lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Feb 28, 2024 15:48:25 GMT
Bradly is on the stand in Fulton County Georgia!! Christ. That was painful. Bradley is obviously hiding something because between the time he was repeatedly feeding info to Merchant via texts and emails beginning in Sept 2023, and the present, he seemed to have been afflicted with a severe case of amnesia. This much evasiveness, dissembling and backpedaling is disturbing. Something is rotten here. I’m at a point where IF there is a cover-up or fraud on the court going on, they can all answer to the state bar. This has already veered so far from the core issue. What needs to be resolved are: Was there financial misconduct here? Did that misconduct create a conflict of interest that adversely affected the right of the defendants to a fair trial? That’s it. Those are the questions that need to be answered. The burden is on Merchant and the other six or seven lawyers. If they cannot sufficiently meet that burden, then it’s time to move on.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Feb 28, 2024 17:17:56 GMT
So far they(TFG) have not proved their case.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Feb 28, 2024 17:40:43 GMT
I want to know who is financing this mess!! *** The judges also determined his petition for rehearing en banc, or by the full panel, should be considered the same as a request for the three-judge panel to reconsider, so it was also denied. Meadows could appeal before the U.S. Supreme Court, which could delay the start of his Georgia election interference trial if the justices decide to take up the case. Donald Trump's former White House chief of staff has reportedly reached an immunity agreement with special counsel Jack Smith and has spoken to prosecutors at least three times, including once before a federal grand jury, and has testified that he repeatedly told the former president his 2020 election fraud claims were baseless. Meadows also told federal investigators that Trump was being "dishonest" when he spread those claims to the public ahead of the Jan. 6 insurrection, yet the chief of staff still set up a now-infamous Jan. 2, 2021, phone call between the former president and Georgia secretary Brad Raffensperger to discuss those fraud claims. *** Georgia prosecutors have so far not appeared to be willing to extend a plea deal to Meadows, who has not been charged in the separate federal election subversion case. www.rawstory.com/mark-meadows-georgia-2667389633/
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Feb 28, 2024 18:08:04 GMT
I want to know who is financing this mess!! *** The judges also determined his petition for rehearing en banc, or by the full panel, should be considered the same as a request for the three-judge panel to reconsider, so it was also denied. Meadows could appeal before the U.S. Supreme Court, which could delay the start of his Georgia election interference trial if the justices decide to take up the case. Donald Trump's former White House chief of staff has reportedly reached an immunity agreement with special counsel Jack Smith and has spoken to prosecutors at least three times, including once before a federal grand jury, and has testified that he repeatedly told the former president his 2020 election fraud claims were baseless. Meadows also told federal investigators that Trump was being "dishonest" when he spread those claims to the public ahead of the Jan. 6 insurrection, yet the chief of staff still set up a now-infamous Jan. 2, 2021, phone call between the former president and Georgia secretary Brad Raffensperger to discuss those fraud claims. *** Georgia prosecutors have so far not appeared to be willing to extend a plea deal to Meadows, who has not been charged in the separate federal election subversion case. www.rawstory.com/mark-meadows-georgia-2667389633/Trump through his PACs and the RNC is probably paying the legal fees for Meadows and the other defendant.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Feb 28, 2024 18:37:57 GMT
aj2hallMaybe, but..... Isn't the word out that Meadows is testifying FOR the prosecution? With Smith?
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Feb 28, 2024 18:55:45 GMT
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Feb 28, 2024 18:58:54 GMT
Too bad, so sad. Really hope Trump's request is rejected. www.nytimes.com/2024/02/28/nyregion/trump-bond-civil-fraud.htmlTrump Says He Might Have to Sell Properties to Pay $454 Million Penalty The ex-president, who is appealing the penalty in his civil fraud case, offered a bond of only $100 million to pause the judgment. Donald J. Trump offered a New York appeals court on Wednesday a bond of only $100 million to pause the more than $450 million judgment he faces in his civil fraud case, saying that he might need to sell some of his properties unless he gets relief.
