in the case will be in Miami, Florida, on Tuesday - the eve of his 77th birthday.

Mar-a-Lago "was not an authorised location" for classified documents to be kept or discussed, the indictment says.

Some files were allegedly stored on stage in the ballroom, where events and gatherings took place - and later in a bathroom and a shower, an office space, and Mr Trump's bedroom.

On two occasions in 2021, the former president showed classified documents to people without security clearance, including a writer and two members of staff.

At his golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey, which was also an "unauthorised location", he is said to have displayed and described a "plan of attack" that he told others had been prepared for him by the Department of Defense.

"As president I could have declassified it. Now I can't, you know, but this is still a secret," Mr Trump allegedly said, according to an audio recording.

Prosecutors say Mr Trump then showed off classified documents again in August or September 2021 at the Bedminster club.

The former US president "showed a representative of his political action committee who did not possess a security clearance a classified map".

This map "related to a military operation" and Mr Trump told the person "he should not be showing it" to them and they "should not get too close".

Special Counsel Jack Smith, who is overseeing the investigation, said on Friday that laws protecting national defence information were critical and must be enforced.

"We have one set of laws in this country, and they apply to everyone," he said in a brief statement in Washington.

In a social media post, Mr Trump blasted Mr Smith as a "deranged lunatic".

"He is a Trump hater - a deranged 'psycho' that shouldn't be involved in any case having to do with 'Justice,'" he wrote on his Truth Social platform.

Mr Trump pointed out that classified files were also found in President Joe Biden's former office and Delaware home, including in his garage.

The White House has previously said it immediately co-operated with officials as soon as those files were discovered, contrasting with Mr Trump's alleged efforts to obstruct investigators.

A federal investigation into Mr Biden's handling of classified documents is being led by Special Counsel Robert Hur and is still under way.

Shortly before the Department of Justice made the criminal charges public, two of Mr Trump's lawyers suddenly quit the case without much explanation, saying this was a "logical moment" to resign.

This is the second criminal case for Mr Trump, who is due to go on trial in New York next year in a state case involving a hush-money payment to a porn star.

BBC
 
Former US President Donald Trump has called the federal indictment against him "ridiculous and baseless" in his first public appearance since the charges were announced.

A 37-count indictment made public on Friday accuses him of keeping sensitive documents at his Mar-a-Lago property.

At two campaign speeches on Saturday, Mr Trump said the indictment amounted to "election interference" by the "corrupt" FBI and justice department.

He has denied any wrongdoing.

Mr Trump has been charged with mishandling hundreds of classified documents, including some about US nuclear secrets and military plans.

The indictment accused him of keeping the files at his Florida estate Mar-a-Lago including in a ballroom and a shower.

He lied to investigators and tried to obstruct their investigation into his handling of the documents, the indictment alleged.

It is the first ever criminal prosecution against a former US president.

Speaking at the first Republican Party convention in Georgia, Mr Trump said: "They're cheating, they're crooked, they're corrupt - these criminals cannot be rewarded, they must be defeated."

He joked that every time he flies over a "blue state" - one controlled by the Democrats - he gets subpoenaed.

Mr Trump, who is running for the White House again in 2024, called the indictment a "hoax" by the "corrupt political establishment", also describing it as a "joke" and a "travesty of justice".

Both speeches - in Georgia and later in North Carolina - went on for more than an hour.

He thanked the "record crowd" as well as "patriots" who had supported his White House bid, and went on to criticise "sinister forces" that were running the country.

"We're going to stand up to the current political establishment … and we're going to finish the job we started, the most successful presidency," he said, a line that led to chants of "USA, USA" breaking out in the crowd.

"I will never yield, I will never be deterred," he said, before turning his attention to the groups he said were plotting against him.

This included Marxists, communists, "environmental extremists", Rinos - Republicans in Name Only - as well as "open border fanatics" and "radical left democrats".

Referencing the indictment, he claimed the highly-sensitive documents should have fallen under the Presidential Records Act, rather than the Espionage Act.

Under the Presidential Records Act, White House records are supposed to go to the National Archives once an administration ends. Regulations require such files to be stored securely.

He also said "gun-toting FBI agents" had raided Mar-a-Lago.

Special counsel Jack Smith, who oversaw the investigation, has denied the charges are politically-motivated, saying: "We have one set of laws in this country, and they apply to everyone."

Laws protecting national defence information were critical and must be enforced, he has said.

How Biden, Trump and Pence secret files cases compare

As momentum starts to build towards the 2024 election, Mr Trump was speaking at a Republican Party convention in Columbus, Georgia, before moving onto another Republican Party event in Greensboro, North Carolina.

He is currently the frontrunner for the 2024 Republican nomination.

His former vice president Mike Pence - who this week was highly critical of his former boss when announcing his own run for the presidency - spoke earlier at the North Carolina event, although the pair are not expected to cross paths.

Georgia is likely to be a key battleground in the race for the White House, and is where Mr Trump narrowly lost to current President Joe Biden in 2020 - it could also be the scene of further legal jeopardy for the former president.

Officials in the state are currently looking into whether Mr Trump broke the law when he asked Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to "find" the exact number of votes he needed to flip the vote in his favour.

bbc
 
‘We’re ready’: Miami police prepared for Trump arraignment
Police chief says department taking Trump court appearance ‘extremely seriously’ and that it can handle crowds of up to 50,000

As court officials set up barricades and police tape around the Miami courthouse where Donald Trump is due to be arraigned on Tuesday afternoon, police officials sought to assure local residents they would safely handle any protests.

“Make no mistake about it, we’re taking this event extremely seriously, and there’s a potential for things to take a turn for the worse,” said the city’s police chief, Manuel Morales, adding “but that’s not the Miami way.

“We’re bringing enough resources to handle crowds, anywhere from 5,000 to 50,000,” he added. “We don’t expect any issues. We’re ready. Ready for it to be over and done.”

Miami’s mayor, Francis Suarez, also said he was confident the city’s police will be able to handle the crowds and any protests if they occur as Trump is due to be booked and brought before a judge on federal criminal charges.

“I have full faith and confidence our police will have the right action plan and resources in place,” Suarez said during the news conference. “We are prepared for what will happen tomorrow.”

Public reaction to Trump’s scheduled arraignment at the Wilkie D Ferguson federal courthouse may be a window into the shifting political character of Miami and Trump’s strong support among Latino Americans.

The Associated Press reported that Alex Otaola, a Cuban-born YouTube personality who is running for Miami-Dade county mayor, has rallied followers to show up in support of the former president.

“Those of us who believe that America’s salvation only comes if Donald Trump is elected for a second term, we will gather on Tuesday,” Otaola said in a YouTube clip.

Trump left Bedminster, New Jersey, where he had played golf at his club there over the weekend, on Monday to fly into Miami airport and stay overnight at his Trump National Doral Miami golf club.

...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/12/miami-police-trump-arraignment
 
Lol. He has his faults but atleast he's better than the Mike Pences and the Hillary Clinton's of the world. He's not a Hawk and will pull out of Ukraine
 
Donald Trump has pleaded not guilty to criminal charges alleging he retained classified documents after he left the White House
The former president pleaded not guilty to 37 counts including obstructing the government's efforts to get them back
It's alleged that US government secrets were stored in a shower, bathroom, ballroom and bedroom of his Mar-a-Lago estate
Supporters of the former president have been protesting the indictment outside the Miami court, and the police chief says the force is ready for thousands more to gather
Trump, who is campaigning to win back the White House, says the indictment is "election interference"
Special Counsel Jack Smith, the lead investigator, says he wants a speedy trial and that Trump is innocent until proven guilty
 
An audio recording in which Donald Trump appears to acknowledge keeping a classified document after leaving the White House has been obtained by US media.

In the recording, the former president is heard riffling through papers and saying: "This is highly confidential."

It was first obtained by CNN, but the BBC's US partner CBS also has the clip.

Mr Trump has pleaded not guilty to federal charges of mishandling sensitive documents.

CNN was the first to publish the roughly two-minute recording, which it said came from a July 2021 meeting at Mr Trump's Bedminster, New Jersey golf club between him and several people working on the memoir of his former chief of staff Mark Meadows.

Mr Trump is heard saying "these are the papers" and referring to a document he calls "highly confidential".

"This was done by the military and given to me," he says. "See as president I could have declassified it. Now I can't, you know, but this is still a secret."

It appears to be the same audio recording cited by federal prosecutors in their indictment of Mr Trump.

It is not clear from the indictment, however, if the documents referenced in the recording were ever recovered by investigators.

