Trump and the Jan 6 investigation

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Donald Trump defrauded banks and insurers as he built real estate empire, judge rules

A judge has ruled that Donald Trump committed fraud for years while building the real estate empire that catapulted him to fame and the White House.
Judge Arthur Engoron delivered the ruling on Tuesday in a civil lawsuit brought by New York’s attorney general.

The former president and his company were found to have deceived banks, insurers and others by massively overvaluing his assets and exaggerating his net worth on paperwork used in making deals and securing financing.

The decision, days before the start of a non-jury trial in Attorney General Letitia James’ lawsuit, is the strongest repudiation yet of Trump’s carefully coiffed image as a wealthy and shrewd real estate mogul turned political powerhouse.
Beyond mere bragging about his riches, Trump, his company and key executives repeatedly lied about them on his annual financial statements, reaping rewards such as favorable loan terms and lower insurance premiums, Engoron found.
Their tactics crossed a line and violated the law, the judge said, rejecting Trump’s contention that a disclaimer on the financial statements absolved him of any wrongdoing.
Manhattan prosecutors had looked into bringing a criminal case over the same conduct but declined to do so, leaving James to sue Trump and seek penalties that could disrupt his and his family’s ability to do business in the state.
Engoron’s ruling, in a phase of the case known as summary judgment, resolves the key claim in James’ lawsuit, but six others remain.

Engoron is slated to hold a non-jury trial starting Oct. 2 before deciding on those claims and any punishments he may impose. James is seeking $250 million in penalties and a ban on Trump doing business in New York, his home state. The trial could last into December, Engoron has said.
Trump’s lawyers had asked the judge to throw out the case, which he denied. They contend that James wasn’t legally allowed to file the lawsuit because there isn’t any evidence that the public was harmed by Trump’s actions. They also argued that many of the allegations in the lawsuit were barred by the statute of limitations.

[Solauren]

Donald Trump defrauded banks and insurers as he built real estate empire, judge rules

Their tactics crossed a line and violated the law, the judge said, rejecting Trump’s contention that a disclaimer on the financial statements absolved him of any wrongdoing.

Disclaimers can either be useful, or worthless. Someone should have explained to Trump that disclaimers on documents you are signing as factual are of the worthless kind.

A useful disclaimer would be 'This product is intended as a gag product, and sold as such. It has no stayed use or function beyond that of a decoration or prop', as part of the advertising, and on the packaging.

But putting on financial or legal documents 'this might not be accurate', well, at work, we'd toss those documents right out and proceed as if we hadn't gotten them.

[Lost Soal]

That disclaimer was for the accountants benefit as they were basing their filings on information given to them by Trump. The statements cannot be taken as accurate because they cannot guarantee the information given to them is accurate. Clearly it wasn't.

[bilateralrope]

Trump unexpectedly says he won't seek to move his Georgia election case to federal court

The notification comes weeks after the former president’s attorneys said that he was considering trying to move the case to a federal venue.

Sept. 29, 2023, 11:42 AM NZDT / Updated Sept. 29, 2023, 12:10 PM NZDT
By Zoë Richards

Former President Donald Trump will not seek to move his criminal election interference case in Georgia to federal court, according to a court filing Thursday.

The filing comes weeks after Trump's attorneys notified Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee, who is presiding over the case, that he might try to pursue a federal venue.

"This decision is based on his well-founded confidence that this Honorable Court intends to fully and completely protect his constitutional right to a fair trial and guarantee him due process of law throughout the prosecution of his case in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia," Trump attorney Steven Sadow wrote.

The Fulton County District Attorney’s Office declined to comment.

Trump faces charges related to allegations that he and 18 co-defendants sought to overturn his election loss in Georgia. Some of his co-defendants have sought to move their cases to federal court, which would allow them to make federal defenses to the charges and could offer more favorable jury pools.

All 19 defendants have pleaded not guilty and Trump has denied any wrongdoing.

A federal judge denied Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows’ bid to move the Georgia criminal case against him to federal court on Sept. 8, a day after a Trump attorney said the former president might seek a similar move.

