Trump GUILTY of Fraud

[Trell]

Pretty fishy. How did Cannon get the trial in the first place?

>>>There are 26 U.S. District Judges in the Southern District of Florida eligible to preside over the case of United States of America v. Donald J. Trump. From the standpoint of Special Counsel Jack Smith, the case drew the worst: the Trump-appointed Judge Aileen Cannon.
...
What Smith did not know, or failed sufficiently to appreciate, is that the pool of judges administratively eligible to try the case was not 26 but four. (If you remove from consideration the senior judge, the eligible pool narrows to three.) ...<<<

How Trump ended up with Judge Cannon

The odds were really as short as three to one against drawing Judge Cannon.

thehill.com

 

[cpp]

Cannon is probably the only federal judge in the entire country that would rule the way she has. I'm starting to wonder if Trump has a "luck" superpower similar to Domino.

Or maybe since she was appointed to the federal bench by the former president three years ago, she's playing Trump's game ( being stern to being in favor of her old boss). We shall see on this one.

 

[highfigh]

In theory he could get locked up if he's convicted the NY hush money (Stormy Daniels) criminal case, but the reality is that even if he's convicted no judge will give him jail time for a conviction in that criminal case.

What's the point of paying hush money if the person who was paid doesn't shut up about it?

 

[mtrycrafts]

As a practical matter, there's almost no chance that that the DOJ can win a motion asking her to recuse herself, or win a motion to recuse on appeal.

>>>The author has yet to find a single case in the Eleventh Circuit where the court of appeals has required a judge to recuse themselves based on pervasive bias and prejudice emanating from their judicial decisions.

An added challenge in alleging bias and requesting recusal under Section 455 is that the same judge who is having his or her impartiality questioned hears the initial request. This results in almost all requests being denied. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit reviews cases for abuse of discretion, a much higher bar requiring the court of appeals not only to find that a judge probably should have recused himself or herself, but to find that the potential bias was so significant that the judge was mandated to recuse. . . . Unless Judge Cannon decides to voluntarily recuse, the high bar for requesting recusal based only on prior judicial decisions, and the procedure for requesting recusal, makes the task of having Cannon recused seem almost impossible.<<<(emphasis added)

What Does the Law Say About Recusing Judge Cannon?

Having Judge Cannon recused based on her history and perception of bias is a difficult task.

www.lawfaremedia.org

It's a catch-22 because a highly biased judge is unlikely to recuse himself/herself on the basis that he/she is biased. It's also very difficult to win on appeal because it's very difficult to show abuse of discretion.

How was Cannon chastised previously then she changed her tune? Could that not happen again?

 

[Mr._Clark]

What's the point of paying hush money if the person who was paid doesn't shut up about it?

You'd have to ask Trump.

>>>. . . Trump and his former lawyer Michael Cohen have agreed not to enforce the nondisclosure agreement against Daniels, court documents showed.<<<

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-trump-daniels-idUKKCN1QP00K/

There's really no way to prevent someone from breaching a nondisclosure agreement. Once the "cat" (so to speak) is out of the bag, it can't be undone and I'm sure Stormy doesn't have $20 million to pay Trump for breaching the contract. Continuing legal actions would be pointless, at least from Trump's perspective.

As I see it, the whole she bang (I mean shebang) was the direct result of a series of very poor decisions by Trump resulting from his inability to keep his zipper up while married to Melania (who had just given birth).

I'd be surprised if criminal organizations and foreign governments don't have kompromat on Trump. The way he groveled around Putin was downright creepy.

 

[Mr._Clark]

How was Cannon chastised previously then she changed her tune? Could that not happen again?

It seems unlikely.

In the prior case Trump filed a civil action to block the criminal investigation. This was bizarre on the face of it, but Cannon took the case anyway and tried to block the criminal investigation. The government appealed, and the court of appeals ordered Cannon to dismiss the civil case so the government could proceed with the criminal case.

I don't see a direct parallel in the criminal case. In theory the DOJ could appeal the dates set by Cannon, but appeals take time and it's exceptionally difficult for a prosecutor to win a request to speed up a trial on appeal.

