Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NY Civil Lawsuit & Criminal Trial Against Donald Trump & Family

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Michael Cohen, Trump's former "fixer," meets with Manhattan D.A. investigators

    Michael Cohen, former President Donald Trump's ex-attorney and "fixer," is meeting Tuesday afternoon with investigators from the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, the latest sign that its years-old investigation into Trump may be picking up steam.

    Cohen confirmed that he was asked for an interview by investigators for the D.A., Alvin Bragg, as he arrived for the meeting at a government office building in downtown Manhattan.

    "They're calling me in for the 14th time, so we'll see what happens," Cohen said, adding that he hasn't met with investigators since the current district attorney took office more than a year ago. "This is my first time meeting with Alvin Bragg."

    The interview comes four days after two Trump Organization companies were sentenced to pay a combined $1.6 million penalty stemming from a December conviction on 17 criminal counts related to tax fraud.

    A spokesperson for Bragg declined to comment Tuesday.

    The Manhattan District Attorney's Office has been investigating Trump and his company since 2018, at first focusing on alleged "hush money" payments arranged by Cohen to adult film actress Stormy Daniels. The investigation, launched under Bragg's predecessor Cyrus Vance Jr., ultimately became a sweeping probe of Trump's finances that included a successful Supreme Court battle for his tax returns.

    The Trump Organization companies and former chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg were indicted in July 2021 in the tax fraud case. Trump was not personally charged and has denied wrongdoing.

    Weisselberg entered a guilty plea and was sentenced to five months in jail. The company went to trial and was convicted on all counts.

    Cohen himself pleaded guilty to tax evasion and campaign finance charges in 2018 related to the payments to Daniels and was sentenced to three years in federal prison. He was released to home confinement at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, and finished serving his sentence in November 2021.

    Last Friday, Bragg said the company's sentencing "closes this important chapter of our ongoing investigation into the former president and his businesses. We now move on to the next chapter." He did not provide any details on what that "next chapter" might entail.

    The D.A.'s investigation into Trump appeared to have slowed in early 2021 when several top prosecutors working on the probe resigned.

    Bragg declined to discuss both Daniels and Cohen during an interview with CBS News on Friday.

    "I'm not going to confirm or deny any of the threads that we may be looking at. It's just important for any charges we may bring for me not to talk about them at this time," Bragg said.

    Cohen's 2019 congressional testimony about Trump sparked multiple investigations, including the Manhattan criminal probe and a civil lawsuit filed by New York Attorney General Letitia James alleging widespread fraud at the company.

    Cohen is one of at least two people who were previously interviewed by investigators and have heard from them again in recent days, according to a source.

    In the fall, investigators began reexamining some of the investigation's earliest threads, including the alleged payments to Daniels, according to another source.

    Bragg has said repeatedly that the investigation remained active. Duncan Levin, an attorney for Jennifer Weisselberg, the former CFO's ex-daughter-in-law who turned over boxes of evidence in 2021, said Bragg's office never appeared to be backing away.

    "The fact is that the communications to us from the D.A.'s office have consistently been that the investigation is ongoing. So it doesn't come as much of a surprise to us that the D.A.'s office is actively doing witness interviews," Levin said.


    The latest movement in the Manhattan D.A.'s investigation comes as Trump is facing legal peril on multiple fronts. A special grand jury in Fulton County, Georgia, earlier this month completed its seven-month inquiry into Trump's activities following the 2020 election, delivering to the district attorney there a lengthy report and potentially charging recommendations. The report has not been released to the public. And in Washington, D.C., a special counsel is reviewing Trump's handling of sensitive government documents found at his Mar-a-Lago home and possible obstruction of efforts to retrieve them.

    Trump has repeatedly decried all three investigations, calling them a "witch hunt," and claiming that prosecutors were determined to indict him out of political animus.

    Levin said that in his meetings with Manhattan investigators it "was not my conclusion that they were focused in any way on indicting former President Trump."

    "They seemed very focused on just gathering facts," said Levin, who is a former Manhattan prosecutor. "They never seemed to be pushing the investigation in a particular direction."

    __________

    wtf? We're back to this guy again?
    “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

    Comment


    • #47
      Trump drops lawsuit against New York AG after judge in case sanctions him almost $1 million for Clinton suit

      Former President Donald Trump on Friday morning voluntarily dropped a longshot federal lawsuit in Florida against New York’s attorney general — a day after the same judge in the case sanctioned him and his lawyer nearly $1 million for filing another, “frivolous” lawsuit against Hillary Clinton and many other defendants.

      The judge, John Middlebrooks, had pointedly noted in a scathing sanction order Thursday evening in the Clinton case that he was also handling Trump’s complaint against Attorney General Letitia James in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

      Trump’s suit against James — which Middlebrooks last month warned appeared “vexatious and frivolous” — was filed in reaction to her office’s civil lawsuit against Trump in New York state court alleging fraud at his company.

      James’ spokeswoman, Delaney Kempner, noted that Trump’s dismissal of his lawsuit came on the same day that his “reply to our motion to dismiss this case was due.” It also came two days after Middlebrooks scheduled a jury trial of the suit to start in mid-July.

      A lawyer for Trump did not immediately respond to a question about why the lawsuit against James was voluntarily dismissed.