A spokesperson for Trump did not respond to a request for comment on whether Thursday's court filing by the former president was influenced by the ruling against Meadows.

At a hearing last week, lawyers for former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark pressed to move his case to federal court, arguing that Clark was operating in his official capacity when he prepared a document that falsely claimed the Justice Department had identified “significant concerns” that might have affected the outcome of the election in Georgia and other states.

As Trump's civil and criminal cases pile up, with one scheduled to go to trial next week and others scheduled to start when the GOP primary season is in full swing next year, he has argued that such trials should be postponed until after the 2024 presidential election.

It sounds like Trump thinks Judge McAfee will be more favourable to him than the Federal judges he's likely to get if he gets the case moved there.

Or he's running out of money and is starting to pick his fights. The judge in the fraud case ordering the Trump Org to be dissolved might be related.

[Solauren]

Or he's hoping to keep the fall out from the Georgia trial 'small'. Him losing that in Federal Court would be a massive media show across the entire country (if not the Globe).

Him keeping things quiet in Georgia might keep it 'what happen in, stays in'.

At least in his mind.

If he believes that, his self promotion over the last 40 year is about to boomerang on him.

[bilateralrope]

Last I heard, Federal courts don't allow cameras while the Georgia court is allowing them for this case.

Though it might be possible that he thinks that staying in Georgia with all the other defendants will take longer to reach trial than moving to Federal court on his own.

[Zaune]

Letting the trial be televised would be the worst mistake the remaining sane and functional parts of the US government could possibly make. He does not need an even bigger platform from which to grandstand, make threats and possibly even incite violence against the presiding judge and/or the jury.

I hope they don't even unlock the public gallery for this one.

[Ralin]

If the public doesn't have an interest in seeing the trial of a former president for things he did as president or immediately afterwards I'm not sure when televising a trial would be justified.

[Zaune]

I don't think it's ever justified, actually. There's too many filming and editing techniques that can be used to add drama and misrepresent what actually took place and that's dangerous in any trial, let alone one this politically charged.

Besides, if you were a witness being cross-examined in a criminal trial, would you want someone taking footage of it and making it into a TikTok meme or something?

[Ralin]

Besides, if you were a witness being cross-examined in a criminal trial, would you want someone taking footage of it and making it into a TikTok meme or something?

If I was testifying against Donald Trump I wouldn't want my existence to be public knowledge at all, but that's just not how it works.

[bilateralrope]

I don't think it's ever justified, actually. There's too many filming and editing techniques that can be used to add drama and misrepresent what actually took place and that's dangerous in any trial, let alone one this politically charged.

How many of them would be allowed in a courtroom ?

That's a serious question here. I don't know if the court controls the cameras or not.

Oh and Trump can only grandstand while he is being questioned under oath. If he pleads the fifth, he's not going to be taking the stand.

[Ralin]

I don't think it's ever justified, actually. There's too many filming and editing techniques that can be used to add drama and misrepresent what actually took place and that's dangerous in any trial, let alone one this politically charged.

And to follow up, imagine all the ways 'listening to how some guy who went there describes it' can be used to misrepresent what happened!

[EnterpriseSovereign]

On the flipside, doing it behind closed doors is only going to invite speculation and conspiracy theories.

[Khaat]

It sounds like Trump thinks Judge McAfee will be more favourable to him than the Federal judges he's likely to get if he gets the case moved there.

Like Meadows before him, Trump would have to testify as to WHY he would somehow qualify for the change. And Trump on the stand? Even his bad lawyers know that's a no-win scenario.

[bilateralrope]

Scott Hall becomes first Georgia RICO defendant in Trump election interference case to take plea deal

BY KATHRYN WATSON, CLARE HYMES

UPDATED ON: SEPTEMBER 29, 2023 / 8:23 PM / CBS NEWS

Scott Hall, one of the 19 defendants in the Fulton County, Georgia case about alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, became the first defendant to reach a plea deal with prosecutors Friday.

