Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Breccia]

Also, WTF does he mean by "he's protected by the Secret Service"?

Oh, that's my fault. I snipped a lot of the article. She was asked about Trump in prison. You can read the article if you want, I just wanted the whole "even his lawyer stopped leading with claims of innocence" bit because that speaks volumes.

[Edge-]

https://www.newsweek.com/judge-chutk...-trial-1840033

Judge Tanya Chutkan blocked former President Donald Trump from seeing federal prosecutors' evidence ahead of his federal election interference trial.

A federal grand jury in August indicted Trump on four counts, including conspiracy to defraud the United States. Department of Justice special counsel Jack Smith has investigated Trump's alleged efforts to overturn the election results, including attempts to submit false slates of pro-Trump electors from swing states he lost to the Electoral College.

Trump maintains his innocence, accusing prosecutors of targeting him for political purposes. He pleaded not guilty in this case, as he did in his three other criminal cases.

Chutkan, who is overseeing the trial, issued an order on Wednesday blocking Trump's legal team from seeing some of the government's evidence against him that has been deemed classified.

Chutkan granted the government's motion to allow prosecutors to withhold "certain classified information" from the former president, instead allowing them to provide an "unclassified summary substitution for certain classified information."

The government cited the Classified Information Procedures Act and Rule (CIPA) in their motion requesting to withhold the information. As the information is classified, the nature of the evidence being held from Trump's legal team remains unknown.

Judge Chutkan determined the summary posed by the government "adequately describes any content of the withheld materials that could be considered relevant and helpful to the defense," siding with Smith.

Trump's legal team earlier in October introduced their own motion requesting "attorneys'-eyes-only" access to the CIPA documents.

As a reminder, I do not believe Donald retains his security clearance to see these documents and could only really be read in on them by the authority of current administration.

Which I think we all agree would absolutely never grant this walking info-sec nightmare access to a single classified document.

"At the outset, it bears emphasis that the defense identifies no case in which any court has ordered the relief they seek here, and this court is aware of none. There is good reason for that lack of precedent: "As [CIPA's] House Report explains, 'since the government is seeking to withhold classified information from the defendant, an adversary hearing with defense knowledge would defeat the very purpose of the discovery rules,'" Chutkan wrote.

She continued, "It is not possible to isolate the unclassified portions of the CIPA § 4 Motion in such a way that its arguments could be meaningfully litigated."

So this follows precedent, neato.

[Breccia]

Leave my children alone, Engoron

Uh oh, I think Trump is worried...

[Corvus]

Uh oh, I think Trump is worried...

Very hard to throw his kids under a bus if they've already given him up first.

[Breccia]

Don Jr. testifies, as demanded by his position in the company accused of massive corporate fraud.

As expected, he's testing a cliche defense. From the NBC News rolling tracker:

After an afternoon on the stand yesterday, Trump Jr. is back. He said in direct examination this morning that he doesn’t recall the specifics of several documents he was presented with in court, but that the Trump Organization’s accountants and accounting firm, Mazars USA, would be more familiar with the details.

He said that he relied on the accounting team, which included Allen Weisselberg, who was the company's CFO, and would ask all relevant parties if the information in the documents were correct and then he would sign off on them.

Asked about a loan document from Deutsche Bank in 2017 on which he signed as “attorney in fact,” Trump Jr. said he didn’t remember signing it, but added: “I’m sure I've signed dozens of these in my time as trustee.”

And this is from yesterday:

The attorney general's financial expert, Michiel McCarty, delivered testimony on the effect of the Trump Organization's valuations that the AG's office said were falsely inflated. During a cross-examination, Trump's counsel attempted to undermine McCarty's calculations.

That was followed by former Trump Organization senior vice president David Orowitz discussing the deal that led to the company’s management of a hotel near the White House.

Later in the day, Donald Trump Jr. took the stand and was asked by the AG's office about real estate-related financial terms. At one point, he told Judge Engoron that he had "no understanding" of certain accounting standards.

Trump Jr. said the company had "relied heavily" on his father's longtime accountant, Donald Bender, for its accounting needs.

So, yes, Donnie Dum-Dum Jr. is attempting like hell to avoid any responsibility by blaming the accountants for the forms he (possibly literally) rubber stamped.

Granted, the outside accountants have already said, publicly, that the evaluations do not represent their own work, plus, they're literally not the ones on trial here.

We've all seen the blame game before, something bad happens, everyone blames everyone else, and each hopes there's not enough evidence to prove them wrong. The reason we keep seeing this is, likely, because it keeps working.