It was a stunning acknowledgment that Mr. Trump, who is racing the clock to either secure a bond from a company or produce the full amount himself, lacks the resources to do so. Without a bond, the New York attorney general’s office, which brought the fraud case, could seek to collect from Mr. Trump at any moment.
Mr. Trump’s lawyers also asked the court to delay a wide range of other punishments the judge in the fraud case levied in his decision earlier this month. They include a prohibition on obtaining a loan from a New York bank for three years and a ban on running a company in the state during that same period.
One appellate court judge was hearing the request from Mr. Trump on Wednesday afternoon and was expected to issue a decision shortly after. If the judge were to grant the pause, it would be only temporary; Mr. Trump would still have to persuade a larger panel of appellate judges to keep the judgment on hold.
In seeking relief, Mr. Trump’s lawyers disclosed that they would be unable to secure a bond for the full amount, raising the prospect that he might soon default on the judgment if the appeals court denies his request. Without a stay, Mr. Trump’s lawyers warned, he likely would have to sell some of his New York properties “under exigent circumstances,” in what would be a punishing blow to the former president.
In its own filing, Ms. James’s office asked the appeals court to deny Mr. Trump’s request.
“There is no merit to defendants’ contention that a full bond or deposit is unnecessary because they are willing to post a partial undertaking of less than a quarter of the judgment amount,” the attorney general’s office wrote. “Defendants all but concede that Mr. Trump has insufficient liquid assets to satisfy the judgment.”
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Feb 28, 2024 19:47:02 GMT
So, so sad... No two tiered court system here... Put up the cash or we gotcha!! The sales are on!!!!!! Random comment: Didn't he testified during his fraud trial that he had $400 million on cash on hand? Hmm, sounds like perjury to me.
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Feb 28, 2024 20:52:38 GMT
www.nytimes.com/live/2024/02/27/opinion/thepoint#trump-krugman-fineOK, I have to admit it: I’m enjoying the spectacle of Donald Trump begging for a delay in the $454 million fine he’s required to pay for fraudulently inflating his net worth, for two reasons.
First, his inability to come up with the cash basically confirms the charges: He isn’t as rich as he claims to be. Second, his evident inability to get anyone to lend him the money is poetic justice for a man who has a history of bilking gullible investors.
One small addition to the Trumpenfreude: A GoFundMe set up to help Trump pay his bills has so far managed to raise about a third of 1 percent of the amount he owes.
You do have to wonder about how this will affect his psychological state. Trump’s speeches have become increasingly incoherent lately — a trend that has attracted sufficient attention that a few days ago he felt compelled to respond, telling an audience: “There’s no cognitive problem. If there was, I’d know about it.”
I think I’ll just leave that there.
|
|
|
Post by Gem Girl on Feb 28, 2024 22:27:37 GMT
Snicker.
@palazzo214
MAGA Way 🎶🎤
And now the end is here
And so I face that final red curtain
My foes I'll make it vague
I'll misstate my case, of which I'm certain
I've lived a life that's bull
I traveled each and every byway
And more, much more
I did it, I did it MAGA way
|
|
|
Post by morecowbell on Feb 28, 2024 22:50:00 GMT
Whoever that is doesn't know wth they're talking about. That tweet is wrong in every aspect.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Feb 28, 2024 22:50:59 GMT
He being allowed more time. New York appeals court judge "split the baby" on former President Donald Trump's demand to stay his $465 civil fraud ruling and only hand over a $100 million bond, reports and court records show. The judge granted Trump a partial stay that allows him and his sons, also found liable for fraud, to run the company and obtain loans while they appeal the ruling, court records show. But as Daily News' court reporter Molly Crane-Newman put it, "Trump has to pay up." Law360 reporter Frank Runyeon said the judge professed himself “somewhat sympathetic” to Trump's arguments that he didn't have the cash and couldn't get a loan. www.rawstory.com/trump-civil-fraud-ruling/*** Random comments: **** I’m going with MBS/Saudi’s. $400 million is a drop in the bucket to him. He’s already hosting his LIV golf tournaments at trump properties. Of all the golf courses. He picks trump gaudy clubs. They have a contract worth millions. He’s doing that as payback for trump helping him to cover up that journalist murder. **** Your mistake is believing that there is a justice system running the show.
|
|
uksue
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,514
Location: London
Jun 25, 2014 22:33:20 GMT
|
Post by uksue on Feb 28, 2024 23:00:15 GMT
Then we learn the Supreme court is taking up his immunity claim- ouch!