Prosecutors allege the former president showed classified documents to people without security clearance on two occasions, including a writer and two members of staff.

Mr Trump is facing 37 counts of illegally retaining classified documents and obstructing the government's efforts to get them back.

He has repeatedly denied wrongdoing.

He has said all the documents he took with him from the White House were declassified, but the published audio recording appears to contradict this.

BBC
 
Nikhil_cric said:
Lol. He has his faults but atleast he's better than the Mike Pences and the Hillary Clinton's of the world. He's not a Hawk and will pull out of Ukraine
Click to expand...

Pretty naive if you think such decisions solely rest with the president. the president in large part is powerless in such big decisions.
 
The judge overseeing Donald Trump's civil fraud trial on Tuesday imposed a gag order - promising sanctions for any violations - on the former U.S. president and others in the case after Trump took to social media to lash out at the judge's top law clerk.

Justice Arthur Engoron of the New York state court in Manhattan told lawyers for Trump and New York Attorney General Letitia James, who brought the fraud case, that such comments aimed at his staff were "unacceptable, inappropriate and will not be tolerated under any circumstances."

Acting during the trial's second day of testimony, the judge forbade both sides from speaking about his staff, and threatened "serious sanctions" if anyone did. The judge did not specify the nature of these sanctions but they could include a finding of contempt of court, which can carry fines and in rare cases jail time.

"Consider this statement a gag order," Engoron added.

James has accused Trump, his two adult sons, the Trump Organization and others of inflating asset values over a decade to secure favorable bank loans and insurance terms, and exaggerating Trump's own riches by more than $2 billion. The trial could lead to the dismantling of Trump's business empire as he seeks to regain the presidency in 2024.


www.reuters.com

Trump hit with gag order after lashing out at court clerk in NY fraud case

The judge overseeing Donald Trump's civil fraud trial on Tuesday imposed a gag order - promising sanctions for any violations - on the former U.S. president and others in the case after Trump took to social media to lash out at the judge's top law clerk.
www.reuters.com www.reuters.com
 
Donald Trump gets gag order in election meddling case

A federal judge has barred Donald Trump from criticising prosecutors, the court and possible witnesses ahead of his trial on election subversion charges.

Because he is running for president, he gets to make threats? Judge Tanya Chutkan asked Mr Trump's lawyers before issuing the so-called gag order.

The ex-president has recently attacked prosecutors as thugs and called one likely witness a gutless pig.

His federal criminal trial in Washington begins in March 2024.

Source: BBC
 

Donald Trump giving evidence at his civil trial in New York after branding it 'very unfair'​


Donald Trump has been warned to avoid 'political' speeches and 'just answer the questions' while giving evidence in his civil fraud trial, with the judge threatening to remove him from the courtroom in a series of tense exchanges.

The former US president is accused of inflating his net worth. He denies any wrongdoing.

Trump briefly appeared in the dock last week and was fined $10,000 (£8,200) for breaching a gag order that barring him from personally attacking court staff in his fraud trial.

After being sworn into the dock and confirming his address, early exchanges included questions about ownership of his Trump Organisation and make up of the board, as well as the appointment of his son Donald Jr to oversee the business.

Trump also told the court he expected to remain in politics beyond 2021.

Inside court, NBC's Adam Weiss said proceedings could get "very tense", adding Trump appeared to be going off on tangents.

At one point, according to NBC, Judge Arthur Engoron asked Trump's legal team to "control" their client, adding "this is not a political rally" and telling the former president: "Please, just answer the questions, no speeches".

Later, Judge Engoron told Trump's lawyer Chris Kise to "control" him, otherwise he will be dismissed from the stand.

When asked by the prosecution if a statement about the valuation of a property on Wall Street was accurate, Trump began to talk about the statute of limitations.

The judge replied: "Mr Kise that was a simple yes or no question. We got another speech. I beseech you to control him if you can. If you can't, I will. I will excuse him and draw every negative inference that I can."

news.sky.com

Donald Trump giving evidence at his civil trial in New York after branding it 'very unfair'

The ex-president's adult son's, Eric and Donald Jr, both gave evidence in Trump's civil trial last week, before he was fined $10,000 (£8,200) for violating a gag order that was in place to stop him from attacking court staff.
news.sky.com news.sky.com
 

Trump testifies: Why ex-president may have deliberately provoked judge​

As he took the stand on Monday in a nondescript New York courtroom, Donald Trump will have locked eyes with Arthur Engoron, the 74-year old judge who holds the future of his real estate empire in his hands.

His family business has already been found liable for fraud, and now the judge, not a jury, must decide whether to impose penalties such as a fine of up to $250m (£202m) and restrictions on his ability to do business in the state.

Despite Judge Engoron's critical role, Mr Trump was combative on the stand. He took direct aim at the judge, leading to some heated exchanges, and drew his rebukes for airing broad grievances when they were not directly relevant to the question.

All of this appeared to irritate the judge who will, ultimately, decide on any penalties.

"It does seem completely counterintuitive. Especially when the judge is going to be the finder of fact and law," Kevin McMunigal, a former federal prosecutor and professor of criminal law at Case Western University, told the BBC.

"There are only two explanations," he said. "One is Trump just can't control himself. Or two: Maybe this is something he has thought out."

So if Mr Trump's team has adopted this antagonistic approach as a deliberate strategy, what could the goal be?

"I think he is trying to goad the judge into doing something he can argue on appeal shows prejudice on his part," Prof McMunigal said. "Maybe he makes a comment they can use to support a bias case later."

Mr Trump's lawyers are widely expected to file an appeal, and his team have also discussed a potential mistrial motion that will seemingly reference communications between the judge and his law clerk who they have accused of bias.

With potential arguments around this in mind, it was notable that Judge Engoron rarely engaged when Mr Trump attacked him directly on Monday.

www.bbc.com

Trump testifies: Why ex-president may have deliberately provoked judge

The ex-president's testimony frustrated the judge, who will decide on the penalties in his fraud trial.
www.bbc.com
 
New York appeals court reinstates gag order against Donald Trump in civil fraud trial

A New York appellate court has reinstated a gag order prohibiting former President Donald Trump and attorneys from making public statements about the courtroom staff in the ongoing $250 million civil fraud trial.

Judge Arthur Engoron originally issued the order barring Trump from making public statements about his court’s staff after Trump made numerous comments about a clerk, who Trump says is biased against him.

Hundreds of threats against Engoron and the law clerk were made public last week. Engoron’s clerk has received 20 to 30 calls per day to her personal cell phone and 30 to 50 messages daily on social media platforms and two personal email addresses, according to court papers.

“Now, upon reading and filing the papers with respect to the motion, and due deliberation having been had thereon, It is ordered that the motion is denied; the interim relief granted by order of a Justice of this Court, dated November 16, 2023, is hereby vacated,” the latest appellate ruling says.

The appeals court paused the gag order earlier this month, but on Thursday said it should be restored while the official appeal is pending.

During a break in the trial Thursday morning, Engoron announced the appeals court ruling reinstating the gag order.

“I intend to enforce the gag orders rigorously and vigorously. I want to make sure that counsel informs their clients of the fact that the stay was vacated,” the judge said.

“It is a tragic day for the rule of law, but we’re aware,” Trump’s attorney Chris Kise said.

“It is what it is,” Engoron responded.

The $250 million lawsuit was brought by the New York attorney general’s office and alleges that Trump and his co-defendants committed repeated fraud in inflating assets on financial statements to get better terms on commercial real estate loans and insurance policies. Engoron already ruled the former president is liable for fraud and he’s considering how much the Trumps will have to pay in damages.

Trump had urged the appeals court on Monday to continue to block the gag order, saying that threats to the judge and his law clerk do not “justify” limiting the former president’s constitutional right to defend himself.

Trump has posted repeatedly on Truth Social about Engoron’s clerk, originally last month claiming she was a “girlfriend” to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, and showing a picture of the two of them together.

“How disgraceful!” Trump wrote. “This case should be dismissed immediately.”

Trump also went after the clerk in his comments outside the courtroom, though he didn’t mention her by name.

“And this rogue judge, a Trump hater. The only one that hates Trump more is his associate up there,” Trump said. “The person that works with him. She’s screaming into his ear almost every time we ask a question. A disgrace. It’s a disgrace.”

Engoron has fined Trump twice for a total of $15,000 for violating the gag order.



 
Trump says he will no longer give evidence at New York fraud trial

Donald Trump has said he will no longer give evidence at his New York civil fraud trial.