There might be some other appealable issues in the future, but even if the DOJ wins Cannon will still keep the case. If Cannon has the stomach to withstand being told she's an idiot by the court of appeals, it could turn into a very long ping pong match as issues get kicked up and back down on appeal (I don't really expect this to happen, in part because I doubt that the DOJ will appeal anything but the most egregious rulings).

 

[Mr._Clark]

Another side note: borrowing is key to Trump's strategy of avoiding income tax. Rather than receiving income from his businesses and paying taxes on it, he just borrows money perpetually because the interest is less than he'd pay in taxes, and the value of the real estate hopefully goes up more than the very low interest rate he's paying, so he can just refinance and borrow more.

If he cannot get highly favorable interest rates to live on borrowed money, it will have a big negative effect on his tax-avoidance strategy. Conceivably, poor Trumpy Wumpy might even have to pay income taxes like all of the working stiffs who believe he's fighting for them in some way (this is of course ironic given that he's fighting precisely because he doesn't want to be like them).

This is somewhat tangential, but the Supreme Court is taking a tax case involving "realization" vs unrealized gains.

>>>At issue in Moore v. United States is the question of whether the federal government can tax certain types of “unrealized” gains, which are property like stocks or bonds that people own but from which they haven’t directly recouped the value, so they don’t have direct access to the money that the property is worth.

Large portions of the U.S. tax code require that income be “realized” before it can be taxed, but critics say it’s an inherently wishy-washy concept that courts have just been ignoring for years due to administrative impracticalities.<<<

Supreme Court to consider ‘quadrillion-dollar question’ in major tax case

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in early December on a case that has the potential to broadly reshape the U.S. tax code and cost the government hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue…

thehill.com

The article briefly mentions an existing workaround (“Buy, Borrow, Die") to avoid realization and the taxes that come with it, which appears to be Trump's favorite:

>>>One famous strategy, known as “Buy, Borrow, Die,” involves using large, diversified stock portfolios as collateral for relatively low-interest loans.

Rather than selling the holdings and “realizing” the taxable income, wealthy taxpayers use them as collateral to take out low-interest loans. Since debt isn’t taxable, they can skip paying tax on the holdings.

As long as the portfolio appreciates faster than the rate of interest on the loan, payments can be made and the line of credit remains viable.<<<(emphasis added)

Substitute "real estate portfolios" for "stock portfolios" in the above and you have Trump's primary tax avoidance strategy.

The basic “Buy, Borrow, Die” strategy is legal, so I'm not faulting Trump for that. However, if one artificially inflates the value of real estate in order to get reduced interest rates on the "borrow" prong of the strategy, that probably violates NY state law (I say "probably" because we don't know the final outcome of the Trump case yet, but the odds are high it does violate NY law).

 

[Mr._Clark]

As an aside, one of Trump's "defenses" in his public statements is that the banks didn't lose any money as a result of his property valuations. First, this is not a legal defense because the NY law only requires the act of fraud, and restitution is not based on a loss by a third party. Here's a fairly typical definition of restitution:

>>>In civil cases: A remedy associated with unjust enrichment in which the amount of recovery is typically based on the defendant's gain rather than the plaintiff's loss.<<<

restitution

www.law.cornell.edu

Second, Trump's argument that the banks didn't lose money is specious because it's quite possible that the banks would have charged a higher interest rate and made more money if Trump would have provided them with accurate valuations. These types of damages are of course difficult to prove, but that does not mean they don't exist. . . .

The judge spelled this out quite clearly in a recent ruling in the NY fraud case:

>>>The judge spent just three pages on turning Trump down, and signaled that there will be a financial price to pay.

"Disgorgment is the return of 'ill-gotten gains,'" Engoron writes in his decision.

"If you pay a lower interest rate on a loan by overstating the value of any of your assets, thus lowering the perceived risk to the lender, your gains are ill-gotten," he writes.

Trump had argued that he never missed a loan payment, and that Deutsche Bank made millions in interest by lending him more than $400 million over the years, but that's besides the point, Engoron added.

It "does not mean that they were not damaged by lending at lower interest rates than they otherwise would have," he wrote.<<<

NY officials shred Trump's fraud-trial 'antics' in a sarcasm-laced filing. Judge agrees, signaling trouble to come.

