NY Civil Lawsuit & Criminal Trial Against Donald Trump & Family

[TopHatter]

NYC judge signals he’ll sign protective order against Trump, as former president’s lawyers ask to move Stormy Daniels hush money case to federal court

NEW YORK — Donald Trump’s lawyers in his criminal hush money case on Thursday said they would request to move his case to federal court — as Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg asked a judge to bar him from publicly discussing evidence in the case.

Trump’s attorney, Todd Blanche, told Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan he planned to file the request later Thursday. By law, a defendant has 31 days from being arraigned on criminal charges to make such a request.

If it is rejected, Merchan told the prosecution and Trump’s lawyers to plan for a trial date in February or March, instructing them to clear their schedules and not plan any vacations, new cases or other trials.

That also goes for Trump, who’s running to become the 2024 Republican presidential nominee. He can’t agree to any appearances, speaking arrangements or other events that would interfere with his availability for the trial, Merchan said.

Merchan has not yet ruled on the protective order, proposed by Bragg’s office, but indicated that he likely wouldn’t allow Trump to speak about evidence or information about witnesses provided to his legal team.

Trump is criminally accused of falsifying business records in a scheme to bury negative stories ahead of the 2016 presidential election, violating state and federal election laws. Prosecutors allege he illegally disguised reimbursement of a hush money payment to porn star Stormy Daniels paid out by his former fixer, Michael Cohen, to buy her silence about an alleged 2006 tryst.

In her motion filed last week, Assistant District Attorney Catherine McCaw described Trump’s “longstanding and perhaps singular history of attacking witnesses, investigators, prosecutors, trial jurors, grand jurors, judges, and others involved in legal proceedings against him, putting those individuals and their families at considerable safety risk.”

Blanche tried to get the order revised to prevent Bragg from holding press conferences or putting out documents like the “statement of facts” that laid out the case against him, but the judge didn’t bite, saying that the DA has an obligation to inform the public about the charges he’s bringing.

Blanche also said that Trump should be allowed to defend himself on the campaign trail.

“Our client should be allowed to disclose to the people who are going to vote or not going to vote for him his defense of the case,” he said, adding that Trump shouldn’t have to risk a contempt charge when he counters something that Bragg or one of the witnesses might say publicly.

McCaw pointed to Trump’s notorious social media presence, his remarks leading up to the Jan. 6 insurrection, and his attacks on Georgia poll worker Ruby Freeman. Trump and his attorney Rudy Giuliani falsely accused Freeman and her daughter of introducing suitcases of illegal ballots and committing election fraud — setting off a wave of death threats that forced the pair into hiding.

She said his Truth Social post warning of “death and destruction” if he’s indicted caused the NYPD to “launch a significant law enforcement response around the courts in the weeks leading up to the arraignment.”

Merchan has received dozens of death threats and other harassing calls and emails, and hours after his arraignment in Manhattan, Trump made a speech in Florida where he singled out the judge and referenced his wife and daughter. Bragg has also been subjected to a deluge of racist hate mail and death threats before and after Trump’s indictment.

Merchan, who pointed out that the prosecution wasn’t asking for a gag order, bristled at the idea that Trump should get special treatment because he’s a presidential candidate, when defendants are regularly ordered not to publicly share evidence they receive during discovery.

“If he’s running for office, you’re saying he should be held to a different standard from all other defendants who come into this courtroom?” he asked Blanche.

When the attorney tried to make a reference to routine cases before the court, the judge responded, “What is routine? Somebody’s accused of a homicide, facing 25 to life, is that routine for that person?”

He admitted that Trump’s case was special, but said his words can have consequences.

“Obviously Mr. Trump is different. It would be foolish of me to say that he’s not,” he said. “He is different. I have to apply the law as I see fit, and in that regard, I am bending over backward and straining to allow him to advance his candidacy. ... The last thing I want to do is infringe on his or anyone else’s First Amendment rights.”

Merchan said the protective order only applies to evidence the defense obtains from the prosecution through the discovery process, not to material the defense handed over to the D.A.’s office, or to public statements already made by witnesses.
_____________

Hoooo boy....I hope the judge has planned out what he's going to do when Trump inevitably shoots his mouth off, violating this (possible) protective order....

[Albany Rifles]

Judge is practically bending over backwards to accommodate Trump....and Cult45 will still insist that he's a "biased Trump-hating judge"

Or to his buddies Vlad, Xi or MBS

[Monash]

Judge is practically bending over backwards to accommodate Trump....and Cult45 will still insist that he's a "biased Trump-hating judge"

Or to his buddies Vlad, Xi or MBS

Because he doesn't want Trump's lawyers to be given the slightest justification to claim the trial was somehow conducted unfairly. No judicial errors in laws, no claims of bias or unfairness on which to anchor the (inevitable) appeal if Trump loses the case.

[TopHatter]

Veteran jurist picked to weigh moving Trump’s criminal trial


Former President Donald Trump sits at the defense table with his legal team in a Manhattan court, April 4, 2023, in New York.

NEW YORK (AP) — A judge known for his care and cautiousness in presiding over litigation in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks was selected Friday to decide whether Donald Trump ’s criminal case proceeds in state or federal court.

Alvin Hellerstein, a Manhattan federal judge for a quarter century, picked up the case after it was originally assigned to a colleague whose husband was a key prosecutor in special counsel Robert Mueller ’s investigation of the former president.