      In the Clinton case, Middlebrooks ordered Trump, who is seeking the 2024 GOP presidential nomination, and his lawyer Alina Habba to pay Clinton and other defendants around $938,000 for filing the suit, which the judge previously dismissed.

      Trump’s suit accused Clinton and the others, including the Democratic National Committee and various FBI officials, of conspiring to create a false narrative during the 2016 presidential election that his campaign was colluding with Russia.

      “We are confronted with a lawsuit that should never have been filed, which was completely frivolous, both factually and legally, and which was brought in bad faith for an improper purpose,” Middlebrooks wrote in his order dunning Trump and Habba with monetary sanctions.

      Middlebrooks’ order cited how Trump has responded in court in New York to James’ yearslong civil investigation of his company, the Trump Organization, as one of the multiple examples of “a pattern of abuse of the courts” by the Republican former president.

      “Mr. Trump is a prolific and sophisticated litigant who is repeatedly using the courts to seek revenge on political adversaries,” the judge wrote.

      “He is the mastermind of strategic abuse of the judicial process, and he cannot be seen as a litigant blindly following the advice of a lawyer.”

      James in September filed suit in Manhattan Supreme Court against Trump, his company, three of his adult children, and others, alleging widespread fraud involving false financial statements related to the company’s business.

      In November, Trump sued James in Florida state court, alleging she was engaged in a “war of intimidation and harassment” against him. That suit sought to block James from getting records from a revocable trust he set up in Florida that has ownership of the Trump Organization.

      James shortly thereafter removed that lawsuit to federal court in Florida, where Middlebrooks was assigned the case.

      Middlebrooks in his order in the Clinton case Thursday noted that last month he had ruled that Trump’s “attempt to sidestep rulings by the New York court by suing AG James individually rather than in her official capacity was plainly frivolous.”

      The judge also had found that Trump had “no likelihood of success on the merits” of the case, and that he had urged Trump to consider dropping his opposition to James’ bid to get the case.

      “This litigation [against James] has all the telltale signs of being both vexatious and frivolous,” Middlebrooks had written last month.

      But the judge later wrote, “a decision in Mr. Trump’s Florida lawsuit against the New York Attorney General, a case now pending before me, is premature.”
      ________
      “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

      Comment


      • #48
        Trump questions whether not paying taxes is 'even a crime' as he laments his former CFO Weisselberg's jailing
        • Donald Trump questioned whether his former CFO not paying taxes was "even a crime."
        • Allen Weisselberg, 75, has been sentenced to five months for his role in a Trump Organization tax dodge scheme.
        • Trump said that Weisselberg, who pled guilty, was "a casualty of the greatest Witch Hunt of all time."
        Former President Donald Trump questioned whether not paying taxes is "even a crime" as he lamented that Allen Weisselberg, the Trump Organization's former CFO, has been jailed.

        "He didn't pay taxes on the use of a company car - does anyone? The use of a company apartment - does anyone? Or the Education of his grandchildren - Wow! Are these things really criminal, or even a crime?" Trump wrote on Truth Social on Friday.

        Trump said that Weisselberg, who pleaded guilty in August to 15 felony counts, including a scheme to defraud, conspiracy, grand larceny, and criminal tax fraud, was "a casualty of the greatest Witch Hunt of all time."

        Weisselberg, 75, was earlier this month sentenced to five months for his role in masterminding a Trump Organization tax dodge scheme.

        The scheme saved hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes for him and a small group of other second-tier executives.

        The plea deal also requires Weisselberg to pay more than $2 million in back taxes and penalties.

        Weisselberg will serve his sentence at New York City's notorious Rikers jail, which depending on good behavior, could be cut down to roughly 100 days, his lawyer has said.

        Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg said in a press statement after the sentencing that Weisselberg "used his high-level position to secure lavish work perks such as a rent-free luxury Manhattan apartment, multiple Mercedes Benz automobiles, and private school tuition for his grandchildren – all without paying required taxes."

        Weisselberg was sentenced days before the Trump Organization was hit with a $1.6 million fine during the company's sentencing for its December conviction on payroll-tax fraud.

        The former CFO remained loyal to his former employer throughout the trial, continuing to insist that Trump himself did nothing wrong.

        Trump also faces a $250 million fraud lawsuit from New York Attorney General Letitia James, as her office alleges that he "falsely inflated his net worth by billions of dollars to further enrich himself and cheat the system."
        _______

        Please, oh please, put this man on the stand, under oath, in front of a jury
        “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
          Please, oh please, put this man on the stand, under oath, in front of a jury
          Hey Wharton...come get your boy!
          “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
          Mark Twain

          Comment


          • #50
            Trump Request to Void $110,000 Contempt Fine Weighed by NY Court

            (Bloomberg) -- A New York state appeals court is weighing former President Donald Trump’s bid to reverse a $110,000 penalty he was ordered to pay last year for being in contempt of court during the state’s probe of his business.

            A panel of judges in Manhattan on Wednesday began considering written arguments submitted by Trump and New York Attorney General Letitia James, who issued the subpoena that the former president allegedly flouted. Trump argues the penalty is “excessive and unjustified.”

            Trump was held in contempt in April and fined $10,000 a day by a judge who concluded Trump hadn’t properly responded to a demand for any corporate documents in his personal possession. Trump had said there were no such documents, but the judge ruled he failed to explain the details of his search or provide a sworn affidavit on the result.