The testimony's over, but the acrimony lingers on at the Trump fraud trial.

news.yahoo.com

The judge was also not impressed with Trump's high-priced expert witnesses:

>>>"All that his testimony proved," Engoron wrote of Trump's star expert, New York University professor Eli Bartov, "is that for a million or so dollars, some experts will say whatever you want them to say."<<<

As much as I despise the orange one, I thought the testimony by Bartov was potentially helpful to Trump's case (it stands out as being about the only thing that might have helped Trump's case, however).

Nevertheless, it looks like Trump is toast unless he somehow manages to win on appeal, which will be exceptionally difficult. Conceivably he might be able to avoid losing his business license in New York state, which is a severe remedy, but it's hard to see how he walks away from this untouched.

 

[Mr._Clark]

Editorial comment: Weisselberg's testimony (in exchange for the reduced sentence) that he didn't conspire with Trump to commit tax fraud strikes me as suspicious. I can't help but wonder if Trump communicated to Weisselberg through his lawyers that it would be in his financial best interest not to testify directly against Trump.

Based on the bits and pieces in the news, it looks like Weisselberg may plead guilty to perjury, but probably not for testimony I noted as being suspicious.

>>>Allen H. Weisselberg, a longtime lieutenant to Donald J. Trump, is negotiating a deal with Manhattan prosecutors that would require him to plead guilty to perjury, people with knowledge of the matter said.

As part of the potential agreement with the Manhattan district attorney’s office, Mr. Weisselberg would have to admit that he lied on the witness stand in Mr. Trump’s recent civil fraud trial, the people said.<<<

Trump’s Former Finance Chief in Negotiations to Plead Guilty to Perjury (Published 2024)

Allen H. Weisselberg would admit to lying on the stand during the former president’s civil fraud trial, according to people familiar with the talks.

www.nytimes.com

It looks like I was wrong about Trump communicating with Weisselberg through his lawyers that it would be in his financial best interest not to testify directly against Trump.. Silly me, no need to go through the lawyers, if you're Trump you just buy Weisselberg directly for $2 million:

>>>Mr. Weisselberg went to jail in early 2023, but not before Mr. Trump’s company awarded him a $2 million severance package that required him not to cooperate with any law enforcement investigation unless legally required.<<<

$2 million apparently buys a lot of memory loss.

 

[lovinthehd]

Based on the bits and pieces in the news, it looks like Weisselberg may plead guilty to perjury, but probably not for testimony I noted as being suspicious.

>>>Allen H. Weisselberg, a longtime lieutenant to Donald J. Trump, is negotiating a deal with Manhattan prosecutors that would require him to plead guilty to perjury, people with knowledge of the matter said.

As part of the potential agreement with the Manhattan district attorney’s office, Mr. Weisselberg would have to admit that he lied on the witness stand in Mr. Trump’s recent civil fraud trial, the people said.<<<

Trump’s Former Finance Chief in Negotiations to Plead Guilty to Perjury (Published 2024)

Allen H. Weisselberg would admit to lying on the stand during the former president’s civil fraud trial, according to people familiar with the talks.

www.nytimes.com

It looks like I was wrong about Trump communicating with Weisselberg through his lawyers that it would be in his financial best interest not to testify directly against Trump.. Silly me, no need to go through the lawyers, if you're Trump you just buy Weisselberg directly for $2 million:

>>>Mr. Weisselberg went to jail in early 2023, but not before Mr. Trump’s company awarded him a $2 million severance package that required him not to cooperate with any law enforcement investigation unless legally required.<<<

$2 million apparently buys a lot of memory loss.

What a big surprise. That he didn't know of the tax dodges is ludicrous.

 

[Mr._Clark]

How was Cannon chastised previously then she changed her tune? Could that not happen again?

This is speculative, but Cannon might end up getting herself removed from the case.

>>>The Justice Department argued in a motion to reconsider that Cannon erred in her legal rationale for allowing Trump’s legal team to do so, a decision they say risks exposing some two dozen witnesses to harassment, as she requires no redactions.

Cobb was unsure how Cannon would proceed but said he would not be surprised if Smith’s team sought her removal if she does not reconsider her ruling.