Trump’s lawyers petitioned Thursday to have a federal court seize control of his criminal case, arguing that the case “involves important federal questions” and shouldn’t be tried in the state court where his historic indictment was brought.

Such requests are rarely granted in criminal cases, but Trump’s request is unprecedented because he’s the first former president ever charged with a crime.

The matter was initially assigned Friday to Judge Ronnie Abrams. Hours later, the docket showed it had been reassigned to Hellerstein. Abrams previously recused herself from a Trump-related case in 2017 because of husband Greg Andres' work investigating ties between Russia and Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.

Case assignments are random in federal court and the parties could choose to proceed before a federal magistrate judge who has been designated to the case, Barbara Moses.

Trump, a Republican, was indicted in March and pleaded not guilty at an April 4 state court arraignment to 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to hush-money payments and subsequent reimbursements made during the 2016 campaign and early in his presidency to bury allegations of extramarital sexual encounters.

Messages seeking comment were left with Trump’s lawyers and the Manhattan district attorney’s office, which is prosecuting the criminal case.

Hellerstein, now 89, was appointed to the federal bench in 1998 by Bill Clinton, a Democrat whose wife, Hillary Clinton, was Trump’s 2016 election rival. He served as a district judge until moving to senior status in 2011. Before that, he was as a litigator in Manhattan.

In the aftermath of the 2001 terror attack on the World Trade Center, Hellerstein presided over dozens of wrongful death, injury and property damage lawsuits — a years-long effort that shaped his legacy on the bench.

Some of the judge's former clients died in the attack and, lawyers say, he showed great empathy to victims and their families, meeting with them for hours in his chambers and rejecting what he felt were low-ball settlement offers.

Others were dismayed when, in 2008, Hellerstein put an end to an effort to force New York City government to keep searching for human remains in debris moved from ground zero to a Staten Island landfill.

In 2020, Hellerstein ordered Trump’s estranged former lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen released from prison after the Justice Department revoked his home confinement in an attempt to thwart him from publishing a book or talking to the media. The government’s action, he ruled, was retaliatory and a First Amendment violation.

In 2015, the judge made headlines when he ordered a New York City cable company to pay a Texas woman $229,500 for flooding her phone with 153 robocalls.

Moses, the federal magistrate, was selected to the bench by a judicial panel in 2015. She was previously the director of Seton Hall University's Constitutional and Civil Litigation Clinic. She also worked at a Manhattan law firm whose partner, Elkan Abramowitz, represents a key witness in Trump’s case: David Pecker, the former National Enquirer chief executive who was involved in some of the hush-money payments.

___

[TopHatter]

In Trump Case, Bragg Pursues a Common Charge With a Rarely Used Strategy
A review of more than two dozen cases shows that in at least one sense, the indictment of the former president stands apart.

AA lawyer was accused of stealing $1.2 million from his law firm and covering it up. An insurance broker was accused of taking $350,000 from a client and covering it up. And a former president was accused of orchestrating a $130,000 hush-money payment to a porn star and covering it up.

All three men were prosecuted by the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, and each faced the same felony charge: falsifying business records.

The charge, a staple of his office’s white-collar work, can only be elevated from a misdemeanor to a felony if the defendant falsified the records in an attempt to commit or conceal a second crime.

Although the district attorney’s office is not required to identify the second crime at the outset of the case, Mr. Bragg prosecuted both the lawyer and the insurance broker for additional crimes — including grand larceny — telegraphing why their false records charges were bumped up to felonies. Only the former president, Donald J. Trump, was indicted for falsifying business records, and no other crimes.

A New York Times analysis of about 30 false business records cases brought by Mr. Bragg and his predecessor — based on court records, interviews and information the office provided — shows that in this respect, the case against Mr. Trump stands apart. In all but two of the indictments reviewed by The Times, the defendant was charged with an additional crime on top of the false records charge.

The decision to charge Mr. Trump with 34 counts of falsifying business records — and no other crimes — highlights the unique nature of the case, the first indictment of a former American president. Mr. Bragg, a Democrat, has drawn criticism from Mr. Trump’s allies, who say that he bumped up the charges to a felony for political reasons.

But Mr. Bragg has argued that if the Trump indictment is unusual, it is only because the facts of this case are unusual as well, and the charge must fit the facts: Mr. Trump is accused of covering up a payoff to a porn star to bury a sex scandal in the days before a presidential election.

Mr. Bragg also said, at a news conference on the day of Mr. Trump’s arraignment, that an option for the second crime could be a federal election law violation, under the theory that the hush money illegally aided Mr. Trump’s candidacy.

And on Thursday, Mr. Trump’s lawyers sought to move the case from New York State Supreme Court to federal court, citing those comments as part of the justification for the legal change of scenery. The former president’s lawyers may in part be using the request to move the case as a way to gain more clarity on the second crime.

Mr. Bragg’s supporters, including former prosecutors with the district attorney’s office, have defended his decision not to explicitly mention the second crime in the indictment. They noted that even in the many cases where other crimes are charged, the district attorney’s office never specifies upfront which crime is being used to elevate the false records charge to a felony. In that sense, the Trump case is typical.

“The indictment doesn’t specify it because the law does not so require,” Mr. Bragg said, in his usual lawyerly fashion, at his news conference.

The somewhat unusual nature of the Trump indictment in some ways encapsulated both Mr. Bragg’s skills and shortcomings as district attorney. A career prosecutor, Mr. Bragg has a keen eye for legal strategy but something of a blind spot for the way his decisions are perceived by the public.