            Trump “truthfully responded that he did not possess any of the requested corporate documents in his personal capacity, and that any such documents would be housed within the Trump Organization’s corporate offices,” his lawyer said in the brief. “Subsequent events would later validate that fact.”

            James went on to sue Trump, his company and three of his children for allegedly manipulating the value of his assets for years to dupe banks and insurers. The $250 million lawsuit, which seeks to bar the Trumps from serving as executives at any New York company, goes to trial in October. The Trumps deny wrongdoing.

            The court is weighing Trump’s challenge to the contempt fine less than a week after he dropped his appeal of another ruling dismissing a suit he’d filed against James challenging her right to investigate him. Trump also voluntarily dismissed a suit he filed against James in federal court in Florida.

            James said in a brief that the fine was justified because of Trump’s “willful disobedience” in responding to subpoenas during a three-year probe. She also said Trump may have been trying to “run out the statute of limitations” for the attorney general’s office, or OAG.

            “Mr. Trump’s failure to comply with the subpoena was thus calculated to impede OAG’s efforts to gather a complete picture of the Trump Organization’s fraud and of various individuals’ roles in the fraud—including Mr. Trump’s role,” James said in her brief. “In doing so, the contempt also attempted to obscure inquiry into whether, when, how, and by whom information responsive to OAG’s subpoena may have been discarded.”

            Trump, who is running for president again in 2024, claims the suit is politically motivated.

            The case is People of New York v. Trump, 2022-01812, Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division (Manhattan).
            _________

            Trump “truthfully...."

            Things that make you just shake your head and laugh at....
            “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

            Comment


            • #51
              Donald Trump argues in wild court filing that New York can't sue the Trump Organization because it doesn't legally exist
              • NY's Attorney General sued Trump, his family and his business in September over an alleged pattern of fraud.
              • In a response late Thursday, the defendants repeatedly claimed the Trump Organization can't be sued.
              • 'Trump Organization' is branding shorthand, not a legal entity, they said repeatedly in 5,000 pages of response.
              Donald Trump, his real-estate company and his three eldest children have filed an extraordinary, nose-thumbing response to the $250 million fraud lawsuit filed by New York Attorney General Letitia James in September, stating that "Trump Organization" is branding shorthand — not a legal entity — so it can't be sued.

              "To the extent a response is required, Defendant specifically denies the definitions of "Trump Organization" and "Defendants," reads Donald Trump's response to the lawsuit, one of 16 answers filed late Thursday night.

              "While the shorthand "Trump Organization" is utilized by Defendants for branding and business purposes, no entity as such exists for legal purposes," Donald Trump's response continues, using language that is repeated throughout his 300-page filing and throughout the similarly-lengthy 15 filings of his fellow defendants.

              New York's lawsuit names Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Jr., Ivanka Trump, Eric Trump, former company CFO Allen Weisselberg and its former payroll executive Jeffrey McConney. It also names 10 entities under the Trump Organization umbrella — including "The Trump Organization, Inc.", a registered corporation in New York since 1981.

              But even the response filed Thursday by Trump Organization, Inc., repeatedly makes the same argument: "While the shorthand 'Trump Organization' is utilized by Defendants for branding purposes, no entity exists for legal purposes."

              New York's lawsuit does not specifically sue anything called "Trump Organization."

              The lawsuit does, however, repeatedly make general reference to the Trump Organization, doing so more than 300 times as a "collective" name for the former president's $3 billion real-estate and golf resort company — and it's on this that Trump and his fellow defendants stake their protest.

              The attorney general's many references to the umbrella company in her lawsuit "improperly group Defendants together, without regard to the nature or discrete legal identity of each Defendant," Thursday night's filings repeatedly complain, "without regard to the nature or discrete identity of each Defendant."

              The nearly 5,000 pages of answers were filed just before midnight New York time to meet a Thursday deadline for responding to James' sweeping lawsuit alleging the former president engaged in a decade-long pattern of lying about his worth by billions of dollars on financial documents.

              James alleges that Trump routinely lied about his assets in order to win favorable terms — and save hundreds of millions of dollars — from bankers, insurers, and tax authorities.

              Thursday night's batch of responses briefly address these claims, repeating such blanket denials as "Defendant has not engaged in repeated fraudulent or illegal acts or otherwise demonstrated persistent fraud or illegality in the carrying on, conducting or transacting of business."

              The attorney general's lawsuit seeks to permanently ban Donald Trump, his three eldest children, and his real-estate and golf-resort company from doing business in New York, where the business is headquartered and where the bulk of his commercial properties are located.

              Lawyers for Trump, his family and his business, including Alina Habba, who filed the 16 responses online, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. A lawyer for Ivanka Trump, Reid Figel, declined to comment.

              Trump has been expected to fight hard against the attorney general's aggressive attack on his Manhattan-based business empire.

              The suit, after all, seeks to cripple the company and would bar the Trump family from selling, collecting rent, or even borrowing money in New York.

              Soon after it was filed, former assistant attorney generals told Insider to expect Trump and his fellow defendants to argue James is out to get him, that no bank or other entity was harmed by the company, and that the defendants and the company relied on the expertise of others.

              Thursday's responses do use these arguments — countering at one point that the attorney general has acted contrary to "ancient and customary norms" — along with some others.