The former US president had been expected to return to the witness stand on Monday.

He was due to be the last big defence witness in the case, which threatens his real estate empire.

Posting on social media, Trump said he "VERY SUCCESSFULLY & CONCLUSIVELY" testified last month and saw no need to appear again.

In the posts, written in capital letters, he said he "nothing more to say".

He went on to repeat his claim that the case was a "witch hunt" aimed at hindering his bid to retake the White House.

Trump is accused of inflating his net worth to secure loans and insurance policies on more favourable terms. He denies any wrongdoing.



news.sky.com

Trump says he will no longer give evidence at New York fraud trial

Donald Trump has said he will no longer give evidence at his New York civil fraud trial.
news.sky.com news.sky.com
 
After 40 witnesses and 43 days of testimony, here’s what we learned at Trump’s civil fraud trial

After hearing from 40 witnesses over 2½ months, Judge Arthur Engoron sounded almost wistful as he presided over the last day of testimony in Donald Trump’s civil business fraud trial.

“In a strange way, I’m gonna miss this trial,” he said Wednesday.

Things aren’t over yet in the case, in which New York Attorney General Letitia James has accused Trump of inflating his wealth on financial statements used to secure loans and make deals.

Closing arguments are scheduled for early January. The judge has already ruled that Trump is liable for making fraudulent statements, but other claims and a potential final penalty still need to be decided. Trump denies any wrongdoing. He says the financial documents actually understated his net worth and came with caveats that should shield him from liability.

The trial also gave a glimpse of Trump’s political and legal strategies as his court and campaign calendars increasingly overlap. The first of his four criminal trials is scheduled for March.

One thing is clear: So far, Trump’s legal woes aren’t denting his standing in the Republican presidential race. He remains the front-runner by a wide margin in national and early-state polls. In fact, his lead is stronger than it was before his first criminal indictment in March.



apnews.com

After 40 witnesses and 43 days of testimony, here's what we learned at Trump’s civil fraud trial

Donald Trump's civil business fraud trial has offered fresh insight into the former president's finances, his dealings with lenders and his aspiration to be an NFL owner, among other matters.
apnews.com apnews.com
 
Trump’s lawyers want special counsel Jack Smith held in contempt in 2020 election interference case

Lawyers for former President Donald Trump on Thursday pressed to have special counsel Jack Smith’s team held in contempt, saying the prosecutors had taken steps to advance the 2020 election interference case against him in violation of a judge’s order last month that temporarily put the case on hold.

Citing “outrageous conduct,” the Republican presidential candidate’s attorneys told U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan in Washington, D.C., that she should consider holding Smith and two of his prosecutors in contempt for turning over to the defense thousands of pages of evidence and an exhibit list while the case was paused and for filing more than a week later a motion that they said “teems with partisan rhetoric” and “false claims.”

“In this manner, the prosecutors seek to weaponize the Stay to spread political propaganda, knowing that President Trump would not fully respond because the Court relieved him of the burdens of litigation during the Stay,” the lawyers wrote. “Worse, the prosecutors have announced their intention to continue this partisan-driven misconduct indefinitely, effectively converting this Court’s docket into an arm of the Biden Campaign.”

A spokesman for Smith declined to comment on the motion. The motion says that Trump’s lawyers have conferred with prosecutors, who object to the sanctions request.



apnews.com

Trump's lawyers want special counsel Jack Smith held in contempt in 2020 election interference case

Donald Trump's lawyers are pressing to have special counsel Jack Smith’s team held in contempt. The Republican former president's lawyers said Thursday prosecutors have taken steps to advance the 2020 election interference case against him in violation of a judge’s order that put the case on hold.
apnews.com apnews.com
 
NY AG Letitia James raises the stakes in Donald Trump fraud trial, asks judge for $370 million in damages

New York Attorney General Letitia James raised the stakes in her legal fight with former President Donald Trump, urging a judge Friday to force him, his two eldest sons and his namesake corporation to pay $370 million for alleged “outrageous” business fraud.

James initially sought $250 million from Trump and the company that was found to have falsely inflated property values of his real estate empire in order to gain benefits in borrowing and insurance. But the figure grew as additional buildings and valuations were revealed during the 44-day trial to determine damages.

“The conclusion that defendants intended to defraud when preparing and certifying Trump’s (financial statements) is inescapable; the myriad deceptive schemes they employed to inflate asset values and conceal facts were so outrageous that they belie innocent explanation,” James wrote in her filing.

The filing came in anticipation of closing arguments Jan. 11 in the civil fraud trial.

The judge, Arthur Engoron, ruled in September that Trump, his sons Don Jr. and Eric, and the company were liable for fraud and ordered the cancelation on their certificates to do business in New York State. But that punishment was put on hold while the case is appealed.



www.usatoday.com

NY AG Letitia James raises the stakes in Donald Trump fraud trial, asks judge for $370 million in damages

New York Attorney General Letitia James boosted the damages in her civil fraud case against Donald Trump to $370 million.
www.usatoday.com www.usatoday.com
 

Supreme Court to rule if Trump can run for president​

The US Supreme Court says it will hear a historic case to determine whether Donald Trump can run for president.

The justices agreed to take up Mr Trump's appeal against a decision by Colorado to remove him from the 2024 ballot in that state.

The case will be heard in February and the ruling will apply nationwide.

Lawsuits in a number of states are seeking to disqualify Mr Trump, arguing that he engaged in insurrection during the US Capitol riot three years ago.

The legal challenges hinge on whether a Civil War-era constitutional amendment renders Mr Trump ineligible to stand as a candidate.

The Supreme Court's decision to hear Mr Trump's appeal came after attorneys general from 27 states filed a brief asking the court to reject Colorado's ruling.

In it, they argue that removing Mr Trump from the ballot would "create widespread chaos".

"Most obviously, it casts confusion into an election cycle that is just weeks away," reads the submission.

"Beyond that, it upsets the respective roles of the Congress, the States, and the courts."

The 14th Amendment of the US Constitution bans anyone who has "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" from holding federal office, but the former president's lawyers argue it does not apply to the president.

His lawyers have argued: "The Colorado Supreme Court decision would unconstitutionally disenfranchise millions of voters in Colorado and likely be used as a template to disenfranchise tens of millions of voters nationwide."

Mr Trump has also appealed against a decision by electoral officials in Maine to remove him from the ballot.

Following the Supreme Court's announcement on Friday, Colorado's Secretary of State Jena Griswold said she had certified the state's ballots for the upcoming presidential primary elections and that Mr Trump's name was on them.

The primary ballots, held in each state, will help to determine which presidential candidates run in November's election.

Colorado's is set for the beginning of March - soon after the Supreme Court decision on Mr Trump's case is expected.

"The United States Supreme Court has accepted the case, and Donald Trump will appear on the ballot as a result," Ms Griswold said in a statement.

The split 4-3 decision by Colorado's high court last month marks the first time in US history that the 14th Amendment has been used to disqualify a presidential candidate from the ballot.

This is the first time the Supreme Court will consider how to interpret the clause.

Mr Trump is the current Republican front-runner for a likely rematch against President Joe Biden, a Democrat, in this November's election.

Courts in Minnesota and Michigan have dismissed attempts to disqualify Mr Trump. Other cases, including in Oregon, are pending.

The US Supreme Court has a conservative majority - with three justices appointed by Mr Trump when he was president.

But they overwhelmingly ruled against him in his lawsuits challenging his defeat to Mr Biden in 2020.

The court on Friday agreed to take up the case in an expedited manner, with oral arguments scheduled for 8 February.

Mr Trump's legal team is due to file their opening brief by 18 January.

The group arguing for Mr Trump's disqualification must submit its argument by 31 January.

The involvement of the top US court has drawn comparisons to the 2000 presidential election between George Bush and Al Gore, which ended in a lawsuit at the Supreme Court.

The conservative-majority court's decision to halt Florida's vote recount essentially handed victory to Mr Bush.

University of Richmond Professor Cart Tobias says the "exceptionally fast track" was "predictable and necessitated by the growing number of cases being filed in various states around the country".

With state primary elections fast approaching, there is a "compelling need for election officials in many states to prepare" and also they "need for time to plan and execute smooth voting processes on short notice".

Cases at the Supreme Court normally take between four and 12 months - in contrast with the few weeks that justices have currently scheduled.

The timeline makes it likely that the court will issue a ruling ahead of the Super Tuesday primary election in March, when Colorado and many other states hold their election to decide on each party's candidate for president.