His maneuvering on the second crime could provide his prosecutors a strategic advantage in the courtroom, as he keeps Mr. Trump’s lawyers guessing about what it will be. If Mr. Trump’s lawyers convince the judge in the case, Juan M. Merchan, that an election law violation is not viable, Mr. Bragg can pivot to another, like a quarterback calling an audible.

“You’re not in the defendant’s head, so you have to be careful locking yourself into any one thing,” said Karen Friedman Agnifilo, one of the leaders of the office under Mr. Bragg’s predecessor. “And if you don’t have to, why do that?”

For now, though, that means it is unclear how exactly prosecutors plan to argue that Mr. Trump is guilty of 34 felonies, rather than 34 misdemeanors.

“My view is that while the law allows the prosecutor to play it close to the vest, it seems that best practice and fairness requires they reveal — to the extent they know — what the crimes are,” said Marc F. Scholl, who served in the district attorney’s office for nearly four decades in both trial and senior investigative roles. “And because it’s a matter of such public interest,” he added of the Trump case, “you really want to show the world you’re not hiding anything.”

To Mr. Bragg, a former federal public corruption prosecutor, the Trump case is the simple story of a criminal cover-up.

The case centers on the $130,000 hush-money payment to the porn star, Stormy Daniels, who was threatening to go public with her story of a sexual encounter with Mr. Trump. Mr. Trump’s fixer at the time, Michael D. Cohen, paid Ms. Daniels to buy her silence in the final days of the 2016 campaign. Mr. Cohen, who has since turned against Mr. Trump and become Mr. Bragg’s star witness, has said he was acting on Mr. Trump’s orders.

Mr. Bragg’s prosecutors say that Mr. Trump subsequently covered up his reimbursements to Mr. Cohen. The president’s company recorded the repayment to Mr. Cohen as “legal expenses” and cited a retainer agreement — even though there were no such legal expenses, and no such retainer agreement.

Mr. Cohen pleaded guilty in 2018 to federal campaign finance violations one of which stemmed from the hush-money payment to Ms. Daniels. That federal crime is one of the options Mr. Bragg’s prosecutors are mulling for the bump-up crime in the case against the former president.

But nearly every other defendant indicted by Mr. Bragg’s office for falsifying business records was charged in state court with another crime.

Aside from Mr. Trump, The Times could identify only two other defendants in the last decade or so to be indicted solely for felony falsifying records. Under Mr. Bragg’s predecessor, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., a woman was charged for a relatively minor offense: providing a fake social security number to a bank.

And last year, under Mr. Bragg, a man was charged with two felony counts of falsifying business records. But unlike Mr. Trump, that man had two co-defendants on the same indictment charged with grand larceny, which was the second crime prosecutors used to elevate his charges to a felony.

The only other cases in which Mr. Vance or Mr. Bragg brought falsifying records charges — and no other crimes — came when the defendants struck a plea deal before an indictment, a stark contrast from Mr. Trump who has already been indicted and is expected to fight the charges tooth and nail.

The rarity of a stand-alone falsifying business records case stems partly from the low-level nature of the charge. Falsifying business records is an E-felony, the lowest level in New York, so the district attorney’s office often tacks it on in addition to other more serious crimes. And financial fraud investigations typically uncover evidence of multiple economic crimes, giving prosecutors a bevy of options.

Under Mr. Bragg, prosecutors have filed more than 120 counts of falsifying business records against a wide variety of individuals and companies, and in all of those cases, prosecutors charged the crime as a felony, according to the district attorney’s office.

Mr. Trump’s lawyers are expected to demand that prosecutors identify the second crime before trial, but Mr. Bragg may never need to fully reveal his plan. He could argue to the judge that felony false records cases are governed by a 43-year-old New York Court of Appeals case involving a burglary charge, which also requires the intent to commit another crime. In that case, the court held that prosecutors need not reveal a second crime.

If Mr. Bragg’s argument persuades Justice Merchan, Mr. Trump will almost certainly appeal, highlighting the obvious distinctions between a false records case and burglary. The resulting litigation could take years to resolve as his appeal is examined in today’s legal environment, which demands greater transparency from prosecutors than was common 43 years ago.

While the Trump indictment does not reference a second crime, Mr. Bragg suggested three possible options during his news conference: Two versions of an election crime — one state, one federal — as well as tax fraud.

The election law crimes might put Mr. Bragg on uncharted ground, raising the possibility that the courts could throw out or limit the case.

Never before has a New York State prosecutor brought an election law case involving a federal campaign, The Times analysis strongly suggests. An untested case against any defendant, let alone a former president of the United States, raises the risk for Mr. Bragg legally — and could expose him to political blowback.

“The notion that a politician making efforts to hide unflattering information from the American voter constitutes a criminal offense sounds a lot to me like criminalizing politics,” said Thomas Kenniff, a defense lawyer in Manhattan and Mr. Bragg’s Republican opponent in the 2021 race for district attorney.

If Mr. Bragg cites federal election law, Mr. Trump’s lawyers will likely argue that a state prosecutor has no authority to invoke a federal crime.And if he uses a state election law, Mr. Trump’s lawyers are expected to argue that federal campaign finance law explicitly says that it overrides — pre-empts, in legal terminology — state election law when it comes to campaign donation limits.

Yet Mr. Bragg may have found an exception. At his news conference, Mr. Bragg cited a state election law that bars any conspiracy to promote “the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means” — not specifically related to donation limits.