              The attorney general "lacks jurisdiction over Defendants to the extent that they are not or are no longer residents of New York," some of the responses say.

              A trial has been set for October in New York Supreme Court in Manhattan.
              ____________

              Ah the distinct stench of desperation...
              “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

              Comment


              • #52
                Manhattan Prosecutors Will Begin Presenting Trump Case to Grand Jury

                The Manhattan district attorney’s office on Monday will begin presenting evidence to a grand jury about Donald Trump’s role in paying hush money to a porn star during his 2016 presidential campaign, laying the groundwork for potential criminal charges against the former president in the coming months, according to people with knowledge of the matter.

                The grand jury was recently impaneled, and witness testimony will soon begin, a clear signal that the district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, is nearing a decision about whether to charge Trump.

                On Monday, one of the witnesses was seen with his lawyer entering the building in lower Manhattan, New York, where the grand jury is sitting. The witness, David Pecker, is the former publisher of The National Enquirer, the tabloid that helped broker the deal with the porn star, Stormy Daniels.

                As prosecutors prepare to reconstruct the events surrounding the payment for grand jurors, they have sought to interview several witnesses, including the tabloid’s former editor, Dylan Howard, and two employees at Trump’s company, the people said. Howard and the Trump Organization employees, Jeffrey McConney and Deborah Tarasoff, have not yet testified before the grand jury.

                The prosecutors have also begun contacting officials from Trump’s 2016 campaign, one of the people said. And in a sign that they want to corroborate these witness accounts, the prosecutors recently subpoenaed phone records and other documents that might shed light on the episode.

                A conviction is not a sure thing, in part because a case could hinge on showing that Trump and his company falsified records to hide the payout from voters days before the 2016 election, a low-level felony charge that would be based on a largely untested legal theory. The case would also rely on the testimony of Michael D. Cohen, Trump’s former fixer who made the payment and who himself pleaded guilty to federal charges related to the hush money in 2018.

                Still, the developments compound Trump’s mounting legal woes as he faces an array of law enforcement investigations: A district attorney in Georgia could seek to indict him for his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss in the state, and he faces a special counsel investigation into his removal of sensitive documents from the White House.

                Bragg’s decision to impanel a grand jury focused on the hush money — supercharging the longest-running criminal investigation into Trump — represents a dramatic escalation in an inquiry that once appeared to have reached a dead end.

                Under Bragg’s predecessor, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., the district attorney’s office had begun presenting evidence to an earlier grand jury about a case focused not just on the hush money but on Trump’s broader business practices, including whether he fraudulently inflated the value of his real estate to secure favorable loans and other financial benefits. Yet in the early weeks of his tenure last year, Bragg developed concerns about the strength of that case and decided to abandon the grand jury presentation, prompting the resignations of the two senior prosecutors leading the investigation.

                One of them, Mark F. Pomerantz, was highly critical of Bragg’s decision and has written a book that is scheduled to be published next week, “People vs. Donald Trump,” detailing his account of the inquiry. Bragg’s office recently wrote to Pomerantz’s publisher, Simon & Schuster, expressing concern that the book might disclose grand jury information or interfere with the investigation.

                For his part, Trump has denied all wrongdoing and chalked up the scrutiny — as he has many times before — to a partisan witch hunt against him. If he were ultimately convicted, Trump would face a maximum sentence of four years, though prison time would not be mandatory.

                A spokesperson for Bragg’s office declined to comment. Pecker’s lawyer, Elkan Abramowitz, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. A lawyer for Trump, Ronald P. Fischetti, declined to comment, as did a lawyer for McConney and Tarasoff.

                The panel hearing evidence about the hush money is likely what’s known as a special grand jury. Like regular grand juries, it is made up of 23 Manhattan residents chosen at random. But its members are sworn in to serve for six months to hear complex cases, rather than the routine 30-day panels that review evidence and vote on whether to bring charges in cases of burglary, assault, robbery, murder and other crimes.

                The district attorney’s investigation, which has unfolded in fits and starts over the past four years, began with an examination of the hush money deal before expanding to include Trump’s property valuations. Last summer, Bragg’s prosecutors, working with the office of New York Attorney General Letitia James, returned to the hush money anew, seeking to jump-start the inquiry after the departures of Pomerantz and Carey R. Dunne, the other senior prosecutor in the investigation.

                The district attorney’s office is also continuing to scrutinize the way that the former president valued his assets, the people with knowledge of the matter said.

                Over the course of the lengthy inquiry into Trump and the conduct of his business, the hush money inquiry resurfaced within the district attorney’s office with such regularity in recent years that prosecutors came to refer to it as the “zombie theory” — an idea that just won’t die.

                The first visible sign of progress for Bragg came this month when Cohen appeared at the district attorney’s office in lower Manhattan to meet with prosecutors for the first time in more than a year. Now, he is expected to return for at least one additional interview with the prosecutors in February, one of the people said.

                The lawyer who represented Daniels in the hush money deal, Keith Davidson, is also expected to meet with prosecutors in the coming weeks.

                Trump’s company was instrumental in the deal, court records from Cohen’s federal case show.

                Although McConney and Tarasoff were not central players, they helped arrange for the Trump Organization to reimburse Cohen for the $130,000 he paid Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford.