Hall changed his plea from not guilty and instead pleaded guilty in Fulton County court to five misdemeanor counts of conspiracy to commit intentional interference with performance of election duties. He was sentenced to five years probation, a $5,000 fine and 200 hours of community service.

Hall, a 59-year-old bail bondsman, was alleged to have helped with the unlawful breach of election equipment and theft of voter data in Coffee County, according to the indictment. He initially faced seven counts in all, six of which related to those efforts.

The counts he pleaded guilty to Friday are different from the seven counts he originally faced. He is pleading under the Georgia First Offenders Act, and Hall's attorneys said the misdemeanor crimes he pleaded guilty to are not "crimes of moral turpitude."

Hall had to give a recorded statement to the district attorney's office, which he did earlier Friday, and he must also write a letter of apology to the citizens of the state of Georgia.

Under the plea agreement, he is barred from communicating with any witnesses or co-defendants in the case. And he may not speak with the media until all the cases are resolved.

The judge told the court, "This is not a matter that had been scheduled today, but I was told by both parties that they would like to have an impromptu court hearing."

The district attorney's office declined to comment at this time.

It's not clear what kind of information Hall may be able to provide to the government. But as a condition of his plea agreement, Hall will be required to testify at any future trials.

All other defendants have entered not guilty pleas.

Hall was booked on Aug. 22, according to Fulton County inmate records, and was the first of the 19 defendants to turn himself in.

The first to take a plea deal. Hopefully not the last.

I wonder how many co-defendants Trump will have when this reaches trial.

[LadyTevar]

The first to take a plea deal. Hopefully not the last.

I wonder how many co-defendants Trump will have when this reaches trial.

This might be the trigger to a mass migration. They and their lawyers aren't going to be able to talk to him to ask what the deal was, so it's going to eat away at their confidence, especially since he's now going to be required to testify at other trials, something that the others might not want.
And let's be honest, 5yrs probation, a fine, and "write an apology" is a joke of a punishment. It's the carrot to get others to turn, thinking they'll get a similar deal.
The Prosecutors want TRUMP, and they'll dangle this bait in front of anyone who'll give Trump to them

[Solauren]

5 years probation, a small fine, and testimony?

Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if the prosecutors office phone had messages from every single defendants lawyers asking about a similar please deal by lunch time. (A few of the lawyers might have been busy up to now with meetings, vacation, or be in court first thing this morning and not have the time to call).

I wouldn't be surprised if most of them 'flipped' in the new few weeks, leaving Trump with few (if any) co-defendants on the stand.
That could actually speed up him getting to court.

[bilateralrope]

And let's be honest, 5yrs probation, a fine, and "write an apology" is a joke of a punishment. It's the carrot to get others to turn, thinking they'll get a similar deal.
The Prosecutors want TRUMP, and they'll dangle this bait in front of anyone who'll give Trump to them

I've seen speculation that the second to plead out won't get as good a deal. But probably a better one than the third person. Just to encourage people to come to a deal quickly and flip on the people they really want to go after.

[LadyTevar]

And let's be honest, 5yrs probation, a fine, and "write an apology" is a joke of a punishment. It's the carrot to get others to turn, thinking they'll get a similar deal.
The Prosecutors want TRUMP, and they'll dangle this bait in front of anyone who'll give Trump to them

I've seen speculation that the second to plead out won't get as good a deal. But probably a better one than the third person. Just to encourage people to come to a deal quickly and flip on the people they really want to go after.

Like I said... they want TRUMP. They're willing to let the small fry go, as long as the small fry will get on the stand and testify against Trump.

Also, in NYC, Trump is mouthing off about "Democrat Judges who've already made up their minds on the case" but I dont know if that's the fraud case or this one. So far to tell who he's ranting at anymore.

[bilateralrope]

Just in case someone here has questions about why Trump didn't get a jury for the fraud trial:

Trump isn't getting a jury in his $250 million civil fraud trial because his lawyers failed to ask for one

Madison Hall and Jacob Shamsian Oct 3, 2023, 9:10 AM GMT+13

Former President Donald Trump was entitled to receive a jury trial in his New York civil fraud case.
And while he himself wanted a trial by jury, his attorneys didn't correctly fill out court paperwork.
Instead, Trump will receive a bench trial solely decided by a judge he's repeatedly attacked.