And even if a judge were to reject all election-related second crimes, then Mr. Bragg still has tax fraud to fall back on. Under that theory, his prosecutors could argue that the second crime was an intent — by the Trump Organization and possibly Mr. Cohen — to hide the true purpose of the reimbursement on their state tax returns.

Even though there was no effort to cheat on the taxes, any attempt to misrepresent the purpose of the hush money on tax documents could be considered a tax crime, experts said.

“What it really is to my observation is misusing the federal and presumably state tax system to characterize a transaction falsely,” said Scott D. Michel, a partner at Caplin and Drysdale. Discussing the prosecution’s apparent theory, he said, “You cannot have a tax system where people can abuse the filing process and abuse the reporting process to further criminal conduct.”
__________

[TopHatter]

Trump prohibited from posting evidence in hush money case to social media, judge rules
Judge Juan Merchan largely sided with a request from the Manhattan district attorney's office regarding what Trump can publicly say about certain aspects of the case.


Then-President Donald Trump on the South Lawn of the White House, on Sept. 22, 2020.

The New York state judge presiding over the criminal hush money case against Donald Trump issued an order Monday restricting the former president from posting about some evidence in the case on social media.

In his order, Judge Juan Merchan largely sided with the Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg by limiting what Trump can publicly disclose about new evidence from the prosecution before the case goes to trial.

Merchan's order said that anyone with access to the evidence being turned over to Trump's team from state prosecutors “shall not copy, disseminate or disclose” the material to third parties, including social media platforms, “without prior approval from the court."

It also singles out Trump, saying he is allowed to review sensitive "Limited Dissemination Materials" from prosecutors only in the presence of his lawyers, and "shall not be permitted to copy, photograph, transcribe, or otherwise independently possess the Limited Dissemination Materials."

Additionally, the order restricts Trump from reviewing "forensic images of witness cell phones," though his lawyers can show him "approved portions" of the images after obtaining permission from the judge.

Trump’s lawyersand the DA’s office did not immediately respond to requests for comment Monday.

The ruling largely tracks a request for a protective order from the Manhattan district attorney's office that Trump's attorneys had complained was “extremely restrictive.”

Prosecutors had argued they needed “safeguards that will protect the integrity of the materials,” saying the “risk” that Trump would use them “inappropriately is substantial.”

“Donald J. Trump has a longstanding and perhaps singular history of attacking witnesses, investigators, prosecutors, trial jurors, grand jurors, judges, and others involved in legal proceedings against him, putting those individuals and their families at considerable safety risk,” the DA's office argued in a court filing last month.

Prosecutors had stressed they were not seeking a gag order against the 2024 presidential candidate — they just wanted to make sure Trump did not misuse their evidence.

“Defendant has a constitutional right to speak publicly about this case, and the People do not seek to infringe upon that right,” their filing said.

Trump's lawyers argued in a filing last week that the DA's proposed order would do exactly that.

“The People’s Proposed Protective Order infringes upon President Trump’s First Amendment right to freely discuss his own character and qualifications for federal office and the First Amendment rights of the American people to hear President Trump’s side of the story,” it said.

Trump was charged last month with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to hush money payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels and another woman toward the end of his 2016 presidential campaign to prevent them from speaking about their allegations of affairs with him. He has pleaded not guilty and has said he did not have an extramarital affair.

Trump has maintained the judge and DA Alvin Bragg are biased against him, and his lawyers filed paperwork last week seeking to have the case transferred to federal court. That request is still pending.
__________

[TopHatter]

Trump to get schooled on rules after district attorney worries he'll use evidence to slam witnesses

NEW YORK (AP) — Donald Trump was ordered Thursday to appear by video at a May 23 hearing in his Manhattan criminal case after a judge this week set rules barring him from using evidence in the case to attack witnesses.

Judge Juan Manuel Merchan scheduled the hybrid hearing — the former president on a TV screen, his lawyers and prosecutors in court — to go over the restrictions with Trump and to make clear that he risks being held in contempt if he violates them.

The case is continuing in state court even as Trump's lawyers seek to have it moved to federal court. U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, who is considering the transfer request, issued an order this week setting paperwork deadlines and a hearing for late June.

Merchan, still in charge while that drama plays out, agreed to instruct Trump on the rules by video, rather than in person, after a prosecutor reminded him last week that bringing Trump to court would present mammoth security and logistical challenges.

Trump's April 4 arraignment, where he pleaded not guilty to 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, attracted a crush of media and protesters, involved multiple street closures, extra security screenings and shut down non-Trump court business for an afternoon.

“We’ll setup the camera for Mr. Trump to appear wherever he is at that time and we’ll do it here in the courtroom virtually," Merchan said.

Merchan issued what's known as a protective order on Monday, days after a hearing where he urged Trump’s lawyers and prosecutors from the Manhattan district attorney's office to reach a compromise regarding the Republican's access to and use of evidence turned over by prosecutors prior to trial. That kind of evidence sharing, called discovery, is routine in criminal cases, and is intended to help ensure a fair trial.

Prosecutors sought the order soon after Trump's arrest, citing what they say is his history of making “harassing, embarrassing, and threatening statements” about people he’s tangled with in legal disputes.

Merchan added Trump's virtual hearing to the court calendar a day after Trump appeared on a CNN forum and offered up a barrage of falsehoods, excuses and insults on a variety of topics, including what he deemed the “fake charge" of his criminal case.