                Allen H. Weisselberg, the company’s former chief financial officer, was also involved in reimbursing Cohen. And, according to Cohen, Weisselberg was involved in a discussion with Trump about whether to pay Daniels.

                Weisselberg is currently serving time in the Rikers Island jail complex after pleading guilty to a tax fraud scheme unrelated to the hush money deal, a case that also led to the conviction of the Trump Organization in December. Although he was the star witness for the district attorney’s office in that case — testifying against the company that had employed him for decades — he has never implicated Trump in any wrongdoing.

                Without his cooperation, prosecutors could struggle to link Trump directly to the misconduct.

                In 2018, when Cohen pleaded guilty to federal campaign finance charges stemming from his role in the hush money payments, he pointed the finger at Trump, saying the payout was done “in coordination with, and at the direction of” the president. Federal prosecutors agreed that Trump was behind the deal but never charged him or his company with a crime.

                Unless Weisselberg agrees to cooperate, corroborating Cohen’s account could present a challenge for prosecutors. Trump’s lawyers will most likely argue that Cohen, a convicted criminal who pleaded guilty to lying to government officials, has an ax to grind against Trump.

                Still, there is some circumstantial evidence suggesting that Trump was involved in the deal. Cohen and Trump spoke by phone twice the day before Cohen wired the payment to Daniels’ lawyer, according to court records in the federal case.

                For Bragg’s prosecutors, the core of any possible case is the way in which the Trump Organization reimbursed Cohen for the $130,000 he paid Daniels and how the company recorded that payment internally. According to court papers in Cohen’s federal case, the company falsely identified the reimbursements as legal expenses.

                The district attorney’s office now appears to be focusing on whether erroneously classifying the payments to Cohen as a legal expense ran afoul of a New York law that prohibits the falsifying of business records.

                Violations of that law can be charged as a misdemeanor. To make it a felony, Bragg’s prosecutors would need to show that Trump falsified the records to help commit or conceal a second crime in what prosecutors would argue was a violation of a New York state election law. That second aspect has largely gone untested, and would therefore make for a risky legal case against the former president.

                Pecker’s testimony could bolster the prosecution’s argument, however. As a longtime ally of Trump, the publisher agreed during the 2016 campaign to be on the lookout for potentially damaging stories about Trump.

                That October, Daniels’ agent and lawyer discussed the possibility of selling exclusive rights to her story to The National Enquirer, which would then never publish it, a practice known as “catch and kill.”

                But Pecker, who two months earlier had spent $150,000 to buy and kill a former Playboy model’s story of an affair with Trump, refused to make a payment to Daniels as well. He and the tabloid’s editor, Howard, agreed that Cohen would have to deal with Daniels’ team directly.

                When Cohen was slow to pay, Howard pressed him to get the deal done, lest Daniels go public with their discussions about suppressing her story. “We have to coordinate something,” Howard texted Cohen in late October 2016, “or it could look awfully bad for everyone.”

                Two days later, Cohen transferred the $130,000 to an account held by Daniels’ attorney.
                ____________

                Stormy Daniels lol. This just isn't going away for Donald.
                “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                Comment


                • #53
                  Trump in Even More Legal Hot Water After Lying to Judge

                  Former President Donald Trump appears to have lied in sworn court records, opening him up to severe sanctions by a New York judge who has already lost his patience and threatened to punish him before.

                  Trump claimed he wasn’t the president of the Trump Organization during his four years at the White House, despite previously testifying that he was an “inactive president.” And he claimed that he didn’t have a financial stake in a partnership with the real estate company Vornado, even though he previously testified that he did.

                  On Tuesday, the New York Attorney General’s Office asked Justice Arthur F. Engoron to intervene quickly to ensure that the former president still faces a trial later this year that could bankrupt his company.

                  New York AG Letitia James sued the Trump family and their real estate empire for at least $250 million last year, the end result of a three-year investigation that documented how the Trumps have routinely faked property values to score better bank loans and cheat taxes. The civil lawsuit threatens to yank the company’s credentials, seize its bank accounts, and choke off its access to any banks in New York City—the global finance capital.

                  The Trumps, desperate to avoid the collapse of their company, initially tried to disqualify the AG and stop her from accessing company records. But when Judge Engoron threatened to sanction lawyers for incessantly making “frivolous” legal arguments, the Trumps last week were finally forced to answer James’ lawsuit with actual defenses.

                  The result was a legal document that read like a joke, with Trump attorney Alina Habba going as far as claiming there is formally no such thing as the “Trump Organization’—a ridiculous position, given that it’s a billion-dollar company Trump used to build his reputation over decades.

                  On Tuesday, the AG’s office called her out on that too, noting that in November she began a court hearing before this very judge by introducing herself as an attorney for that company.

                  “Good morning, Your Honor. Alina Habba for Trump Organization, Donald Trump, et cetera,” she said on Nov. 22 in a New York City courtroom.


                  The AG’s office also pointed out how Trump, in a separate case involving how his security guards beat up protesters in Manhattan, testified behind closed doors that while at the White House he “was an inactive president and now I’m active again.” The testimony shows that he remained atop the Trump Organization.

                  “Was there a period of time that you were not the president of the Trump Organization?” asked the protester’s lawyer, Benjamin Dictor.

                  “Well, I wasn’t active during the time I was at 1600,” Trump said, referring to the White House address. “I would say that I was an inactive president and now I’m active again.”