Former President Donald Trump won't receive a jury trial in his $250 million civil fraud case in New York because his lawyers never asked for one.

Trump's trial in his civil fraud case began on Monday morning in a downtown Manhattan courtroom, where the embattled former president made a surprise appearance.

The case was filed in September 2022, when New York Attorney General Letitia James announced her office had filed the sweeping lawsuit against Trump, his children Eric and Donald Jr., and two other executives at the Trump Organization.

The case — in which New York Justice Arthur Engoron has already found that Trump committed years of fraud and handed down a "corporate death penalty" for the Trump Organization — is now in the process of a bench trial for the remaining parts of the New York attorney general's lawsuit.

During a bench trial, the judge listens to all the evidence presented and decides the ultimate verdict and potential punishment instead of using a jury.

That leaves the fate of Trump's company in the hands of a judge who has already repeatedly ruled against him and his lawyers, and who he has attacked as a political operative. The attorney general's office has sought to disgorge his company of allegedly ill-gotten profits from bank loans, issue a $250 million penalty against the defendants, and strip them of their ability to do business in New York.

While Trump has raged on social media in recent weeks about the decision to forego a jury trial, he only has one group to blame: his legal team.

On July 31, the New York attorney general's office filed paperwork telling the judge that it had completed all of its pre-trial work and was prepared for a trial. On that form, the lawyers checked a box requesting a "Trial without jury."

Trump's lawyers never filed anything to court arguing otherwise, court records show. They had the opportunity to ask for a jury trial — but didn't.

Under the particular statute where James brought her lawsuit, it wasn't necessarily guaranteed that Trump would have gotten a jury to decide the case. But his lawyers didn't even ask Engoron to consider it.

Alina Habba, one of the attorneys representing Trump in the case, said Trump wanted a jury in the case.

"I know my client did want a jury, and we did want that," she said.

She did not explain why they did not ask for one.

After appearing at the courthouse on Monday, Trump lambasted Engoron and his law clerk while standing directly outside of his courtroom where he accused the judge of "getting away with murder" and of being a "democrat operative."

The New York civil fraud trial against Trump could last until December 22, though it could end sooner.

In remarks at the beginning of the trial, Engoron noted that neither side had asked for a jury, and referenced his frequent quips and pop culture references throughout the court proceedings.

"I promise to do my best," he said. "Despite my lame attempts at humor, as I mentioned in an early phase of the case, I take my job very seriously."

Probably not the stupidest thing one of his lawyers has done.

[LadyTevar]

It's nto the stupidiest thing he or his lawyers have done, but it is very puzzling. I have to wonder if it was simple oversight or someone planning?

[Broomstick]

It's so stupid you have to wonder if it was deliberate.

Trump is not known for being kind to (or paying) the hired help. Wonder if a lawyer did this as a "fuck you" to the asshole.

[bilateralrope]

It's so stupid you have to wonder if it was deliberate.

Trump is not known for being kind to (or paying) the hired help. Wonder if a lawyer did this as a "fuck you" to the asshole.

That's one possibility.

Two others:
- Someone thought this up as a delay tactic, because they think it will let Trump appeal his loss and then get a retrial in front of a jury.
- Trump plans to use this loss and his claims of a "corrupt" judge denying him his right to a jury as part of an election strategy.

[Raw Shark]

Possibility #4: Based on a photo I saw of the lawyer, she may have been selected more for looking like a young Melania than her legal acumen.

[Ralin]

It's so stupid you have to wonder if it was deliberate.

Trump is not known for being kind to (or paying) the hired help. Wonder if a lawyer did this as a "fuck you" to the asshole.

It's not that stupid. This sort of case is frequently handled via bench trial (I'm told). Very possibly there was some miscommunication involved and someone goofed, but also I'll point out that the people saying Trump absolutely wanted a jury trial and made everyone working on the case aware of that fact are not reliable sources. Because they are Donald Trump and people in his employ.