Trump, found liable in a $5 million civil court verdict Tuesday for sexually abusing and defaming writer E. Jean Carroll, argued to CNN that “you can't get a fair trial" in New York City. He called Carroll a “whack job," characterized her claims that he assaulted her in the 1990s as “playing hanky-panky in a dressing room" and denied the allegations as a “fake story, made up story." He also criticized the judge in that case as a “horrible Clinton-appointed judge.”

Merchan's protective order bars Trump and his lawyers from disseminating evidence to third parties or posting it to social media, and it requires that certain, sensitive material shared by prosecutors be kept only by Trump's lawyers, not Trump himself. Trump can review that material with his lawyers, but can't copy or photograph it, the order said.

Merchan, noting Trump's “special” status as a former president and current candidate, made clear at last week's hearing that the protective order shouldn't be construed as a gag order or a way of preventing Trump from speaking publicly about the case.

“I’m bending over backwards and straining to make sure that he is given every opportunity possible to advance his candidacy and to be able to speak in furtherance of his candidacy,” Merchan said. “The last thing I want to do is infringe on his or anybody else’s First Amendment rights.”

Trump's criminal charges are related to payments his company made to his former lawyer, Michael Cohen. Prosecutors say those payments were intended to reimburse and compensate Cohen for orchestrating hush money payments during the 2016 campaign to bury allegations of extramarital sexual encounters.

Absent a move to federal court, Merchan expects the case to go to trial next February or March, meaning Trump could be stuck in court during next year’s primaries.
__

This is where the rubber meets the road and shit can get real...

[TopHatter]

Prosecutors say they have a recording of Trump and a witness

Prosecutors in former President Donald Trump's Manhattan criminal case have released to his attorneys a recording of Trump and a witness, whose identity was not disclosed, according to a document the office made public Friday.

The document, called an automatic discovery form, describes the nature of the charges against a defendant and a broad overview of the evidence that prosecutors will present at Trump's preliminary hearing or at trial. Trump's attorneys and media organizations, including CBS News, had repeatedly requested that such a form be made public in the weeks since Trump's arrest on April 4.

Trump is the first former president in American history to face criminal charges. He has entered a not guilty plea to 34 felony counts of falsification of business records for alleged payments made as part of a "hush money" scheme.

The document lists the dates of 34 instances between Feb. 14, 2017 and Dec. 5, 2017 when he allegedly falsified records.

In a section devoted to electronic evidence that will be turned over, a prosecutor for Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office indicated they have disclosed to the defense a "recording of a conversation between defendant and a witness."

The section also indicates prosecutors intend to disclose recordings of calls between witnesses and others.

An attorney for Trump did not immediately reply to a request for comment.

The form was completed Tuesday, which was also when Trump appeared at a hearing before New York Judge Juan Merchan. Trump was given permission by Merchan to appear via a live video feed, in part to spare law enforcement the massive security operation that accompanied his arraignment.

Merchan reviewed a protective order he put in place, barring Trump from publicizing, or even possessing, much of the evidence to be turned over. Trump cannot speak publicly about, or post on social media, any case material that had not already been made public.

Some information, labeled "Limited Dissemination Materials'' by prosecutors, will only be available to Trump in the presence of his attorneys.

Merchan told Trump that if he violates the order he can be sanctioned or fined, "up to a finding of contempt, which is punishable."

Trial in the case is scheduled to begin March 25, 2024.
_________

As University of Texas Law School Dean Charles McCormick wrote in 1954, “A brick is not a wall.”

On its own, this new item may not prove much, but it’s another brick that could someday be part of a wall that proves obstruction of justice.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is...." All in all, It's just another brick in the WALL"

I'll show myself out now...

[TopHatter]

Trump shouldn’t get to choose judge who presides over Stormy Daniels hush money case: Manhattan DA

Donald Trump — with his “prolific history” of “baselessly” questioning the ethics of judges he doesn’t like — shouldn’t get to dictate who presides over the Stormy Daniels hush money case, Manhattan prosecutors said Tuesday.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office, opposing the former president’s demand to force the judge on the hush money case to recuse himself, said entertaining the effort would signal that all defendants can shop for judges.

Bragg’s office referenced some of Trump’s most notorious attacks on authorities, including a judge who he said was “totally biased” against him because of his “Mexican heritage” during a 2016 class-action lawsuit against the since-defunct Trump University. He’s called Manhattan Supreme Court judge Arthur Engoron, who presided over New York Attorney General Letitia James’ case against the Trump Organization, a “Trump Hating Judge,” and the AG, who is Black, a “racist.”

“Defendant’s long history of targeting judges with unfounded allegations of bias makes clear that this motion is based on tactics, not ethics,’” Assistant District Attorney Matthew Colangelo wrote.

The prosecutor added in a footnote that there’s no reason to believe Trump would stop jamming up the case with legal acrobats until he’s “assigned a judge he likes.”

Trump has pleaded not guilty to 34 felonies alleging he falsified business records to conceal the nature of payments to his ex-lawyer Michael Cohen during his first year in the White House. Trump designated the checks as legal fees, but Bragg says he was actually reimbursing Cohen for paying off Daniels on the eve of the 2016 presidential election to silence the porn star about an extramarital tryst and secure the win, violating election laws.

The Republican frontrunner’s lawyers have accused Judge Juan Merchan — assigned to preside over the March trial — of being a Democratic operative. Trump derided the judge and his relatives on national television in April after pleading not guilty to the charges, resulting in death threats.