On the day of the US Capitol riot, supporters of Mr Trump stormed Congress as lawmakers were certifying Mr Biden's election victory.

That day the then-president held a rally outside the White House where he repeated false claims of mass election fraud as he urged protesters to "fight like hell", but also to march "peacefully" to the Capitol.

Mr Trump's critics argue that he should be disqualified not only for his actions during the riot, but for his and his campaign's efforts to overturn the election result in Republican-aligned states that he lost.

While Mr Trump's alleged efforts to subvert the outcome of the 2020 presidential election are the focus of trials in federal court and a state court in Georgia, he has not been criminally charged with inciting insurrection in either case.

Source: BBC
 
It seems unlikely that he will be contesting in this year's elections. Even if he competes, I don't think he would be winnings them with all the controversies he had during this time as the president of the United States.
 

Trump hearing: Judges sceptical as ex-president presents immunity defence​

Judges expressed scepticism on Tuesday, as lawyers for Donald Trump presented a landmark case that ex-presidents should get immunity from criminal prosecution.

Mr Trump's lawyers claimed his time in office protects him from charges connected to his alleged effort to overturn the 2020 election.

The justice department argued the presidency was not "above the law".

Mr Trump, the frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination, left the Iowa campaign trail to attend.

His motorcade slipped in and out of the Washington DC courthouse through a back garage and Mr Trump sat silently with his lawyers through the 75-minute hearing.

Speaking afterward from a local hotel, he said his side was "doing very well" in the case and claimed he was facing political persecution from the Biden administration.

The 77-year-old is accused by special counsel Jack Smith of trying to overturn President Joe Biden's election victory in 2020.

The former president maintains that he should not face criminal charges because he was acting as president at the time. He has for years cited presidential immunity in his efforts to thwart civil and criminal cases brought against him.

This case, which will likely make its way to the US Supreme Court after this court's ruling, could have a profound effect on the future of the American presidency and what is allowable by an individual who holds the office.

It may also delay Mr Trump's criminal trial for weeks, if not months, during a fractious 2024 political campaign in which the former real estate mogul is a leading contender.

As soon as the case began, the three judges on the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit - Karen Henderson, J Michelle Childs and Florence Pan - asked probing questions about the implications of their decision.

Judge Pan, a Biden appointee, was particularly sceptical. She asked Mr Trump's attorney, Dean John Sauer, whether he would contend that a president could order Navy SEALs - the elite US special forces - to assassinate a political rival, sell presidential pardons and state secrets or - in essence - act without being concerned with criminal prosecution.

Mr Sauer's argument boiled down to the idea that a president who is not convicted for impeachment by Congress cannot be subject to criminal proceedings. Mr Trump, he noted, was impeached but never convicted by the US Senate.

But James Pearce, the government's attorney, said such a precedent could easily be short-circuited and undermine Congress and any potential criminal proceedings. All a sitting president would have to do is resign before the legislature is able to begin impeachment proceedings to avoid prosecution, he said.

"What kind of world are we living in if... a president orders his SEAL team to assassinate a political rival and resigns, for example, before an impeachment - not a criminal act," he said.

"A president sells a pardon, resigns or is not impeached? Not a crime," Mr Pearce added. "I think that is an extraordinarily frightening future."

More widely, Mr Sauer also contended that prosecuting a president for his actions in office could paralyse government, particularly the executive branch. He claimed that authorising "the prosecution of a president for his official acts would open a Pandora's Box from which the nation may never recover".

He posed the hypotheticals that George W Bush could be prosecuted for "giving false information to Congress" to make the case for the invasion of Iraq, and that Barack Obama could face charges "for allegedly authorising drone strikes targeting US citizens located abroad".

While the judges seemed open to the government's arguments, they also expressed concern that their decision could lead to the "Pandora's Box" raised by Mr Trump's attorneys.

Worried a broad ruling could create an opportunity for individuals to unnecessarily prosecute a future rival in the White House, Judges Henderson and Childs both asked how they might issue a ruling that would not "open the floodgates" to "***-for-tat" prosecutions.

How they might narrow their decision is not immediately clear, however.

The decision made with regard to Mr Trump's appeal will decide how a major American trial will continue and could have major implications for the office of the presidency.

The immunity defence has already been rejected by US District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan in December, who ruled that having served as president does not entitle one to a "lifelong 'get-out-of-jail-free' pass".

In legal filings ahead of this hearing, Mr Smith, the special counsel, warned that a failure to allow Mr Trump to be prosecuted "threatens to license presidents to commit crimes to remain in office".

In a fundraising email on Wednesday, Mr Trump said President Biden and Mr Smith were "attempting to strip" him of his rights.

A poll by CBS News suggests most Americans believe Mr Trump should not be protected from prosecution for actions he took while president.

The criminal trial in this election fraud case is scheduled for 4 March, but is on hold pending a ruling on the immunity claim.

The trio of judges on the DC appeals court comprise two judges appointed by Democratic presidents and one by a Republican, and is expected to deny Mr Trump's appeal.

Whichever way the judges rule, the case is widely expected to end up in the US Supreme Court, where conservatives hold a 6-3 majority.

Source: BBC
 
Trump cannot deliver closing arguments at NY fraud trial, judge says

Donald Trump cannot personally deliver a closing argument in his civil fraud trial, a New York judge said Wednesday after the former U.S. president's attorneys did not agree to conditions that would prevent him from delivering a “campaign speech.”

The development comes a day before closing arguments in a case brought by New York’s attorney general that accuses Trump of inflating his net worth by billions of dollars to secure better loan terms.

Justice Arthur Engoron initially agreed to let Trump speak but reversed course after his lawyers did not agree to strict limits on what he could say, according to an email chain filed on the court's docket.

“He may not deliver a campaign speech, and he may not impugn myself, my staff, plaintiff, plaintiff’s staff, or the New York State Court System, none of which is relevant to this case,” Engoron said.

Trump’s lawyer Chris Kise objected but did not agree to the terms by Engoron’s noon Wednesday deadline, the filing shows.

“Is anyone surprised anymore?” another Trump lawyer, Alina Habba, said in a statement.

New York Attorney General Letitia James, an elected Democrat, is seeking nearly $370 million in damages from Trump, 10 of his companies and his two adult sons, Donald Jr. and Eric Trump. Engoron found Trump liable for fraud in September, leaving the trial to focus largely on damages.



 
Trump tangles with judge as NY civil fraud trial nears its end

Donald Trump on Thursday accused the New York judge in his civil fraud trial of "having your own agenda" - and the judge told his lawyer to control his client - as a months-long case that could hobble the former U.S. president's business empire neared its end.

During a contentious final day of the trial in Manhattan, Trump once again tangled with Justice Arthur Engoron, who is considering what penalties to impose after earlier finding that Trump's company inflated his net worth to win better financing terms.

"You have your own agenda. I understand that you can't listen for more than one minute," Trump said in court, as he denied wrongdoing and repeated claims of political persecution.

Trump's legal team and the office of New York Attorney General Letitia James made closing arguments in a case accusing him of inflating his net worth to dupe banks. Kevin Wallace, a lawyer from her office, said Trump's company issued false financial statements every year between 2011 and 2021.

"Fraud was central to the operation of the Trump Organization's activities," Wallace told the judge.

Trump and Engoron have clashed repeatedly over the course of the trial. Engoron, who earlier on Thursday had faced a security threat at his suburban home, did not appear to be impressed with Trump's argument.

"Please control your client," the judge told Trump's lawyer, Christopher Kise.

Engoron had earlier reacted skeptically to Kise's argument that Trump should not be penalized for allegedly manipulating the value of his properties because lenders and insurers that did business with him still turned a profit.

"There does not have to be any evidence of harm," Engoron said.

Engoron also said he did not find a defense witness to be credible.

New York Attorney General Letitia James, who brought the case, is seeking nearly $370 million and a lifetime ban on Trump from the state's real-estate industry.

Trump is the frontrunner for the Republican nomination to challenge Democratic President Joe Biden in the November election.

Shortly before Trump's legal team concluded its arguments, Alina Habba, another of his lawyers, pointed out that James pledged to scrutinize Trump's business practices while she was campaigning for office as a Democrat. Engoron said that was not relevant to the case.

The trial's closing arguments took place in an atmosphere of heightened security after media outlets reported a bomb threat at Engoron's suburban home. The judge has been a frequent target of Trump's criticism.



Reuters
 

Trump’s novel take on January 6: calling convicted rioters ‘hostages’​

Supporters of Donald Trump have long been forced to suspend their belief in reality: expected to believe, against all evidence to the contrary, that the one-term president won the 2020 election, hasn’t committed any crimes and is a successful businessman.