                  By contrast, in court documents last week, Trump swore that he “specifically denies the definition of ‘Trump Organization’” and “each and every allegation” that he was ever the inactive president of the company during four years in public office.

                  At the bottom of the 300-page document, Trump signed his name using his usual thick, black marker beneath an affirmation that says his list of responses “is true to the best of [his] own current knowledge.”


                  Lying in court documents is a red line that could result in hefty fines and serious blowback in court.

                  In Tuesday’s filing, the lawyer at the AG’s office leading the case asked the judge to drag the Trumps into court again to punish them for pulling the stunt—and to not give them a second chance.

                  “The Court has already admonished defendants and their counsel for their continued invocation of meritless legal claims but exercised its discretion in not imposing such sanctions,

                  ‘having made its point.’ It does not appear that this point was taken, however, and [AG’s office] would ask the court to renew the issue,” attorney Kevin Wallace wrote.
                  _____________

                  Methinks that 2023 is going to be an annus horribilis for the "really stable genius"

                  I also wonder if there's going to be anything of Trump for the DoJ after New York and Georgia get done with him.
                  “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Video of Trump deposition in N.Y. fraud probe shows him taking the Fifth

                    Newly released video obtained by CBS News provides the first look at former President Donald Trump's deposition last summer in the New York attorney general's civil fraud investigation.

                    Trump sat for questioning under oath on Aug. 10, and the video shows him politely answering the opening questions from state Attorney General Letitia James.

                    Wearing a dark blue suit, red tie and American flag lapel pin, sitting in front of a camera in a downtown Manhattan conference room, Trump answered "yes" when asked by James if he was familiar with the rules for giving a deposition. But as the questioning about his finances began in earnest, the former president—and now candidate for that same office—invoked the Fifth Amendment and continued to do so for nearly four hours.


                    Former President Donald Trump at his deposition in a New York fraud investigation, Aug. 10, 2022. / Credit: New York Attorney General's Office / Obtained by CBS News

                    Transcripts of portions of Trump's deposition were included as an exhibit filed by the New York Attorney General's Office on Oct. 13 in its $250 million lawsuit against Trump, three of his children and his company. Those sections of Trump's deposition were no longer confidential once the exhibit was filed. That office initially denied CBS News' request, under New York's Freedom of Information Law, for video that aligned with those transcript portions. An appeals officer reversed that decision.

                    "Anything you say in this examination may be used in a civil proceeding, and that can include a civil enforcement proceeding or a criminal action. Do you understand that?" James asked.

                    "I think," Trump replied.

                    "Is that yes?" James asked.

                    "I don't know what I did wrong, but the answer is yes, I do understand," Trump said.

                    "You have the right to refuse to answer any question if a truthful answer to the question would tend to incriminate you. Do you understand that?" James continued.

                    "Yes," Trump replied.

                    "And any willful misstatement by you may constitute perjury. Do you understand that, sir?"

                    "Yes."

                    Once the preliminary questions wrapped up, Trump was given an opportunity to read a prepared statement into the record.

                    He began with a familiar refrain: "This is the greatest witch hunt in the history of our country." He called James "a renegade and out of control prosecutor" and accused her of having political motives for her office's investigation into his financial practices.

                    Just over a month later, on Sept. 21, James announced her office's lawsuit against Trump, three of his children and his company, accusing them of a long-running scheme to inflate the value of their properties. The Trumps have denied wrongdoing.

                    "This whole thing is very unfair," Trump says in the deposition video.

                    "Anyone in my position not taking the Fifth Amendment would be a fool, an absolute fool," Trump said, adding that on the advice of counsel, "I respectfully decline to answer the questions under the rights and privileges afforded to every citizen under the United States Constitution.

                    "This will be my answer to any further questions."

                    Senior enforcement counsel Kevin Wallace, of the attorney general's office, noted "for the record" that the statement was "lengthy," and that "obviously, we disagree with a lot of the characterizations." Wallace then began his questioning, which would comprise the bulk of the deposition.

                    At the outset, Trump responded to three questions by saying, "For all of the reasons provided in my answer, which is incorporated herein in its entirety, I decline to answer the question."

                    Wallace then told Trump he could just say, "same answer" — "to speed things up."

                    Trump did so more than 400 times during the course of the full interview, according to sources. After the deposition concluded, Trump issued a public statement saying that he had exercised his Fifth Amendment right and refused to answer.

                    During one section of questioning, Wallace asked Trump about his Statements of Financial Condition, submitted every year since 2011. In February 2022, the accounting firm that prepared them recanted its work and said those reports "should no longer be relied upon."

                    "The valuations contained in this document reflect false and misleading valuation statements; is that correct?" Wallace asked.

                    "Same answer," Trump replied.

                    Was he "aware" they "contained false and misleading statements"?

                    "Same answer."

                    Even as he replied "same answer" to question after question, Trump appeared to study financial documents presented to him by Wallace, crossing his arms, leaning forward and looking.

                    Wallace also asked about the involvement of former Trump Organization chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg — now serving a five-month jail sentence for tax fraud — and current company comptroller Jeffrey McConney.