“I think if she doesn’t reconsider or if she reconsiders and stays the course on that ruling, that the special counsel will mandamus her and the 11th Circuit will reverse her quickly and perhaps even remove her,” he said.

“Certainly if she grants access to classified documents that the government doesn’t believe is appropriate under the Classified Procedures Act, the government has a right to an interlocutory appeal to go straight to the 11th Circuit and seek relief on that and also likely to seek her removal.”<<<

Cobb says Cannon has ‘no intention’ of letting Trump documents case go to trial before election

Former White House attorney Ty Cobb said Monday that he thinks U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon has “no intention” of letting the classified documents case in Florida take place before the preside…

thehill.com

 

[Mr._Clark]

The judge scheduled a March 25 start date for the trial in the hush money case. This is not an exceptionally strong case (in my opinion).

>>>NEW YORK — A judge rejected former President Trump’s bid to toss his hush money charges Thursday, paving the way for the first criminal trial of a former president to begin next month.

Judge Juan Merchan said “at this point” he will move ahead with jury selection beginning March 25 as scheduled, a timeline that would enable a jury to return a verdict well in advance of July’s Republican National Convention and November’s general election.<<<

Trump’s New York hush money case to proceed to trial, judge says

NEW YORK — A judge rejected former President Trump’s bid to toss his hush money charges Thursday, paving the way for the first criminal trial of a former president to begin next month. Judge Juan M…

thehill.com

 

[davidscott]

Stay Tuned.

 

[Mikado463]

Lock 'em up !!!

 

[isolar8001]

Donald Trump could face up to four years in prison—attorney

If convicted in the Stormy Daniels hush money payments trial, Trump will likely be sentenced in the summer.

www.newsweek.com

 

[cpp]

Donald Trump could face up to four years in prison—attorney

If convicted in the Stormy Daniels hush money payments trial, Trump will likely be sentenced in the summer.

www.newsweek.com

We can only hope, justice is not blind for the PRIVILEGED

 

[Mr._Clark]

Donald Trump could face up to four years in prison—attorney

If convicted in the Stormy Daniels hush money payments trial, Trump will likely be sentenced in the summer.

www.newsweek.com

Realistically, the odds of jail time based on these charges is very low.

If I'm wrong, I'll happily eat crow until the cows come home (pick your own weird mixed metaphor).

Having said that, Trump is likely to present himself as huge a$$wipe in court, so his odds of being convicted are probably greater than what one might expect. In a sense, his ability to F up his own defense almost creates an ethical issue. If I was a prosecutor I'd find myself thinking "It's not a strong case, but Trump will probably hire ineffective 3rd tier lawyers to represent him, and he'll probably say a lot of really stupid $hit and get himself convicted, but it's not clear we should bring charges based his ability to get himself convicted." (that comment is tongue in cheek)

 

[cpp]

Realistically, the odds of jail time based on these charges is very low.

If I'm wrong, I'll happily eat crow until the cows come home (pick your own weird mixed metaphor).

Having said that, Trump is likely to present himself as huge a$$wipe in court, so his odds of being convicted are probably greater than what one might expect. In a sense, his ability to F up his own defense almost creates an ethical issue. If I was a prosecutor I'd find myself thinking "It's not a strong case, but Trump will probably hire ineffective 3rd tier lawyers to represent him, and he'll probably say a lot of really stupid $hit and get himself convicted, but it's not clear we should bring charges based his ability to get himself convicted." (that comment is tongue in cheek)

the whole thing resolves around this " prosecutors will try to prove that before the 2016 presidential election, Trump paid two women—Daniels, a former adult film star, and former Playboy model Karen McDougal—not to reveal his affairs with them. ".

 

[lovinthehd]

the whole thing resolves around this " prosecutors will try to prove that before the 2016 presidential election, Trump paid two women—Daniels, a former adult film star, and former Playboy model Karen McDougal—not to reveal his affairs with them. ".

Isn't it rather how he paid them, i.e. where he took the money from and how he reported it later?

 

[cpp]

Isn't it rather how he paid them, i.e. where he took the money from and how he reported it later?

True, but Trumpet notes he didn't actually pay them, Cohen later testified in court that Trump directed him to make the payment. Now that's what they have to prove, Trumpet direction to Cohen.. IF they prove that, Trump is toast.