Trump’s lawyers say a $15 donation Merchan made to the Biden campaign and two more to organizations promoting voter turnout, totaling $20, are evidence of a conflict. State rules on judicial conduct prohibit New York judges from making political contributions. However, an ethics panel recently found that modest donations don’t reasonably question a judge’s bias.

Trump has further argued that Merchan’s daughter will profit from his downfall at her job at Authentic Campaigns, a political firm that primarily represents Democrats. Bragg’s campaign for DA briefly considered retaining the firm last fall but, in the end, decided not to, according to Tuesday’s filings.

Trump’s argument “is premised on nothing more than his guess that ‘negative rulings’ or a ‘conviction’ here may affect national politics in a way that might in turn affect [Merchan’s] daughter’s work in the same field,” Colangelo wrote, adding that judges routinely preside over cases affecting industries with which they have a connection.

Of the donations, Colangelo said “well-settled principle” makes clear a judge’s political leanings are not disqualifying.

The judge presiding over Trump’s Florida case for taking classified documents from the White House, Aileen Cannon, has donated to Republican candidates, including Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.

Cannon has been pressured to recuse herself for previously issuing highly controversial rulings in Trump’s favor that caused the conservative appeals court that reversed them to question her understanding of the law. Trump hasn’t tried to remove her from the case, in which he admits to the conduct but denies it was a crime.

Along with who presides over his case, Trump is trying to control where it’s heard. He has insisted that Manhattan federal court Judge Alvin Hellerstein halt the case from proceeding in the state courts in Manhattan, which would force Bragg’s prosecutors to alter it for a federal court battle.

Also Tuesday, Bragg’s office asked Merchan to deny Trump’s efforts to block subpoenas demanding evidence in E. Jean Carroll’s sex abuse litigation and records from the Trump Organization.

Assistant District Attorney Susan Hoffinger argued the infamous “Access Hollywood” tape where Trump boasts of being able to molest women, which he addressed in his deposition played at Carroll’s trial, features prominently in the DA’s case, as do his reactions to sex crimes allegations.

Trump is also trying to stop the DA from subpoenaing Trump Organization records, including active non-disclosure with high-level staffers employed when the alleged scheme occurred.

Trump’s lawyer did not return requests for comment.
__________

[TopHatter]

New York court narrows Donald Trump fraud case; Ivanka dismissed as defendant


Ivana Trump funeral held in New York

NEW YORK (Reuters) -A New York appeals court on Tuesday narrowed state Attorney General Letitia James' civil lawsuit accusing Donald Trump and his family business of a "staggering" fraud, and dismissed all claims against the former U.S. president's eldest daughter.

While rejecting Trump's bid to dismiss the case, the Appellate Division in Manhattan said statutes of limitations prevented James from suing over transactions that occurred before July 13, 2014, or Feb. 6, 2016, depending on the defendant.

The court also said all claims against Trump's eldest daughter Ivanka Trump should be dismissed because they were too old. It returned the case to a trial judge to determine which claims should be dismissed.

James accused Donald Trump of lying to lenders and insurers from 2011 to 2021 about asset values at the Trump Organization, as well as his own net worth, in order to obtain better terms from lenders and insurers.

Filed last September after a three-year probe, James' lawsuit seeks at least $250 million in damages, and to stop the Trumps from running businesses in New York. Trump's adult sons Donald Jr. and Eric are also defendants.

A spokeswoman for James had no immediate comment. Lawyers for the Trumps did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Trump, the Republican front-runner for the 2024 presidential election, has called James' civil case and two unrelated criminal indictments he faces, where he has pleaded not guilty, part of a Democratic "witch hunt."

In its 5-0 decision, the appeals court said state law gave James power to police alleged "repeated or persistent fraud or illegality," and to conduct lengthy and complex investigations many years after the suspected misconduct began.

But it said deadlines for James to sue the Trumps could not be extended on the theory they engaged in "continuing wrong."

An Oct. 2 trial is scheduled before Justice Arthur Engoron of the state Supreme Court in Manhattan.

During oral arguments on June 6, Donald Trump's lawyer Christopher Kise said James lacked broad authority to "interject" herself into successful, private transactions dating back several years.

James' office countered that the transactions didn't occur in a vacuum, and that letting Trump commit fraud hurts honest participants in banking, insurance and real estate markets.

In the criminal cases, Trump faces a 34-count indictment obtained by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg over hush money payments to a porn star, and a 38-count U.S. Department of Justice indictment saying he mishandled classified documents.

The New York civil case is New York v Trump et al, New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1st Department, No. 2023-00717.
________

[Albany Rifles]

Spoke to my brother the judge this weekend. He said to be prepared for the DA trimming to targets in this case.

Considering the targets, they want to be as ironclad as possible.

It has begun apparently.

[TopHatter]

Trump’s Rape Trial Testimony Is Already Coming Back to Haunt Him
The Manhattan DA wants to use Trump’s deposition in the E. Jean Carroll rape lawsuit to show how desperate he was to keep sexual allegations against him secret.





The Manhattan district attorney seeking to jail Donald Trump over his hush money payment to a porn star is seeking to potentially weaponize the same piece of damning evidence that nailed the former president at his rape trial: the deposition where he said stars like him get away with sexual harassment “unfortunately—or fortunately.”

It’s now up to a federal judge to decide whether those prosecutors can get a video that shows Trump at his worst: unapologetic about sexual assault, uttering misogynistic comments, and willing to lie to the American public to save his own skin.