                    The two executives were among those named as defendants in the New York attorney general's $250 million lawsuit, which seeks to kneecap the company's operations in the state. The lawsuit accuses the Trumps and their company of engaging in a yearslong widespread fraud scheme revolving around property value manipulations. In addition to financial penalties, the attorney general's office is seeking an end to the company's operations in New York and sanctions on the four Trumps.

                    "From at least 2005 through the present, you've had an ongoing agreement with Mr. Weisselberg and Mr. McConney that they would prepare the Statement of Financial Condition in a manner that included valuations that depended on false and misleading assumptions as a means of inflating reported values; is that correct?" Wallace asked in the deposition. The company has denied the New York Attorney General's allegations against it and any of its executives.

                    "Same answer," Trump said.

                    McConney and Weisselberg were the key witnesses in a separate criminal case against two Trump Organization companies, brought by the Manhattan district attorney. A jury last month convicted the companies of 17 counts related to tax fraud, stemming from a variety of schemes to trim payroll liability while giving executives large tax-free bonuses and high-end untaxed perks. Weisselberg separately entered a guilty plea in the case.

                    The New York attorney general's civil case is scheduled to go to trial on Oct. 2. The judge in that case has rejected repeated attempts by Trump attorneys to push that date back.
                    _____________

                    A reminder: Pleading the Fifth cannot be held against you in a criminal case. However it absolutely can be held against you in a civil case...and this^^ is a civil case.

                    Which means Trump's lawyers had to have impressed upon him the greater importance of shutting the fuck up versus saying anything at all. Which has pretty staggering implications.
                    “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Appeals court upholds $110,000 contempt fine for Trump in New York attorney general case
                      A New York appeals court panel on Tuesday upheld a $110,000 fine on former President Donald Trump that a judge imposed last spring after he was found in contempt for failing to turn over documents to the state attorney general’s office as part of an investigation of his company.

                      The panel of five justices ruled that Trump’s contempt fine for not complying with a subpoena for the records was a “proper exercise” of the discretionary power of Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Arthur Engoron.

                      The panel also said the fine of $10,000 per day “was not excessive or otherwise improper, under the particular circumstances.”


                      Attorney General Letitia James applauded the two-page ruling issued by the state Supreme Court Appellate Division’s First Judicial Department.

                      Once again, the courts have ruled that Donald Trump is not above the law,” James said.

                      “For years, he tried to stall and thwart our lawful investigation into his financial dealings, but today’s decision sends a clear message that there are consequences for abusing the legal system,” she said. “We will not be bullied or dissuaded from pursuing justice.”

                      Alina Habba, Trump’s lawyer in the case, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

                      Engoron imposed the fine on Trump last April after ruling that he had repeatedly failed to give James’ investigators business records from the Trump Organization that they were seeking for their probe of his real estate company.

                      “Mr. Trump has willfully disobeyed a lawful order of the court,” Engoron said at the time.

                      Trump later paid the fine, but appealed Engoron’s contempt finding.

                      James in September filed a $250 million lawsuit against Trump, his company and three of his adult children, accusing them of widespread fraud involving years’ worth of financial statements.

                      The suit alleges that Trump grossly overstated the value of his assets to banks, insurers and the IRS to get better loan and insurance terms for the Trump Organization, and to obtain tax benefits.

                      In addition to huge financial damages, James’ suit seeks to permanently bar Trump and his children — Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump and Ivanka Trump — from serving as an officer of a company in New York, and permanently bar the Trump companies named as defendants from doing business in New York state.
                      _______

                      So much winning....SOOOO much winning.
                      “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Trump Subpoenas Ex-Deutsche Bank Private Banker in New York Fraud Case

                        (Bloomberg) -- Former President Donald Trump subpoenaed his longtime private banker for documents and testimony in New York Attorney General Letitia James’s suit accusing him and his real estate company of using false asset valuations to dupe banks and insurers.

                        Rosemary Vrablic, a former Deutsche Bank managing director who arranged hundreds of millions of dollars in loans to Trump’s company, was subpoenaed last week, according to a Wednesday court filing by James. Trump also subpoenaed Donald Bender, a partner at his former accounting firm Mazars.

                        James said in the filing that Trump waited too long to start deposing witnesses and suggested that he was trying to delay a trial set for October in Manhattan by dragging his feet. Her filing was in response to an earlier request by Trump to extend a March 20 discovery deadline.

                        “It is remarkable that Defendants sat on their rights to conduct discovery for months, waiting until the past week to serve their first subpoenas,” James said. Vrablic’s and Bender’s “roles in the transactions at issue have been known to Defendants for years.”


                        Trump, three of his adult children and his company were sued by New York in September 2022 for allegedly manipulating the value of the former president’s assets and reaping $250 million in ill-gotten financial benefits as a result. The case is among the biggest legal threats to Trump as he campaigns for a return to the White House in 2024.

                        Trump has claimed the lenders and others knew to take his own valuations with a grain of salt and conduct their own analyses. He’s also accused James, a Democrat, of conducting a political “witch hunt.”

                        Alina Habba, a lawyer for Trump, said in a Feb. 21 court filing asking for more time for discovery that the “current schedule imposes significant hardship on the Defendants” and “deprives Defendants of their right to meaningful and full discovery, prejudices their ability to understand the evidence against them sufficiently to prepare a proper defense.”

                        James also said in her filing that Trump hasn’t responded to proposals to streamline discovery. She said she offered to forgo deposing Trump a second time if he agreed to stipulate that he would invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination as he did the first time around.