Here is why I don't think it will work in this case, and as I'm not an expert, I am going to politely ask @cubby to step in with any professional insights. I know, I call on him a lot, no pressure man we all have other things to do.

1) The first thing that leaps to mind is that this is civil not criminal. Trump Org cannot itself be thrown in jail. In the case of "he said, she said" in criminal cases, where the burden of proof is much higher, each blaming the other has a good chance of working. Civil trials do not need beyond all reasonable doubt. If the judge or jury, depending, says one side is 51% likely to be responsible, that's the finding right there.

In addition, two or more suspects blaming each other probably works better in two or more separate trials. That's not happening here. Trump Org as a collective is looking at all the suspects at once.

2) Based on the publicly available evidence, there seems very low chance that an outside company, such as Mazars, looked at forms handed to them by Trump Org and said "you know what, let's double and triple random items just because we want to". I think the forms came to them with already inflated values which they have already publicly denied is their own work.

This means, there is very likely strong evidence that the inflated values came from Trump Org in some way. Trump Org is the one on trial, so trying to swap the blame from one person in Trump Org to another person in Trump Org isn't really a defense of Trump Org.

3) One of the penalties being asked for is Trump Org to be shut down and its execs blocked from running any businesses.

James is seeking at least $250 million in fines, a permanent ban against Trump and his sons Donald Jr and Eric from running businesses in New York and a five-year commercial real estate ban against Trump and the Trump Organization.

Don Jr. just testified, on the stand, on purpose, that he didn't understand a bunch of the things he was part of that were crimes, and did these crimes anyhow despite them being crimes. "I'm not guilty, I'm incompetent" does not sound like the sort of thing to say when you're asking for your business license to be renewed. Well I guess in this case it does, but it doesn't sound helpful.

4) That's two Trump employees Don Jr. tried to blame for crimes, Weaselberg and Bender, who



are not exactly known for their trustworthy natures. But Don Jr. tried to sell them out, in public. There is little to no reason why they'd respond to being accused of literal crimes and just sit back and accept that, even if it's true. I am not encouraging or endorsing perjury, but I am saying, if I were to expect someone to commit perjury, it would be during a Trump trial.

5) And finally, "I don't remember doing it" does not sound like a defense to me. I think it sounds like "society's to blame" or "everyone else was doing it, I just wanted to be popular" i.e. effectively admission that he committed crimes but not wanting to be charged for them. I haven't been watching the trial, but at no point have I seen a headline in which Don Jr. said "No, I did not commit fraud, these signatures are forged" or "No, I did not commit fraud, I signed those forms willingly and on purpose because those are the real values of everything". In public maybe, on the stand no.

Do I think Don Jr. remembers committing those crimes, saying at the time "Tee twiddle-dee dee, I am committing so many crimes by signing these forms with my own name"? No, but I do think he was raised in, and works in, an environment that willfully encourages legal deceit under the cover of "I'm too rich to be arrested for this". I think it's not just possible, but likely, that he simply worked in a constant atmosphere of criminal activity he thought he would get away with.

I think Don Jr. is testifying to save himself.

"Well durrrrrrrrrrrrr."

Okay fine, I'll clarify. Don Jr. has decided the SS Trump Org is going to sink no matter what, and is grabbing a life jacket. I think his testimony has little to no chance of saving Trump Org from its fate. I think he knows he committed crimes, I think he is testifying this way to avoid being caught in those crimes, and I think he's willing to throw his employees and company under the bus to save himself.

Don Jr. and Trump will likely evade being arrested for this, but it will come at great cost. You don't see the first mate or navigator heading for the top deck carrying a life jacket and a transponder if things on the ship are going great.

- - - Updated - - -

(a few moments later)

Ivanka appeals ruling that she must testify.

"But she's not a target."

Again, the company is, and she works for it. Let's not forget, these fake, inflated values reach back quite some time. Ivanka might be fleeing the family or she might not, but she was definitely part of it for most of this trial's span of influence.

[Edge-]

I enjoy that ultimately his testimony seems to be, "Yes I ran the company. No, I had no idea what I was doing or what anyone else was doing and just signed documents without asking to be informed and educated about what I was signing in an official capacity."

Which begs the question, is there any difference between Donnie Jr. and an autopen? Because the autopen might edge him out as it can't be called to testify in a civil trial.