It’s a testament to the breadth of Trump’s legal problems that we’re witnessing the collision of two totally separate cases: a civil defamation case about rape and a criminal case about a cover-up. And it all comes down to a closed-door question-and-answer session Trump had on Oct. 19, 2022.

That shocking testimony first came out in a federal courtroom in May in New York City, where jurors ultimately decided that Trump did indeed sexually abuse the journalist E. Jean Carroll decades ago. In the video, the former president talked about his previous gloating that he could grab women “by the pussy”—and answered whether he felt that the rich and famous could get away with it.

“Historically that’s true with stars. If you look over the last million years, that’s largely true, unfortunately—or fortunately,” he said, later adding that he considers himself a star.

At the time, the video stunned those in the federal courtroom, going a long way to show how Trump remained defiant about his predatory sexual behavior. He called Carroll a liar and viciously attacked her female lawyer. At one point, he told the attorney, “You wouldn’t be a choice of mine either.”

Now, the Manhattan DA wants that video for his own criminal investigation.

According to court records, Manhattan prosecutors plan to use it to show the way Trump “dealt with allegations of a sexual nature,” which could get them closer to proving that he was desperate to keep the lid on bad news that could have sunk his 2016 campaign.

District Attorney Alvin Bragg Jr. is still collecting evidence ahead of the scheduled March 2024 trial in New York City, where Trump is accused of faking business records to cover up how he paid $130,000 to keep Stormy Daniels quiet about their brief sexual affair. It was a bid to save his 2016 presidential campaign from potentially catastrophic embarrassment, but the scheme to funnel payments through his lawyer and the subsequent criminal investigation could harm his current re-election campaign.

Trump faces 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, a paper crime that’s normally a misdemeanor—were it not for the allegation that Trump did it to cover up more serious crimes, like election fraud.

The DA claims that Trump’s hush money payments were part of a “catch and kill” scheme meant to keep the American people in the dark about allegations about him—hence why his sordid response to other sexual allegations could be relevant.

On May 15, Bragg’s prosecutors subpoenaed the law firm that represents Carroll. Susan Hoffinger, the office’s investigation division chief, wrote to attorney Roberta Kaplan and requested “the full transcript, full video recording, and all exhibits related to the videotaped deposition of Donald J. Trump.”

Two weeks later, Trump’s lawyers moved to block that subpoena, claiming that prosecutors are trying to “fish for impeachment material” that would harm the former president in court. They also claimed that the video was under some kind of protective order issued by the federal judge overseeing Carroll’s defamation case.

New York Supreme Court Judge Juan C. Merchan, who is overseeing that criminal case, issued a ruling on July 7 concluding that the prosecutors’ request was “not overbroad or otherwise inappropriate.” But he asked for a “clarification” from U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan himself. (The judge has repeatedly made clear he is not related to Carroll’s lawyer, Roberta Kaplan.)

The back-and-forth came into full view on Thursday, when the DA’s office asked the federal judge to weigh in. On Friday, Judge Kaplan gave Carroll and Trump until Wednesday to respond.

Joe Tacopina, the lawyer who defended Trump at his rape trial, declined to comment for this article. The DA’s office also did not elaborate on what exactly its prosecutors would do with the video.

In recent months, the DA’s case has gotten less attention than Trump’s other bubbling legal problems. Shortly after he was indicted in New York City for faking business records, the Department of Justice formally charged him yet another cover-up—this time, over his hoarding of classified records without authorization at his Mar-a-Lago mansion in South Florida.

As of this writing, Trump is expecting to be indicted two more times, in the District of Columbia over his role in the Jan. 6 insurrection, and in Atlanta over his attempts to disrupt the 2020 election there.

But the DA’s case remains scheduled as the very first one that will put a former president on trial facing criminal charges in American history. It’s still unclear if a conviction would send Trump to jail on Rikers Island, or whether his status as the leading Republican contender in the 2024 presidential race would afford him special treatment in the form of some kind of home confinement.

Trump has repeatedly called the Manhattan DA’s case—and all the other criminal investigations, for that matter—unfair political hit jobs.
______

[Albany Rifles]

It is something...beautiful!

[TopHatter]

New York AG’s office says Trump case ‘ready for trial’

The New York attorney general’s office said it was “ready for trial” in the case against former President Trump, two of his children and The Trump Organization that alleged they engaged in widespread fraud.

“The case is ready for trial,” Kevin Wallace, senior enforcement counsel for the office, wrote in a filing Monday.

Attorney General Letitia James (D) filed the lawsuit in September 2022 against the former president, his corporation, and three of his children — Ivanka, Eric and Donald Trump Jr. A New York appeals court dismissed charges against Ivanka Trump.

In the lawsuit, James alleged that the defendants, over a number of years, manipulated property values to obtain investments and loan benefits.

The lawsuit seeks $250 million in financial penalties and asks the court to ban the Trumps from serving as officers or directors in any corporation registered or licensed in New York, effectively preventing them from operating their business in New York.

The lawsuit also asks the court to prohibit the former president and his business from acquiring New York real estate and from applying for loans from a New York institution for five years.

The Trumps have all repeatedly denied claims of wrongdoing and accused James of operating a politically motivated crusade against him. Trump’s team has repeatedly tried to dismiss the case.
_______

[TopHatter]

Trump’s Bid to Sink the Manhattan DA’s Case Has Already Made It Stronger

Donald Trump’s attempts this summer to drag his porn star-hush money case away from New York’s state courts and once again hide behind his presidential credentials has given Manhattan prosecutors a little-noticed ace in their pocket—one they can now use to bolster their case.