But as another tight presidential election looms, the recent efforts by Donald Trump to reimagine the people imprisoned for their role in the January 6 insurrection as “hostages”, and to downplay the horrors of that day as a peaceful protest, could have serious ramifications fordemocracy and his own party, onlookers have warned.

Trump, who has been charged with four federal crimes in relation to the riot at the Capitol in 2021, has repeatedly sought to whitewash the event. But in recent days – and backed up by Elise Stefanik, one of the most powerful Republicans in the House – he has used the term “hostages” prominently as a description of the hundreds of people prosecuted and jailed for their actions attacking the US Capitol.

Source : The Guardian
www.theguardian.com

Trump’s novel take on January 6: calling convicted rioters ‘hostages’

Attempt by far right, led by ex-president and Elise Stefanik, to whitewash political violence troubles onlookers in election year
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 

Trump returns to court for new E Jean Carroll trial – and it could prove costly​

After the former US president last week faced the prospect of a $370m fine and potential collapse of his real estate empire in New York state court, he will now contend with yet another costly legal battle in Manhattan: a defamation case brought by a woman who, according to a jury of her peers, was sexually abused by him.

On Tuesday, Trump will once again be on trial over the former Elle writer E Jean Carroll’s sexual assault claims against him – his second such proceeding in less than a year.

Major blow to Trump as judge limits second E Jean Carroll trial to damages
This trial – which comes as Trump also deals with a host of criminal cases against him – will play out at Manhattan federal court, just hundreds of feet away from the courthouse where the team of the New York attorney general, Letitia James, argued that he committed massive civil fraud.

I never met this person in my life. She is trying to sell a new book – that should indicate her motivation. It should be sold in the fiction section.” He also heaped further insults on her and accused her of being part of a political conspiracy.

Carroll sued Trump in 2019 over these statements, saying that Trump’s denials damaged her reputation. At the time, Carroll could not sue Trump over her claim of sexual assault, as this was beyond the statute of limitations.

In 2022, however, New York state’s Adult Survivors Act – which, for a one-year period, permitted adult survivors of sexual misconduct to file civil suits against their alleged abusers – allowed Carroll to sue Trump again, this time over the claimed assault. That lawsuit, which also included defamation claims for statements Trump made after he was no longer president, went to trial in April 2023.

“I’m here because Donald Trump raped me and when I wrote about it, he said it didn’t happen. He lied and shattered my reputation. I’m here to try to get my life back,” Carroll said in harrowing court testimony.

Carroll won that lawsuit: after just three hours of deliberations, jurors found Trump liable of sexual assault and defamation, awarding her $5m.

Trump’s upcoming trial will not relitigate Carroll’s claim of sexual assault. On 9 January, Judge Lewis Kaplan ruled that Trump cannot deny the sexual assault, pointing to a jury’s previous finding.

/ The Guardian
 

Donald Trump in court for second defamation trial after Iowa victory​

NEW YORK, Jan 16 (Reuters) - Fresh off a campaign victory in Iowa, Donald Trump sat in a New York courtroom on Tuesday to defend himself for a second time against charges that he defamed writer E. Jean Carroll after she accused him of raping her decades ago.

Trump watched from the defendant's table as a nine-person jury was chosen for a civil case that will put allegations of misconduct back in the headlines while he pursues the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. Opening arguments were expected later in the afternoon.

Trump sat two tables behind Carroll, who is accusing Trump of defaming her in 2019 by denying he had attacked her in a Bergdorf Goodman department store dressing room in Manhattan. Carroll, 80, is seeking at least $10 million in damages.

U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan told prospective jurors they would only have to consider how much Trump should pay Carroll in damages, not whether the alleged assault took place or whether Trump lied about it afterward. He said the trial is expected to last three to five days.

Trump, 77, has said he wants to testify at the civil trial.

He could spend much of this year shuttling between campaign rallies and courtrooms, as he seeks to win the Republican presidential nomination for 2024.

He won the first state contest in Iowa on Monday by a wide margin, and opinion polls show him leading in the next contest in New Hampshire a week from today.

Trump has pleaded not guilty in four criminal cases that could potentially land him in prison before the November presidential election, including two that accuse him of trying to overturn his 2020 loss to Democrat Joe Biden. He also is a defendant in at least two other civil cases.

Trump has cast himself as the victim of political persecution. On Tuesday, he said Kaplan should dismiss the case.

"Judge Kaplan should put this whole corrupt, Crooked Joe Biden-directed Election Interference attack on me immediately to rest," he posted on social media. "He should do it for America."

SECOND TRIAL

Trump's high profile was apparent as prospective jurors were screened for the case. Many acknowledged they were familiar with Trump's various legal troubles, though none said they knew the details of the first defamation trial.

Many said they had backed Democratic candidates in previous elections, reflecting the New York City area's left-leaning tilt, and one said she had volunteered for Biden's 2020 campaign.

Two others said they believed Trump's false claims that the election had been stolen from him. One said she used to work for his daughter Ivanka. They were not chosen for the jury.

Jurors' identities are being kept confidential.

Trump has already lost one defamation case against Carroll.

A jury last May ordered Trump to pay the former Elle magazine columnist $5 million for having sexually abused her during the encounter, and defaming her in 2022 by denying that it happened. Trump skipped that trial.

Kaplan, who has overseen both cases, has barred Trump from arguing that he did not defame or sexually assault Carroll or that she made up her account.

In both cases, Trump has said he did not know Carroll and that she invented their encounter to sell her memoir.

Trump is appealing the $5 million award, and could appeal any award at the second trial. Appeals could take years.

NEW ATTACKS

In recent weeks, Trump has escalated his attacks on Carroll, including a false accusation on social media this weekend that she did not know the decade of their encounter.

He also called Kaplan "terrible, biased, irrationally angry," echoing attacks he has made on judges overseeing some of his other cases.

Trump may face an uphill fight to escape significant additional damages because of Kaplan's pre-trial rulings.

These include banning Trump from suggesting he did not rape Carroll, as New York's penal law defines the term, because the first jury did not find that Trump committed rape.

Kaplan has ruled that because Trump used his fingers in the assault, Carroll's rape claim was "substantially true."

Trump also cannot discuss DNA evidence or Carroll's sexual activities, or suggest that Democrats are bankrolling her case.

Carroll is a Democrat.

And as at the first trial, jurors will be able to see the 2005 "Access Hollywood" video where Trump graphically described the ability of famous people like himself to have sexual relations with beautiful women.

Trump did not retract his comments when asked about them in a 2022 deposition. Kaplan has said the video could offer "useful insight into Mr. Trump's state of mind" toward Carroll.

Trump lawyer Alina Habba on Sunday assured Kaplan that he was "well aware" of the court's rulings "and the strict confines placed on his testimony."

Source: Reuters
 

Trump sits for deposition in New York civil fraud case​

Former President Trump sat for a deposition in the civil fraud case New York Attorney General Letitia James brought against him and his company. Trump claimed he helped prevent "nuclear holocaust" during his presidency and discussed what he believed his brand was potentially worth.

Source : NBC News
========

I believe only these cases can now stop Trump from becoming President again as Biden has no spark or charisma at all to beat Trump in 2024.
 
Trump testimony in doubt after sick juror postpones E. Jean Carroll trial

Donald Trump's ability to testify in the writer E. Jean Carroll's latest civil defamation case is in doubt after the presiding judge on Monday postponed the trial because one juror and a parent of one of Trump's lawyers became ill.

U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan in federal court in Manhattan sent one of the nine jurors home to get a COVID-19 test after the juror reported feeling "hot and nauseous."

Trump's lawyer Alina Habba said she developed a fever after dining on Friday with her parents, at least one of whom has contracted COVID-19.

She and her co-counsel, Michael Madaio, tested negative for COVID-19 on Monday. Neither they nor Trump wore masks in the courtroom.
The trial concerns Trump's June 2019 denials of Carroll's claim that he raped the former Elle magazine advice columnist in the mid-1990s in a Bergdorf Goodman department store dressing room in Manhattan.

A different jury last May ordered Trump to pay Carroll $5 million over a similar October 2022 denial.

Kaplan has ruled that the first trial established that Trump defamed and sexually abused Carroll. The only issue for jurors in the second trial is how much money Trump should pay Carroll, if any. Carroll, 80, is seeking at least $10 million.