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.salon.com/2023/11/02/str...up-dc-defense/

New York Attorney General Letitia James' team on Wednesday revealed a document in court during Donald Trump's $250 million civil fraud trial that some legal experts say indicates the former president was aware he lost the 2020 election and planned to return to life as a private citizen. The document, according to The Messenger's Adam Klasfeld, shows Trump "restored himself" as trustee of the Trump Organization on Jan. 15 2021, just days before he left office.

"This document could be hugely important to Jack Smith and Fani Willis: it would show that Trump knew, at least as of 1/15/21, that he had not won the election and was returning to his private life & business," former federal prosecutor Andrew Weissmann, who served in special counsel Robert Mueller's office, wrote on X, formerly Twitter. Weissmann elaborated on the document's value during an MSNBC appearance, explaining that, to him, it's evidence that Smith can use because it aligns with what a number of Trump aides have said about times when the former president acknowledged his electoral defeat. "It's very important to Jack Smith because one of the allegations with support is that the former president actually knew he lost. This would be a good document to support that theory," Weissmann concluded.

The document "[s]trongly undermines any claim that Trump really believed he had one (which doesn’t matter anyway, as many, inc me have explained)," Harry Litman, a former U.S. attorney, tweeted. "This is not a guy who’s planning to be president in a week. Not to mention, business first. This will be an important document in several settings."

This isn't good for Donald's other trial. Because if he did indeed believe he was the victor of the 2020 election why would he restore himself to his companies board before leaving office? Surely he could have done that at any time, and if he believed he truly did win and that his won was stolen from him he'd have refused to take such a move as it would have been an admission of loss.

Oops.

[Breccia]

"Trump "restored himself" as trustee of the Trump Organization on Jan. 15 2021, just days before he left office."

Oops.

Just so everyone, including Trump supporters, are aware, that means even though Trump's version of "divesting" was "let my sons who I talk to every day run the company" is questionable at best, he wasn't even that in the final days of his tenure, when he was granting pardons.

There is no reason to believe Trump will hold his business dealings separate from any official acts. We have proof now he was both at the same time.

"It was only for a week!"

And the correct amount of time to have such a conflict of interest is...? Yeah, we're not getting into that slippery slope bullshit.

[Edge-]

Unsurprisingly, there seems to be a reason that Eric is forever the second son, at least beyond not sharing a name with his father - https://newrepublic.com/post/176615/...rk-fraud-trial

Eric Trump got a little testy on the stand Thursday—moments before he was caught lying about his knowledge regarding his father’s financial statements.

After claiming that he had “never worked” on the Trump Organization’s statement of financial condition” and wasn’t aware of it until the bank fraud trial “came to fruition,” the taller Trump brother admitted he was in fact aware of them dating as far back as 2013.

The “gotcha” moment has big implications for how the rest of this case will unfold.

Trump’s sons Eric and Don Jr. spent the majority of Wednesday and Thursday on the stand, where they conveniently seemed to have forgotten many details about serving as the Trump Organization’s top executives.

The brothers have largely skirted specifics, blaming their faulty memories for the total lapses. Don Jr. claimed he could not remember the period in 2021 in which he was removed and then reinstated as a trustee of the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, couldn’t remember if his father was a trustee, had no idea why his father added himself back as a trustee during his presidency, and claimed he could not recall if he had worked on his father’s statement of financial condition.

Instead, the brothers’ testimony has attempted to divert most of the responsibility regarding the faulty financial statements onto the companies’ accounting team, including former CFO Allen Weisselberg, as well as their accounting firm, Mazars USA.

Yet Eric’s contradiction to his own deposition also shines a light on the prosecution’s strategy, which has been able to question the brother’s credibility without outright calling him a liar. Essentially, Eric has already revealed that his claims of having no knowledge were “at best, based on a very faulty memory and at worst, constituted deliberate falsehoods,” reported NBC News.

Boy, Eric may have just opened himself up to some exposure here where his elder brother was smart enough and likely sober enough to keep his fuckin mouth shut and stick to the script that he has a terrible memory and also just signs whatever is put in front of him without question.

[cubby]

So, yes, Donnie Dum-Dum Jr. is attempting like hell to avoid any responsibility by blaming the accountants for the forms he (possibly literally) rubber stamped.

Granted, the outside accountants have already said, publicly, that the evaluations do not represent their own work, plus, they're literally not the ones on trial here.

We've all seen the blame game before, something bad happens, everyone blames everyone else, and each hopes there's not enough evidence to prove them wrong. The reason we keep seeing this is, likely, because it keeps working.

Here is why I don't think it will work in this case, and as I'm not an expert, I am going to politely ask @cubby to step in with any professional insights. I know, I call on him a lot, no pressure man we all have other things to do.