For months, critics of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg Jr.’s case have called it weak because the case criminally charges Trump with faking business records—a lowly misdemeanor only bumped up to a felony on a technicality.

Except that Trump’s ploy to move the case to federal court gave a judge there the opportunity to take the first swing. And he used that opportunity to make it clear that the case against Trump is far more serious than it otherwise seems—and that the burden for proving that Trump’s alleged falsification of business records are felonies is low.

“The DA has been clobbered in the press, but this is… a seal of approval on the indictment,” said John Moscow, a renowned former New York prosecutor now in private practice at the firm Lewis Baach Kaufmann Middlemiss.

There will be renewed attention on the judge’s order in the coming weeks as Manhattan prosecutors are expected to cite it to keep the case barrelling toward trial in March 2024—thus far, the most disruptive trial on Trump’s calendar as he vies for the Republican presidential nomination.

When Trump was first slapped with criminal charges in Manhattan, he viciously attacked DA Bragg and the state judge assigned to his case, New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan. The former president insulted them as leftist hacks, posted a picture that implied he’d hit the DA over the head with a baseball bat, and even made derogatory comments about the judge’s daughter.

It was no surprise, then, that Trump tried moving the case to federal court, where any trial appeals would lead straight to the Supreme Court, which has a 6-to-3 conservative majority sustained by three people Trump placed there while president.

For Trump, it also helped that the DA is trying to nail him for actions that touched on federal issues. After all, Trump is accused of faking business records that kept the porn star Stormy Daniels from speaking out about their sexual affair—all in the service of sparing his presidential campaign from potentially calamitous embarrassment during a national, and thus federal, election. And the Trump Organization got to log payments to Michael Cohen, the lawyer who negotiated that secret deal, as a business expense—a potential deduction on federal taxes.

But at a hearing in June, an irascible U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein rebuffed Trump’s plans, with the judge becoming increasingly exasperated the more he detailed the weird business arrangement between Trump and Cohen. In court, Hellerstein described how Cohen apparently had some sort of typical attorney retainer agreement—except it didn’t exist. And on the stand, Trump Organization corporate lawyer Alan Garten bizarrely explained how there wasn’t any official paperwork to back that up.

“He testified that he was not aware of any retainer agreement with Cohen, that Cohen's invoices did not contain descriptions of the work he did, and that the ledger entries for Cohen similarly did not describe his work,” the judge later wrote incredulously. “Garten testified that he did not know if Cohen actually worked on any matters referred to him by the Trump Organization.”

The more significant findings in Hellerstein’s July 19 order, however, relate to the way he stated, in no uncertain terms, that the DA’s case is solid—and that Trump can’t hide behind the presidential seal.

As it turns out, paying off a porn star like Stormy Daniels (privately known as Stephanie Clifford) isn’t a president’s job.

“Whatever the standard, and whether it is high or low, Trump fails to satisfy it,” Hellerstein wrote. “Trump has not explained how hiring and making payments to a personal attorney to handle personal affairs carries out a constitutional duty. Reimbursing Cohen for advancing hush money to Stephanie Clifford cannot be considered the performance of a constitutional duty.

“Falsifying business records to hide such reimbursement, and to transform the reimbursement into a business expense for Trump and income to Cohen, likewise does not relate to a presidential duty. Trump is not immune from the People’s prosecution in New York Supreme Court.”



The judge also noted there is an “outer perimeter” to an American president’s authority, borrowing the same language the Department of Justice used in March when it similarly snatched that excuse away from Trump when it decided that a government official’s sovereign immunity doesn’t protect them from “incitement of imminent private violence,” like the kind seen during Trump’s attempted coup on Jan. 6, 2021.

But in kicking the case back to state court, Hellerstein went much further than just saying that federal laws here don’t preempt New York state laws. He actually emphasized that the DA doesn’t even need to prove the underlying crimes that bump it up to felony status—like tax dodging or election fraud.

“The only elements are the falsification of business records, an intent to defraud, and an intent to commit or conceal another crime. The People need not establish that Trump or any other person actually violated [New York or federal election laws,]” Hellerstein wrote. “Trump can be convicted of a felony even if he did not commit any crime beyond the falsification, so long as he intended to do so or to conceal such a crime.”

Hellerstein even tightened it up in case Trump’s lawyers seek an appeal in state court, noting how the 8th Circuit federal appellate court in the Midwest held up Minnesota’s attempts to crack down on the GOP donation website WinRed for potentially violating that state’s consumer protection law.

Trump’s lawyers have appealed Hellerstein’s decision at New York City’s gleaming federal court tower, but as of now, the case is squarely back at the dingy Manhattan criminal courthouse a few blocks away. The former president has until the end of September to ask Justice Merchan to dismiss the case, and the Manhattan DA’s office will have two weeks to push back on that.

Neither side responded to a request for comment on this story.

Moscow, a former prosecutor at that office, noted that the federal judge didn’t tell prosecutors Susan Hoffinger, Matthew Colangelo, and their colleagues anything they didn’t already know. But now the state court judge has something he can easily point to.

“It’s critical. You don’t need to prove anything except an intention to aid or conceal a crime,” Moscow said. “Anyone who’s literate will understand that it’s a crime. 34 felonies!”
_________