Habba asked Kaplan to let Trump testify on Wednesday, so that he could be in New Hampshire on Tuesday for that state's Republican presidential primary, where he has been leading in opinion polls.


 

US appeals court rebuffs Trump request to reconsider gag order in 2020 election case​

WASHINGTON, Jan 23 (Reuters) - A federal appeals court on Tuesday declined to reconsider its decision to largely uphold a judge’s order limiting former President Donald Trump’s statements about people involved in the federal case accusing him of plotting to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

Trump’s lawyers asked for a three-judge panel to reconsider its December ruling, or for the full appeals court to take up the issue. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied both requests.

Trump can appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, his last remaining hope of overturning limits on his public statements about potential witnesses, prosecutors and court staff involved in the case.

Trump has argued that the restrictions violate his free speech rights as he moves closer to clinching the Republican presidential nomination.

The D.C. Circuit court found that some of Trump’s public criticisms “pose a significant and imminent threat” to the case, but also narrowed restrictions initially imposed by U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan.

Trump has pleaded not guilty to four felony counts accusing him of a multi-pronged conspiracy to hinder the counting and certification of his 2020 defeat to Democrat Joe Biden. A different D.C. Circuit panel is weighing whether Trump has immunity from the charges.

Source: Reuters
 
Trump provided a rapid-fire testimony in New York defamation trial


Donald Trump has testified in the defamation trial brought by writer E Jean Carroll, but his much-anticipated time on the stand was kept brief.

The civil trial focuses on defamatory comments Mr Trump made about Ms Carroll in 2019 while in the White House.

He was found liable of sexually assaulting Ms Carroll in the 1990s, though he continues to deny the attack.

But it is for that reason, the court had to spend much time debating the scope of his testimony on Thursday.

Judge Lewis Kaplan, who is overseeing the case, insisted that the former president limit the topics he discussed on the stand, since a separate trial found him liable of sexually assaulting Ms Carroll.

That resulted in the judge and lawyers spending much more time arguing about what Mr Trump would be allowed to talk about than, compared to his four minutes of testimony.

Judge Kaplan said the first trial established the facts and the only issue remaining was how much Mr Trump must pay Carroll, if anything.

He left no room for the current Republican presidential frontrunner to go beyond the agreed terms, making it impossible for him to launch into a monologue or to campaign from the witness stand.

It's perhaps a lesson learned from one of Mr Trump's other legal battles, of which there are many. In a New York civil fraud trial earlier this month, Mr Trump was initially told he could not give his closing argument. The judge in that case asked whether Mr Trump would keep it short and stick to the matters of the case.

Mr Trump responded by launching into a six-minute monologue that included claims he was a victim of political persecution.

The defamation trial on Thursday gave the 77-year-old a far shorter leash.

He was asked if he stood by his deposition, he said: "100% yes".

His lawyer Alina Habba then asked if he denied Ms Carroll's accusation - "that's exactly right, Yes I did," he responded.

He went on to say "she said something that I considered a false accusation — totally false."

But Judge Kaplan quickly cut Mr Trump off and told the jury to ignore that last statement.

Finally, Ms Habba asked if her client had ever instructed anyone to hurt Ms Carroll, to which Mr Trump said: "No, I just wanted to defend myself, my family and frankly, the presidency." The judge again ordered the latter part stricken from the record.



www.bbc.com

Trump provided a rapid-fire testimony in New York defamation trial

The lawyers and the judge spent more time arguing about the scope of the former president's testimony.
www.bbc.com
 
Donald Trump has walked out of his own defamation trial in New York in the middle of closing arguments.

The former president has already been found to have defamed writer E Jean Carroll for comments he made about her in 2019 while he was president.

The jury in the case must now decide how much Mr Trump must pay in damages.


BBC
 
A federal court jury awarded a total of $83.3 million in damages to E. Jean Carroll for defamatory comments Donald Trump made about her as president in 2019, remarks attacking her character that kicked off years of threats and harassment from the former president’s supporters.

Most of the award involved $65 million in punitive damages after jurors concluded that Trump acted spitefully and wantonly toward Carroll after she accused him of sexually assaulting her in the 1990s.

Jurors also awarded a combined $18.3 million in compensatory damages. Trump won the Republican presidential primary in New Hampshire earlier this week. He also recently won the Iowa caucuses, even as he faces multiple lawsuits and four criminal indictments.


Source: Washington Post
 
Donald Trump’s data protection claim for damages over allegations in the “Steele dossier” that he took part in “perverted” sex acts and gave bribes to Russian officials has been dismissed by a high court judge in London.

Mrs Justice Steyn agreed with Orbis Business Intelligence, the company founded by the former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, who compiled the contentious material, that the case should not go to trial.

The ruling issued on Thursday said the court did not “consider or determine the accuracy or inaccuracy of the memoranda” but found that Trump’s claim for damages had been made outside the six-year period of “limitations”.

The court ruled that Trump “has no reasonable grounds for bringing a claim for compensation or damages, and no real prospect of successfully obtaining such a remedy”.

It added that the “only other remedy claimed was for a compliance order erasing or restricting processing of the memoranda” but that this would be “pointless, and unnecessary, in circumstances where the dossier was freely available on the internet, and the defendant had in any event undertaken to delete the copies it held”.

The former US president, who is the frontrunner in the race to be the Republican candidate in this year’s election, had indicated he was willing to give evidence at the high court in the case alleging breach of data protection rights by Orbis Business Intelligence over the 2016 “Steele dossier”.

The report, investigating Russian efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential campaign, was compiled by Steele, who previously ran MI6’s Russia desk, and then published by BuzzFeed in 2017.

The document included allegations that Trump had hired sex workers to urinate on each other in the presidential suite of a hotel in Moscow, and took part in sex parties in St Petersburg. He denies the claims.

Trump’s lawyer, Hugh Tomlinson KC, had told the court his client knew he had the legal responsibility to prove the allegations were false and that he intended “to discharge his burden by giving evidence in this court”.

Orbis was successful in arguing that the claim had been brought too late.

Source: The Guardian
 
The implications have started coming into focus with the scrapping of March 4 as the start date for the former president’s federal trial on charges of trying to overturn the 2020 election.

In December, when a federal appeals court agreed to hear former President Donald J. Trump’s sweeping claims to be immune from charges of plotting overturn the 2020 election, it laid out a lightning-fast briefing schedule, asking the defense and prosecution to file their papers on successive Saturdays during the Christmas and New Year’s holidays.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit also moved with unusual alacrity in setting up a hearing for arguments on the issue, scheduling the proceeding on Jan. 9, just one week after all of the papers were submitted — a remarkably short window by the standards of the judicial system.

But after sending up what appeared to be clear signals that they intended to swiftly resolve this phase of the immunity dispute — which lies at the heart of both the viability and timing of Mr. Trump’s trial on the election subversion charges — the appeals court judges have yet to issue a decision.

The implications are already coming into focus. On Friday, the Federal District Court judge overseeing the election case, Tanya S. Chutkan, formally scrapped her plan to start the trial on March 4. She was bowing to the reality that time had run out to get the proceeding going by then, mostly because of the wrangling over Mr. Trump’s immunity claim, and said she would set a new date “if and when” that matter is resolved.

The disconnect between the expectations set up by the panel’s early moves to expedite the case and the weeks that have now accumulated without a ruling has captured the attention of some legal experts who are closely watching the case.

Source: New York Times
 
Trump heads to US Supreme Court with a familiar claim: He is untouchable

Donald Trump will try to persuade the U.S. Supreme Court this week to reverse a judicial decision to kick him off the ballot in Colorado over his actions concerning the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack, arguing that the constitutional provision his opponents cite does not apply to him as a former president.

It may not be the only time Trump makes this type of assertion to the justices. As he fights four criminal cases and civil litigation in lower courts, Trump has repeatedly advanced a bold argument: that he is formally immune or otherwise not subject to these legal challenges.

"Trump appears obsessed with trying to place himself above the law. The theme running throughout these claims is that he cannot be held liable at law for anything he has done," said constitutional law expert Michael Gerhardt, a University of North Carolina law professor. "No president or former president has made such outlandish, self-serving claims."

The Supreme Court, whose 6-3 conservative majority includes three Trump appointees, on Thursday is scheduled to hear Trump's appeal of a ruling by Colorado's top court that disqualified him from the state's Republican primary ballot under the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment for engaging in insurrection. He is the frontrunner for his party's nomination to challenge Democratic President Joe Biden in the Nov. 5 U.S. election.