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Feb 28, 2024 23:20:16 GMT
The judge rejected Trump's request but he can take it to an appellate court. I don't think his request stops the clock, but I'm not certain. Either way, it seems like Trump doesn't have the cash and will need to secure a bond. www.nytimes.com/2024/02/28/nyregion/trump-bond-civil-fraud.htmlDonald J. Trump offered a New York appeals court on Wednesday a bond of only $100 million to pause the more than $450 million judgment he faces in his civil fraud case, saying that he might need to sell some of his properties unless he gets relief.
An appellate court judge promptly denied Mr. Trump’s emergency request to halt the financial judgment, but the former president is not out of options. Mr. Trump can try again with a panel of five appellate court judges, which will entertain his request next month.
However that panel rules, the request represented a stunning acknowledgment that the former president, who is racing the clock to secure a bond from a company for the full amount if he does not produce the money himself, lacks the resources to do so.
If he fails, the New York attorney general’s office, which brought the fraud case, could seek to collect from Mr. Trump at any moment, though it is expected to provide him with a 30-day grace period until March 25.
In a filing with the appeals court, Mr. Trump’s lawyers also asked to delay a wide range of other punishments that the trial judge in the fraud case, Arthur F. Engoron, levied in a decision this month. They include a prohibition on obtaining a loan from a New York bank for three years and a ban on running a company in the state during that same period.
The appellate court judge assigned to consider Mr. Trump’s filing on Wednesday granted the former president’s request to temporarily pause those punishments, a decision that could help him obtain a loan or a bond.
Justice Engoron’s bar on Mr. Trump obtaining new loans from New York banks would constrain his ability to either produce the money himself or have enough cash to pledge as collateral for a bond, his lawyers had argued.
In seeking relief, Mr. Trump’s lawyers disclosed that he would be unable to secure a bond for the full $454 million, raising the prospect that he might soon default on the judgment if the full appeals court denies his request.
Under New York law, a defendant also owes 9 percent interest to the plaintiff until the judgment is paid or the appeal resolved, meaning a full bond in this case might reach $500 million or more.
If the appeals court denies the request, Mr. Trump’s lawyers warned, he likely would have to sell some New York properties “under exigent circumstances,” in what would be a punishing blow to the former president.
“The exorbitant and punitive amount of the judgment coupled with an unlawful and unconstitutional blanket prohibition on lending transactions would make it impossible to secure and post a complete bond,” the lawyers wrote.
Mr. Trump might eventually be able to secure a bigger bond. His stake in Trump Media & Technology Group, his social media company, could be worth up to $4 billion after a long-delayed merger is made final this year.
Posting a bond that the appeals court accepts would prevent the attorney general, Letitia James, from collecting the judgment until Mr. Trump’s appeal is resolved. Without a bond or pause from the court, Ms. James can seize Mr. Trump’s bank accounts and potentially take control of his New York properties.
In its own filing, Ms. James’s office asked the appeals court to deny Mr. Trump’s request.
“There is no merit to defendants’ contention that a full bond or deposit is unnecessary because they are willing to post a partial undertaking of less than a quarter of the judgment amount,” the attorney general’s office wrote. “Defendants all but concede that Mr. Trump has insufficient liquid assets to satisfy the judgment.”
Mr. Trump appears to be struggling to line up a bond in the defamation case as well. He has until early next month to do so, and his lawyers recently asked a judge to either grant him more time or reduce the size of the bond. A bond, in simplest terms, is a document that a company provides to the court on a defendant’s behalf. The bond company promises the court to cover a judgment if a defendant, in this case Mr. Trump, loses an appeal and fails to pay.
In exchange, Mr. Trump would have to pay the bond company a premium fee, typically anywhere from 1 to 3 percent of the judgment. Mr. Trump would also have to pledge collateral to the bond company, offering it cash, stocks and bonds.