1) The first thing that leaps to mind is that this is civil not criminal. Trump Org cannot itself be thrown in jail. In the case of "he said, she said" in criminal cases, where the burden of proof is much higher, each blaming the other has a good chance of working. Civil trials do not need beyond all reasonable doubt. If the judge or jury, depending, says one side is 51% likely to be responsible, that's the finding right there.

In addition, two or more suspects blaming each other probably works better in two or more separate trials. That's not happening here. Trump Org as a collective is looking at all the suspects at once.

2) Based on the publicly available evidence, there seems very low chance that an outside company, such as Mazars, looked at forms handed to them by Trump Org and said "you know what, let's double and triple random items just because we want to". I think the forms came to them with already inflated values which they have already publicly denied is their own work.

This means, there is very likely strong evidence that the inflated values came from Trump Org in some way. Trump Org is the one on trial, so trying to swap the blame from one person in Trump Org to another person in Trump Org isn't really a defense of Trump Org.

3) One of the penalties being asked for is Trump Org to be shut down and its execs blocked from running any businesses.

In this case, because the Trump Org is on trial in civil court, the entire organization is on trial for civil damages. Which, as you so aptly pointed out, has a much lower threshold for evidentiary matters. Plus, they can't separate themselves as defendants and then blame the other to avoid consequences, as they could in a criminal trial.

From what I've seen and read so far, it seems their goose is cooked (that's a legal term of art by the way ). Because the orgs actions, including all their fraudulent activity, are on trial - and so blaming the accountants is tantamount to admitting liability, because the blame itself admits the illegal action. We'll see how it all plays out, of course.

Now, for the good stuff.

Every admission and every piece of evidence is sworn testimony. Meaning it can be used in other trials, including criminal trials. Which is one of the main points of having the civil trial. Giddy up.

[Breccia]

Do not refer to my staff again

-- Judge Engoron

Kise is on thin ice, and he's trying to tap dance

[Edge-]

-- Judge Engoron

Kise is on thin ice, and he's trying to tap dance

What is this, the fourth time he's had to remind Donald and his legal team over this? Surely there will be consequences...eventually...right?

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/02/trum...o-testify.html

Ivanka wants a pause on the fraud trial.

Why?

Because her testimony is on a school night and there's just no way that she, a multi-millionaire with a large family and friends like Kim Kardashian could arrange to have a friend, family member, or employee pick her kid up and make sure they get dinner. Or maybe the young lad Jared Kushner could step up with the daddy duties for a day.

When your testimony in your family businesses multi-billion dollar civil fraud trial gets in the way of your duties raising your kid. #FirstWorldProblems

[Breccia]

Because her testimony is on a school night

She...she must know that most court days are also school days, right? Like, basically all of them?

[Edge-]

She...she must know that most court days are also school days, right? Like, basically all of them?

It's almost like she knew this for a while and also waited until the day before her testimony to remember that she had a child that went to school.

Weird that she'd forget something like that, innit?

[Breccia]

It's almost like she knew this for a while and also waited until the day before her testimony to remember that she had a child that went to school.

Weird that she'd forget something like that, innit?

I'm just going to call bullshit on her working with her kids around, meaning, they're used to her being away for a standard business day. You know, like courts have.

- - - Updated - - -

Ladies and gentlemen, some bullshit.

I clearly understand that I sent notes to Jeff McConney. I worked with him almost every day.

What seems to not be registering is the difference between sending things used for financials and sending things used for a statement of financial condition.

I don’t think it ever registered that it was for a personal statement of financial condition. It was a detail that was irrelevant to me.

That’s not the focus of my day. I focus on construction. I don’t focus on appraisals.

-- Eric Trump

[Edge-]

Ladies and gentlemen, some bullshit.


-- Eric Trump

Wait until the next lawsuit, then he'll have never heard of the word "construction". The Trump boys are apparently human autopens who have no knowledge of the documents they sign.

[Breccia]

The Trump boys are apparently human autopens who have no knowledge of the documents they sign.

Which, just to be clear, does not free Trump Org from wrongdoing. This feels like themselves trying not to go to jail, by claiming they did all those crimes by accident. Or, to use the thing from Putin, "that could be anyone's proof of my fraud!"

Oh, and Giuliani is begging to not be disbarred.

"I thought he was?"

In July it was recommended.