While Trump has not asserted sweeping presidential immunity as a defense in that case, the Supreme Court still may have to confront the issue, including in criminal and civil actions over his attempts to overturn his 2020 election loss and defamation claims by a woman who accused him of rape.

Trump in the past has shown contempt for constraints on his actions. He famously said during his successful 2016 presidential campaign that he "could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters."


 
Donald Trump does not have presidential immunity, US court rules

Donald Trump does not have presidential immunity and can be prosecuted on charges of plotting to overturn the 2020 election, a US court has ruled.

Mr Trump had claimed in the landmark legal case that he was immune from criminal charges for acts he said fell within his duties as president.

But Tuesday's unanimous ruling in Washington DC struck down that claim.

It is a setback for Mr Trump who has for years cited presidential immunity while battling multiple cases.

"We cannot accept former President Trump's claim that a president has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralise the most fundamental check on executive power - the recognition and implementation of election results," the three-judge appeals court panel wrote in its opinion.

It added: "For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defences of any other criminal defendant."

In a statement shortly after the ruling, Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung said the former president "respectfully disagrees with the DC Circuit's decision and will appeal it".

If an appeal is filed, the case could ultimately go to the Supreme Court where conservatives hold a 6-3 majority. Mr Trump has until 12 February to do so.

"If immunity is not granted to a president, every future president who leaves office will be immediately indicted by the opposing party," Mr Cheung said. "Without complete immunity, a president of the United States would not be able to properly function."


www.bbc.com

Donald Trump does not have presidential immunity, US court rules

The former president loses a landmark legal bid to shield him from charges of election fraud.
www.bbc.com
 
US Supreme Court to consider if Trump should be banned from running for president

The US Supreme Court will wade into uncharted legal waters on Thursday as it considers if Donald Trump should be barred from running for president.

The justices will weigh if Colorado can strike Mr Trump off its ballot after finding he engaged in insurrection over the US Capitol riot.

Their decision will also determine if similar bids to keep Mr Trump off the ballot in other states are valid.

He is the definitive frontrunner to be the Republican party's candidate.

Unless the justices rule against Mr Trump, he looks likely to challenge Democratic President Joe Biden in November.

It is the most consequential such case to reach the court since it halted the Florida vote recount in 2000, handing the White House to Republican George W Bush over Democrat Al Gore.

The challenge has been expedited by the US Supreme Court, and there is pressure for a decision before 5 March, when voters in 15 states - including Colorado - cast their ballots in Republican primaries.

Mr Trump's name so far remains on the Colorado ballot, pending the court's ruling. Maine also has excluded Mr Trump from its ballot, a decision on hold, too, while the justices consider the matter.

The legal challenge hinges on a Civil War-era constitutional amendment that bans anyone who has "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" from holding federal office.

This prohibition has never been used to disqualify a candidate for president.

In December's ruling, the Colorado Supreme Court wrote that it was aware of the magnitude of its decision.

"We are likewise mindful of our solemn duty to apply the law, without fear or favor, and without being swayed by public reaction to the decisions that the law mandates we reach," the justices wrote.

In turn, Mr Trump's lawyers argued that the Colorado ruling had "unconstitutionally disenfranchised millions of voters in Colorado" and could be used to further disenfranchise millions more across the country.

His argument has been supported by the chief legal officers of 27 states, who filed a brief saying the Colorado ruling would sow "widespread chaos".

"Most obviously, it casts confusion into an election cycle that is just weeks away," the attorneys general wrote. "Beyond that, it upsets the respective roles of the Congress, the States, and the courts."

Courts in Minnesota and Michigan have dismissed parallel efforts to remove Mr Trump from their ballots, while other cases, including in Oregon, are pending.

The US Supreme Court's decision in this case is expected to turn on how a majority of the justices interpret the provision of the 14th Amendment, which includes the insurrection clause.

Lawyers for the former president have provided several reasons to the court for why he should not be removed from the ballot.

In one, they argue that the 14th Amendment does not apply to presidential candidates.

In another, they contend that Mr Trump's conduct at the time of the US Capitol riot on 6 January 2021 did not amount to insurrection.

The case lands with a thud before a Supreme Court that is already facing near all-time lows in terms of public approval.

No matter the ruling by the nine justices - three of whom were nominated by Mr Trump - it is likely to prove hugely divisive.

The top court has a history of finding ways to extricate itself from politically charged legal issues by sticking to the narrowest of legal grounds, which could turn out to be the case here.

Mr Trump, who is in the midst of his third presidential campaign, is not expected to attend Thursday's hearing.

He is facing a number of legal challenges. Last month, he was ordered to pay $83.3m ($65m) for defaming columnist E Jean Carroll, who he was found to have sexually assaulted in a separate case.

The Supreme Court itself - which holds a 6-3 conservative majority - may soon be asked to weigh in on another case involving Mr Trump.

Earlier this week, a federal appeals court in Washington DC rejected his claims of presidential immunity, ruling he could be prosecuted on charges of plotting to overturn the 2020 election.

Mr Trump has until Monday to ask the Supreme Court to pause this ruling.

SOURCE: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68234332
 
The US Supreme Court is hearing arguments in a landmark legal case to determine whether Donald Trump can be on the ballot in the presidential election race.

Last year Colorado's top court said Trump was not eligible because he had engaged in insurrection over the US Capitol riot
Trump is appealing the decision - calling it an act of election interference which will stop the presidential race being "free and fair".

The case hinges on whether a US Constitution clause - Section 3 of the 14th Amendment which bans anyone who has "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" - renders Trump ineligible to stand.

The ruling from the USA's nine top justices will apply nationwide, after dozens of lawsuits were filed in multiple other states also seeking to disqualify him.

Trump - as well as attorneys general from more than half of states - argue that taking him off the ballot would unleash "chaos" across America.

A ruling will not come today and the justices have not said when they will decide.
 

Trump not immune from 2020 election​

In the United States, a federal appeals court on Tuesday ruled that Donald Trump does not have immunity from charges that he plotted to overturn his 2020 election defeat, bringing the former US President a step closer to an unprecedented criminal trial.

A three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected Trump’s claim that he cannot be prosecuted because the allegations relate to his official responsibilities as President.

Source: India Today
 
Donald Trump's suggestion the US would not protect Nato allies failing to spend enough on defence "undermines all of our security", the Western military alliance's chief has said.

Jens Stoltenberg also suggested it put US and European troops at greater risk.

The Republican said he had told allies he would "encourage" Russia to attack any Nato member that failed to meet the alliance's target of 2% of their GDP.

Members of Nato commit to defend any nation in the bloc that gets attacked.

President Joe Biden called Mr Trump's comments "appalling and dangerous", suggesting his predecessor intended to give Russian President Vladimir Putin "a green light for more war and violence".

Addressing crowds during a rally in South Carolina on Saturday, Mr Trump said he had made his comments about Russia during a previous meeting of leaders of Nato countries.

The former president recalled that the leader of a "big country" had presented a hypothetical situation in which he was not meeting his financial obligations within Nato and had come under attack from Moscow.

He said the leader had asked if the US would come to his country's aid in that scenario, which prompted him to issue a rebuke.

"I said: 'You didn't pay? You're delinquent?'... 'No I would not protect you, in fact I would encourage them to do whatever they want. You gotta pay.'"


www.bbc.com

Nato chief says Donald Trump comments 'undermine all of our security'

The presidential hopeful suggests the US will not protect allies failing to meet defence spending targets.
www.bbc.com
 
Trump takes immunity challenge to Supreme Court

Ex-US President Donald Trump has asked the Supreme Court to suspend a lower court ruling that he does not have presidential immunity from prosecution.

He had claimed in his election interference case he could not be tried for acts carried out as president.

Three lower court judges disagreed, ruling that he can be prosecuted like any other citizen.

But Trump's lawyers said he should not be tried during an election campaign.

"Conducting a months-long criminal trial of President Trump at the height of election season will radically disrupt President Trump's ability to campaign against President Biden," Trump's attorneys wrote in the filing.

The Supreme Court will now decide if it will put the ruling on hold to allow Mr Trump to appeal.

The nation's top court granting the request would lead to a long delay in the landmark criminal case alleging that Mr Trump plotted to illegally overturn the 2020 election, possibly until after the November election.

However, if the Supreme Court declines to put the ruling on pause, the federal trial overseen by Judge Tanya Chutkan will be scheduled for spring.


BBC
 
Trump's first criminal trial set to begin next month

District attorney's office denies the 25 March date is a burden. Joshua Steinglass, a lawyer with the District Attorney's office, counters Blanche's claim that the trial schedule would interfere with Trump's ability to run for president.