Although each deal is different, companies offering appeal bonds might be unwilling to take Mr. Trump’s property as collateral, especially if a building already has a mortgage, experts said.
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Feb 28, 2024 23:24:21 GMT
Not good news. The best case scenario was for the Supreme Court to decline the ruling and lets the appeals court rejection of immunity stand. This will delay the entire process by a minimum of 2 months. www.nytimes.com/2024/02/28/us/supreme-court-trump-immunity-trial.htmlSupreme Court Agrees to Hear Trump’s Immunity Claim, Setting Arguments for April The former president’s trial on charges of plotting to subvert the 2020 election will remain on hold while the justices consider the matter. The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to decide whether former President Donald J. Trump is immune from prosecution on charges of plotting to overturn the 2020 election.
The justices scheduled arguments for the week of April 22 and said proceedings in the trial court would remain frozen while they considered the matter.
The court’s brief order said the court will decide this question: “Whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.”
The Supreme Court’s response to Mr. Trump’s bid for delay had taken on increasing urgency because its ultimate resolution would determine whether and how quickly Mr. Trump could go to trial. That, in turn, could affect his election prospects and, should he be re-elected, his ability to scuttle the prosecution.
In an emergency application asking the Supreme Court to intervene, Mr. Trump said a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit had been wrong to rule that he may be criminally charged for his conduct as president. Total immunity for his official conduct, Mr. Trump’s application said, is required by the separation of powers, implicit in procedures for impeaching the president and needed to prevent partisan misuse of the criminal justice system.
“An absence of criminal immunity for official acts threatens the very ability of the president to function properly,” the filing said. “Any decision by the president on a politically controversial question would face the threat of indictment by the opposing party after a change in administrations.”
Mr. Trump, widely considered the Republican front-runner, added a practical concern.
“Conducting a monthslong criminal trial of President Trump at the height of election season will radically disrupt President Trump’s ability to campaign against President Biden — which appears to be the whole point of the special counsel’s persistent demands for expedition,” the application said. “The D.C. Circuit’s order thus threatens immediate irreparable injury to the First Amendment interests of President Trump and tens of millions of American voters, who are entitled to hear President Trump’s campaign message as they decide how to cast their ballots in November.”
Jack Smith, the special counsel overseeing the federal prosecutions of Mr. Trump, took issue with every element of his argument, citing his efforts to subvert democracy.
If Mr. Trump’s “radical claim were accepted,” Mr. Smith wrote, “it would upend understandings about presidential accountability that have prevailed throughout history while undermining democracy and the rule of law — particularly where, as here, a former president is alleged to have committed crimes to remain in office despite losing an election, thereby seeking to subvert constitutional procedures for transferring power and to disenfranchise millions of voters.”
Mr. Smith added that there was no reason to fear tit-for-tat prosecutions that would chill other presidents from taking decisive action.
“That dystopian vision runs contrary to the checks and balances built into our institutions and the framework of the Constitution,” Mr. Smith wrote.
In a supporting brief urging the justices to deny Mr. Trump’s request for a stay, several former prominent officials who had served in Republican administrations said the court need not rule broadly, as the conduct Mr. Trump is accused of was so clearly outside of any immunity the Constitution might confer.
“Denying a stay would not preclude possible federal criminal immunity for a president’s official acts in some different, exceptional situation,” the brief said.
Mr. Smith echoed the point, citing the officials’ brief. “A sufficient basis for resolving this case would be that, whatever the rule in other contexts not presented here,” he wrote, “no immunity attaches to a president’s commission of federal crimes to subvert the electoral process.”
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Feb 28, 2024 23:28:58 GMT
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Feb 28, 2024 23:34:08 GMT
Well at least the civil trial is moving forward
Trump facing a criminal trial on March 25 is significant. To understand, review the bidding.
First, before Trump was President, he hid his payments (the hush money) to avoid a criminal indictment then.
Second, he then became President, and said he couldn’t be indicted for his past crimes like the hush money while in office.