On Friday, a three-member panel of the Bar of the District of Columbia recommended unanimously that Rudy Giuliani be disbarred for his role filing “frivolous” litigation on behalf of former President Donald Trump following the 2020 election. The recommendation comes one year into a disciplinary process that has been unfolding in D.C. and two years after New York suspended the former New York City mayor from practicing law in the state for similar impropriety.

The chief factual objective of the hearing in this disciplinary matter was to ascertain whether [it was] proved by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Giuliani lacked material evidence to support his claims that [procedures] facilitated widespread, systemic voter fraud and justified the nullification of hundreds of thousands of votes in Pennsylvania. The hearing clearly and convincingly disclosed that there was no such evidence: [Giuliani] based the Pennsylvania litigation only on speculation, mistrust, and suspicion.

[Giuliani] commenced litigation without evidence that its core factual claim was true. He admits as much, maintaining that the “fastmoving” case “did not permit him to investigate fully his client’s position as he would normally do in any other case.”

Even without supporting evidence, he claims, it was reasonable for him to “draw an inference and make an argument that the vote count was illegal and contrary to law.” … We reject this argument.

[Giuliani] testified that “a complaint is a prediction. It’s not a statement of what you definitely are going to get, what you’re definitely going to prove.” … He further stated that “[a]ll those questions have to be answered, which you can’t answer at this stage of the litigation, so you put out all the allegations you have, the ones that help you, the ones that don’t, and then you work your way through it in the litigation.”

His testimony raised the possibility that some relevant materials may have been lost or not turned over, but the only “missing” document he could think of was already included in his document production, albeit without an unknown number of affidavits he “thought” were attached to it…. He subsequently testified that there might be other missing documents but, if so, they concerned “an illegal voter, it’s one or two.”

We conclude therefore that the record of the disciplinary hearing contains all the material evidence gathered by Mr. Giuliani, and on his behalf, to support his claims in the Pennsylvania litigation. His nebulous allusions to the existence of additional material documentation are not credible.

EDIT: No really, it goes on and on. It's fucking brutal.

The principal notion behind the particular lawsuit under scrutiny in this bar proceeding was that because “election observers” in Pennsylvania had to have some physical distance from the ballot-counting process, the count was inherently corrupt and basically every ballot had to be thrown out and Trump declared the winner.

As the panel noted, Giuliani’s primary accusations “were simply not true.” Indeed, “Mr. Giuliani did not offer any evidence that fraudulent mail-in votes were actually cast or counted.”

In other words, this recommendation was not just "it's not looking good". The recommendation is "holy shit, this is blatant". I don't think Giuliani is going to get very far with "oh come on, everyone files lawsuits claiming treason without proof, it's not Giuliani's fault the claims were 100% false".

- - - Updated - - -

Ladies and gentlement, tehdang's chosen candidate:

This truly is our last chance to save America, and with the 2024 election now less than one year away, this is your chance to take a stand against tyrants that support the one and only movement that can save our country and make America great again. We must win in 2024.

"Take a stand...against the movement that can save our country?"

I just cut and paste, dude.

[Shkar]

Well, it's nice that Trump flat out admits that he wants to be a tyrant, I guess.

[cubby]

In other words, this recommendation was not just "it's not looking good". The recommendation is "holy shit, this is blatant". I don't think Giuliani is going to get very far with "oh come on, everyone files lawsuits claiming treason without proof, it's not Giuliani's fault the claims were 100% false".

Love seeing that asshat fall flat on his face. Disbarred, disgraced, shunned from everything and everyone he sought in his life. I hope the dementia that is tormenting his brain lifts enough for him to see what he's dragged himself down to.

[Gorsameth]

I always wonder something with these sort of trials and the statements of "I didn't bother reading what I signed". Isn't the whole point of having the signature there that you bear the responsibility? It doesn't matter if you read it, or if you understand what it says, the moment your signature is on it, it is your problem.

Or does that only apply to poor people?

[Breccia]

Isn't the whole point of having the signature there that you bear the responsibility?

In the real world, yes. Rich, wh*cough* privileged people don't live in the real world where missing a car payment is bad.

This is leaving aside the whole "my company will be found liable, my only goal is to not go to jail" bit. We're seeing unfold the magical creation of a fraudulent generation of documents that, somehow, appeared out of thin air with dozens of signatures nobody remembers, nobody researched, and nobody is responsible for. The term is "immaculate deception". We'll see dozens of witnesses, none of whom will say "oh, yes, that was my job". Like you said, Don Jr who signed them, Eric who signed them, and/or Trump who signed them, while running the company, will all have some supernatural power us mere mortals lack of not being legally responsible for the legal forms they legally signed in which they committed crimes.