He said the trial's scheduled start is after several Republican primaries in February and March - including Super Tuesday on 5 March.

Trump is currently the front runner to be named the Republican presidential nominee.

Source: BBC News
 
Donald Trump's first criminal trial set to begin next month

The first-ever criminal trial of a former US president is set to start next month, with Donald Trump defending himself against allegations of conducting a hush-money cover-up.

The 77-year-old appeared in court in New York on Thursday, seeking to have the trial dismissed or delayed.

But Judge Juan Merchan was not swayed by arguments that the trial's timetable would hurt his presidential campaign.

Mr Trump called the decision to start the trial on 25 March a "disgrace".


www.bbc.com

Donald Trump's first criminal trial set to begin next month

A New York judge refused to dismiss a hush money case against the former president and set the trial for 25 March.
www.bbc.com
 
Is Trump the Imran Khan of US?
=====
Ruling expected in Donald Trump’s $370m New York fraud trial

Judge delayed ruling to set fine in trial over Trump’s New York business dealings after late-breaking information came to light

A judge is expected to rule on whether Donald Trump should pay a $370m fine in his New York fraud trial and face a lifetime ban from the New York real estate industry.

The New York attorney general’s office sued Trump for inflating the value of his assets on government financial statements. Trump’s adult sons, Donald Trump Jr and Eric Trump, and two former Trump Organization executives, Allen Weisselberg and Jeff McConney, are also defendants in the case.

The New York AG’s office initially asked for $250m in disgorgement, or the amount of money that was wrongfully profited after Trump fudged his net worth. In their written closing arguments in January, prosecutors ended up bumping up their disgorgement figure to $370m.

Prosecutors are also asking the judge, Arthur Engoron, to ban Trump from the New York real estate industry. It’s a similar punishment to that which a New York federal court meted out to “pharma bro” Martin Shkreli after he was found guilty of price-gouging a life-saving drug. Prosecutors in the Trump case cited the Shkreli ruling as an example of what they see as a fitting punishment for Trump.

The fine and a ban would be on top of the punishment Engoron instructed in his September pre-trial ruling, when he ordered the cancellation of Trump’s business licenses. Trump, who has denied any wrongdoing, has appealed that ruling and will undoubtedly appeal a second guilty verdict.

A spokesperson for the New York supreme court said that Engoron is expected to release his ruling on Friday. Engoron had initially said he anticipated ruling by the end of January, but two developments seemed to throw him off schedule.

The first was a letter from a former judge, Barbara Jones, who is currently acting as the court-appointed monitor overseeing the Trump Organization’s financial reporting. In a letter submitted to the court at the end of January, Jones said the Trump Organization submitted financial “disclosures that are either incomplete, present results inconsistently, and/or contain errors”.

Jones specifically pointed to a $48m personal loan Trump received from an entity affiliated with his Chicago building in 2012. Though Trump had reported the loan as a liability on his financial statements for years, Jones could not find any record of it, and the company ultimately determined that “this loan never existed”.

A second development in early February also delayed the ruling. Weisselberg, a longtime Trump executive who served as chief financial officer of the company, was said to be in talks with the Manhattan district attorney’s office for a plea deal over a separate trial. The New York Times reported that Weisselberg was considering a deal to plead guilty in Trump’s fraud trial in order to not be called as a witness in Trump’s separate hush-money trial, which is scheduled to take place on 25 March.

Source: The Guardian
 
Trump Ordered to Pay $355 Million and Barred From New York Business

A New York judge on Friday handed Donald J. Trump a crushing defeat in his civil fraud case, finding the former president liable for conspiring to manipulate his net worth and ordering him to pay a penalty of $355 million that could wipe out his entire stockpile of cash.

The decision by Justice Arthur F. Engoron caps a chaotic, yearslong case in which New York’s attorney general put Mr. Trump’s fantastical claims of wealth on trial. With no jury, the power was in Justice Engoron’s hands alone, and he came down hard: The judge delivered a sweeping array of punishments that threatens the former president’s business empire as he simultaneously contends with four criminal prosecutions and seeks to regain the White House.

Justice Engoron barred Mr. Trump for three years from serving in top roles at any New York company, including his own Trump Organization. He also imposed a two-year ban on the former president’s adult sons and ordered that they pay more than $4 million each. One of them, Eric Trump, is the company’s de facto chief executive, and the ruling throws into doubt whether any member of the family can run the business in the near term.


www.nytimes.com

Trump Ordered to Pay $355 Million and Barred From New York Business

The ruling in Donald J. Trump’s civil fraud case could cost him all his available cash. The judge said that the former president’s “complete lack of contrition” bordered on pathological.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
 
He is more concerned about his re-election instead
=====
Donald Trump has a lot of major financial decisions to make following Judge Arthur Engoron’s Friday order that he owes more than $350m in penalties in his New York state business fraud case – and the clock is ticking for him to make them.

He essentially has two options: pay now, or potentially pay a lot more later.

The court gave the former US president 30 days from the verdict, or 17 March, to figure out what to do. But the $350m verdict is only the beginning: Engoron’s decision also ordered Trump to pay additional pre-judgment interest going back as far as when New York attorney general Letitia James began her investigation in March 2019.

The attorney general’s office has calculated the interest due so far brings the current total he owes to more than $450m; the statutory 9% annual interest rate will keep accruing at more than $600,000 per week unless Trump puts up the entire amount.

Since Trump plans to appeal the verdict, the only ways to pause the interest collection are either to park the full amount in a New York state-controlled escrow account or find a company prepared to help him post a bond that will assure the state he can pay the penalties if his appeals fail – for a hefty fee, of course.

It’s unclear if Trump has the cash to post the full amount. Trump said under oath last year that he had roughly $400m in liquid assets, not quite enough to cover what he’d need to put into escrow.

As the Guardian US’s Hugo Lowell reported on Monday: “Trump’s preference is to avoid using his own money while he appeals.” But to obtain a bond, Trump would have to find a company willing to do business with him and “would then have to pay a premium to the bond company and offer collateral, probably in the form of his most prized assets”, like his real estate holdings.

Trump is also hemmed in by the verdict’s restriction barring his company from applying for a loan from any firm that does business in New York for the next three years, potentially limiting his options to secure the money for that bond.

Source: The Guardian
 
Trump’s lawyers seek to suspend $83M defamation verdict, citing ‘strong probability’ it won’t stand

Donald Trump’s lawyers asked a New York judge Friday to suspend an $83.3 million defamation verdict against the former president, saying there was a “strong probability” that it would be reduced on appeal, if not eliminated.

The lawyers made the request in Manhattan federal court, where a civil jury in late January awarded the sum to advice columnist E. Jean Carroll after a five-day trial that focused only on damages. A judge had ordered the jury to accept the findings of another jury that last year concluded Trump sexually abused Carroll in 1996 and defamed her in 2022.

The second jury focused only on statements Trump made in 2019 while he was president in a case long delayed by appeals.

In the filing Friday, Trump’s lawyers wrote that Judge Lewis A. Kaplan should suspend the execution of a judgment he issued on Feb. 8 until a month after he resolves Trump’s post-trial motions, which will be filed by March 7. Otherwise, they said, he should grant a partially secured stay that would require Trump to post a bond for a fraction of the award.


apnews.com

Trump's lawyers seek to suspend $83M defamation verdict, citing 'strong probability' it won't stand

Donald Trump's lawyers have asked a New York judge to suspend an $83.3 million defamation verdict against the former president, saying there was a “strong probability” that it would be reduced on appeal, if not eliminated.
apnews.com apnews.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

The Bald Eagle
Why Establishment around the world are hunting down on popular leaders like Donald Trump, Imran Khan, Aung San Suu Kyi, Erdogan, Alexei Navalny etc?
Replies
67
Views
2K
The Bald Eagle
The Bald Eagle
Stewie
Former US vice president Mike Pence suspends bid to become president
Replies
12
Views
1K
deltexas
D
MenInG
Title IX changes by the Biden Administration: Has the conformation to LGBTQ++ rights gone OTT in USA?
Replies
12
Views
211
The Bald Eagle
The Bald Eagle
W
US Elections 2024: Republican debate: Who were the winners and losers?
Replies
14
Views
503
Cricket Warrior
C
FearlessRoar
  • Poll
Asif Ali Zardari elected for second term as the 14th President of Pakistan [Updated Post #11]
Replies
71
Views
1K
BouncerGuy
B
Back
Top