Third, he then committed more serious crimes in office (the Mueller report lists 10), and he said he couldn’t be prosecuted for his crimes as a sitting President while in office.
Fourth, he then got voted out of office, and so committed even more crimes to try to stay in office (the Jan. 6 charges, some of the most significant charges in the book), and said he couldn’t be prosecuted for them while he was still President.
Fifth, b/c he couldn't be prosecuted, Congress impeached him and he said he couldn’t be impeached because the only remedy was to prosecute him after he leaves office, not to impeach him.
Sixth, he then leaves office and he’s prosecuted (as per exactly what his lawyers said could happen to him), and he now says he can’t be prosecuted because he is absolutely immune from prosecution for acts while he was President.
Seventh, for crimes he committed when he was NOT President (like the New York ones), he is now saying he can’t be prosecuted for those either, b/c he’s he’s a candidate for President again (as his lawyer argued in court today).
And oh, eighth, he filed a brief in the US Supreme Court today saying because he was not impeached, he can't be convicted.
What is this? What Constitution on earth would permit this?
|
|
dawnnikol
Prolific Pea
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_green.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_green.png)
'A life without books is a life not lived.' Jay Kristoff
Posts: 8,064
Sept 21, 2015 18:39:25 GMT
|
Post by dawnnikol on Feb 29, 2024 0:53:33 GMT
TFG's Busy Calendar
It opens up a detailed calendar of events for TFG leading up to the election.
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Feb 29, 2024 4:53:03 GMT
This was a surprise. I'm sure he will appeal, not sure where it goes from here? And we're still waiting to hear from the Supreme Court on the Colorado case www.nytimes.com/2024/02/28/us/trump-removal-illinois-primary-ballot.htmlJudge Orders Trump Removed From Illinois Primary Ballot The judge, a Democrat, stayed her ruling until Friday, leaving Donald J. Trump’s team time to appeal the decision.
A state judge in Illinois ruled on Wednesday that former President Donald J. Trump had engaged in insurrection and was ineligible to appear on the state’s primary ballot. The decision creates uncertainty for the state’s March election, in which early voting is already underway.
It also adds urgency for the U.S. Supreme Court to provide a national answer to the questions that have been raised about Mr. Trump’s eligibility to appear on ballots in more than 30 states.
The judge, Tracie R. Porter of the State Circuit Court in Cook County, said the State Board of Elections had erred in rejecting an attempt to remove Mr. Trump and said the board “shall remove Donald J. Trump from the ballot for the general primary election on March 19, 2024, or cause any votes cast for him to be suppressed.”
But the decision by Judge Porter, a Democrat, was stayed until Friday, which means Mr. Trump can remain on the Illinois ballot at least until then. A spokesman for the Trump campaign said the ruling was unconstitutional and vowed to appeal.
“Today, an activist Democrat judge in Illinois summarily overruled the state’s Board of Elections and contradicted earlier decisions from dozens of other state and federal jurisdictions,” the spokesman, Steven Cheung, said in a statement.
Judge Porter’s ruling makes Illinois the most populous state where Mr. Trump has been deemed ineligible on constitutional grounds. Officials in Colorado and Maine earlier ruled him ineligible on similar grounds.
The ballot challenges focus on whether Mr. Trump’s efforts to overturn his 2020 election defeat disqualify him from holding the presidency again. The cases are based on a largely untested clause of the 14th Amendment enacted after the Civil War that prohibits government officials who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” from holding office.
“The decision recognizes the importance of rule of law and upholding the mandate of the U.S. Constitution,” said Caryn Lederer, a lawyer for the Illinois residents challenging Mr. Trump, in a statement.
Mr. Trump is likely to appear on ballots in both Colorado and Maine, which are holding their primaries on Tuesday. The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the Colorado appeal on Feb. 8 in a case that could determine Mr. Trump’s eligibility for the ballot nationally. Justices across the ideological spectrum appeared skeptical of the reasoning used to disqualify Mr. Trump. It is not clear when they will issue a ruling.
Judge Porter, who sits in Cook County, which includes Chicago, agreed that he committed insurrection, but said the matter had been within the board’s purview.
In her ruling, Judge Porter said she “realizes the magnitude of this decision” and its “impact on the upcoming primary Illinois elections.” But, she added, Mr. Trump was ineligible “based on engaging in insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021, and his name should be removed from the ballot.”
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Feb 29, 2024 15:40:53 GMT
I'm feeling pessimistic about Trump's court cases and the Supreme Court, but this is a hopeful thought.
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Feb 29, 2024 18:05:58 GMT
I don't know what kind of games Bradley is playing but he does not seem like a credible witness for either side. I don't know what the right solution is, but I hate that this has become a huge distraction from the actual case. www.nytimes.com/2024/02/29/us/trump-georgia-fani-willis-texts.htmlTerrence Bradley, an Atlanta-area lawyer, had been billed as the star witness in the effort to disqualify Fani T. Willis, the district attorney leading the election interference case against former President Donald J. Trump in Georgia. But when Mr. Bradley took the stand this week — and twice earlier this month — he was a deeply reluctant witness.
His testimony did little to resolve a question at the heart of the defense’s attempt to show that Ms. Willis had an untenable conflict of interest: Whether the romantic relationship between Ms. Willis and Nathan Wade, the lawyer she hired to help run the Trump case, began before or after he joined her staff.
But hundreds of text messages obtained by The New York Times show that Mr. Bradley, a former law partner and friend of Mr. Wade, helped a defense lawyer to expose the relationship between the two prosecutors.
The texts reveal that Mr. Bradley, who served for a time as Mr. Wade’s divorce lawyer until the two men had a bitter falling-out, assisted the effort to reveal the romance and provide details about it for at least four months — countering the impression he left on the witness stand that he had known next to nothing about the romance.
In the text exchanges, which began in September of last year and were reported late Wednesday by CNN, Mr. Bradley claimed some knowledge of when the relationship began. He even offered the defense lawyer, Ashleigh Merchant, reassurance as she submitted her motion to disqualify to the court.
“I am nervous,” Ms. Merchant texted to Mr. Bradley on Jan. 8, the day she filed the motion. “This is huge.”
“You are huge,” Mr. Bradley encouraged her. “You will be fine.”
Ultimately, it will be up to the judge to assess the credibility of Mr. Bradley, and determine whether the text messages bolster the case for disqualifying the prosecutors.
Lawyers for Mr. Trump and his co-defendants have argued that the relationship between the prosecutors amounted to “self-dealing,” because Mr. Wade, who has made more than $650,000 working for Ms. Willis’s office, paid for vacations that the couple took together. A series of hearings delving into the issue has plunged the overall case into turmoil.
When contacted Thursday morning, a lawyer for Mr. Wade, Andrew Evans, said that “the texts contain several outright lies.” Among them, Mr. Evans said, was an assertion from Mr. Bradley that either Mr. Evans or his wife, Stacey Evans, a Democratic state representative, had witnessed Mr. Wade and Ms. Willis having sex.
The hearings delving into the romantic relationship do not change the underlying details of the election interference case itself, in which Mr. Trump and his allies are charged with conspiring to subvert the results of the 2020 election. Four of the 19 original defendants have already pleaded guilty.
Even so, the effort to disqualify the prosecutors has been an extraordinary detour that has turned the case upside down, with defense attorneys acting more like prosecutors, and vice versa.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Feb 29, 2024 20:34:42 GMT
I am also concerned about Bradley as I mentioned farther up in this thread.
|
|
|
Post by morecowbell on Feb 29, 2024 20:35:37 GMT
With the testimony of Fani Willis' friend, the cellphone data, and Nathan Wade's divorce lawyer's text messages, it's pretty well established that Fani Willis and Nathan Wade are liars and should be removed from the case and probably disbarred.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Feb 29, 2024 20:35:38 GMT
Almost one month after the jury returned its verdict in this case, Defendant Donald J. Trump filed yet another motion for a stay—this time, to stay enforcement of the judgment without a bond or any other security that would ensure that Plaintiff E. Jean Carroll's will be able to collect the $83.3 million that Trump now owes her," Carroll's attorney wrote in Thursday's 29-page memo to the court. "The reasoning Trump offers in seeking this extraordinary relief boils down to nothing more than 'trust me.'" The document argued that there was "no basis in law" for the relief requested by Trump. Carroll's attorney pointed to a New York court rule that "does not authorize fully unsecured stays." "But what Trump proposes here is nothing at all. In support of his position, he fails to cite a single controlling (or even persuasive) case," the filing said. "This is an independently sufficient reason to deny Trump's motion. Under the plain language of Rule 62(b), and persuasive authority interpreting it, an entirely unsecured stay is not permissible." "With respect to Trump's ability to pay (factors three and four), Trump asks the Court to simply trust that he's very rich—and that posting a bond (or other collateral) would therefore be a waste of money," the document continued. The attorney for Carroll observed that Trump was recently hit with a $454 million judgment in a New York fraud case. "And the New York Times has reported that Trump may not have enough cash to cover his post-judgment obligations in the New York state case, let alone in this one," the attorney informed the court. "Trump does not even mention, much less address, these developments, which are obviously highly relevant to his ability to satisfy the judgment here." www.rawstory.com/carroll-trump-motion/
|
|
|
Post by Gem Girl on Feb 29, 2024 21:40:58 GMT
I hate that this has become a huge distraction from the actual case. I concur.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Feb 29, 2024 23:22:36 GMT
MSNBC Breaking news
Pending trial dates for MAL documents case!!
DOJ trial start July 8
TFG trial start Aug 12
RNC Convention July 15- July 18...
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Feb 29, 2024 23:39:01 GMT
In one of the political threads, (sorry I lost track of the poster and which thread) someone asked a really important question about who might lend Trump the money to pay his fines? Given Trump's legal and financial difficulties, he would never receive a security clearance if he was an ordinary citizen. And that's setting aside the fact that he stole and hid classified documents.
BREAKING: Donald Trump's former fixer Michael Cohen rubs salt in his old boss's wounds, says that Trump's "super ego" has been crushed by his legal defeats and "he's embarrassed."
Cohen also warned America exactly what to look out for next...
"What we really need to watch out for is where the money is going to come from," Cohen said of the massive fines and damages Trump must legally cough up.
"Is it going to come from Saudi Arabia? Is it going to come somehow back channel from Putin or some other autocratic alleged friend of Donald Trump? That’s the most important thing, because what it does is it jeopardizes America’s national security," he explained.
Cohen added that "everybody needs to keep an eye out" to see where this money comes from.
The remarks came during an appearance on CNN. Cohen was asked by host Laura Coates if he thinks that Trump has been humiliated by the $454 judgement handed down by Judge Arthur Engoron.
"Well, of course he’s embarrassed because his entire net worth, the constant reiteration that ‘I’m worth at least $10 billion maybe even more’ obviously goes to his ego, his super ego, and that’s now super deflated because it’s just not true," said Cohen.
He pointed out that it wasn't "that long ago" that Trump testified in his New York civil trial and insisted that he had "many, many, many billions of dollars" and was "very, very cash rich."
"Well, we know that that’s just yet another lie that was told by Trump," Cohen said.
Cohen is absolutely right. Donald Trump simply doesn't have access to the kind of liquidity that he would need to pay what he owes. Given his long track record of criminality and conniving with foreign adversaries, he may turn to them in his desperation...
If he does, the Justice Department must be waiting.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Feb 29, 2024 23:49:01 GMT
My thought is Saudi Arabia. They have handed Jared $2 billion easily!
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Mar 1, 2024 3:45:51 GMT
Some people say it best!!
Not to worry, if Biden loses the election…he can just blame it on fraud, dispatch Seal Team Six and remain in office….right SCOTUS?
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Mar 1, 2024 15:24:41 GMT
Looks like he doesn’t have the cash on hand. Well, he has $1.3 million from gullible Americans. The lack of cash is about more than him lying about his wealth (in a courtroom). More importantly, who is going to loan him the money? What foreign entity will Trump be beholden to? Hungary? Orbán has said he would very much like to see Trump return to the White House.
|
|