                        Testimony from Vrablic and Bender could be useful to Trump, who argues that his accountants and bankers knew his financial statements were estimates and that they should have done their own valuations to verify them.

                        Vrablic was introduced to the Trump in 2011 by Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law. As part of Deutsche Bank’s private-wealth management unit, she arranged for the family to get “unparalleled rates on loans” that were personally guaranteed by Trump, according to James. Trump allegedly supplied the bank with bogus asset valuations to back his claimed net worth.


                        Frankfurt-based Deutsche Bank declined to comment. Mazars declined to comment on the case but provided a general statement.

                        “Due to our industry’s professional obligations Mazars cannot discuss any clients — current or former, the status of our relationships, or the nature of our services in a public forum without client consent or as required by law,” Mazars said in a statement. “We remain committed to fulfilling all of our professional and legal obligations.”

                        Read More: Deutsche Bank Weighed Extending Trump Loans on Default Risk

                        Mazars a year ago severed ties with Trump and said a decade of financial statements for the former president can’t be relied upon. The accounting firm made the decision after conducting its own investigation and based on court filings by the attorney general.

                        James cited her office’s deposition of Bender in her suit. The accountant allegedly testified that he was “shocked by the size of the discrepancy” between a 2020 valuation of Trump Park Avenue at $84.5 million and Trump’s statement of financial condition valuing it at $135.8 million. He called it “misleading” and inconsistent with the Trump Organization’s obligation to provide accurate information, James said.

                        Vrablic left Deutsche Bank in December 2020 after an internal investigation found she engaged in “undisclosed activities” related to a real estate deal. The bank cut ties with Trump in January 2021 following the assault on the US Capitol by a mob of his supporters.
                        __________

                        "It's the bank's fault for believing my lies".....Now that's an interesting defense: Admitting to fraudulent statements to a financial institution.
                        “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Trump seeks six-month delay in New York fraud case

                          NEW YORK, March 3 (Reuters) - Donald Trump is seeking a six-month delay to meet deadlines for gathering evidence in the New York attorney general's fraud case against the former U.S. president.

                          The request if granted would likely push back the scheduled Oct. 2 trial well into 2024, deep into that year's presidential campaign. Trump is seeking a second White House term.

                          In a Friday filing in a New York state court in Manhattan, Trump said "fundamental notions of fair play and due process" justified delaying Attorney General Letitia James' $250 million case.

                          He said a delay was justified by the "staggering" volume of material and dozens of potential witnesses to question, and that talks with James' office on an "amicable resolution" broke down.

                          Trump's request was joined by the other defendants, including his children Donald Jr, Eric and Ivanka and the Trump Organization.

                          James' office did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

                          The defendants are seeking deadlines of Sept. 29 for fact discovery, Dec. 5 for expert witness discovery, and Dec. 8 to provide a certificate of readiness for trial.

                          James sued Trump and the other defendants in September over their alleged roles in a decade-long scheme to manipulate asset values and Trump's net worth to win better terms from banks and insurers.
                          _________

                          "Fair play"
                          “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Fuck him.
                            “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                            Mark Twain

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Ivanka Trump throws brothers and father under bus in New York fraud suit
                              Ivanka Trump says she was not involved in preparing fraudulent financial statements that form the core of the $250m fraud suit against her father’s company

                              Ivanka Trump, the eldest daughter of former president Donald Trump, has asked for a delay in bringing the $250m fraud lawsuit filed against her, her brothers, her father and their family’s eponymous real estate company to trial because a defence arguing that she wasn’t responsible for fraudulent financial statements issued by the company will take more time to prepare.

                              In court documents, Ms Trump’s attorneys argue that the fraud complaint filed last year against her and her co-defendants by New York Attorney General Letitia James “does not contain a single allegation that Ms. Trump directly or indirectly created, prepared, reviewed, or certified any of her father's financial statements”.

                              “Other individuals were responsible for those tasks,” her lawyers wrote.


                              The judge overseeing the fraud lawsuit, New York State Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron, has said the 2 October trial will commence on time “come hell or high water,” but Ms Trump’s request for delay cites the “unique” circumstances of her role in the case and notes that she has not been accused of lying about her father’s finances despite her former role as a top executive at the Trump Organization.

                              Her lawyers also said the case is "not simple" because she resigned from her role at the company in 2017 to take a position in her father’s administration.

                              Ms Trump’s father has also asked for a delay in the trial and argued that a later start date is "borne of necessity" in part due to the "staggering volume" against the company.

                              "The current schedule makes the preparation of a defense impossible," attorneys Alina Habba and Clifford Robert wrote in court documents. "Fundamental notions of fair play and due process mandate that Defendants are afforded every opportunity to prepare a meaningful defense, rather than to have an impossible schedule forced upon them”.

                              In response, attorneys with Ms James’ office have said in court filings that there would be “no unfair prejudice to Defendants under the existing schedule” and said the Trumps’ “claimed hardship is self-inflicted”.

                              “Defendants have had ample time and opportunity to familiarize themselves with the matter. Instead, they have waited until the eve of the fact discovery deadline to only just begin their process of conducting discovery to prepare for trial, and now seek more time,” the attorney general’s office said.
                              ___________

                              Ah yes, the usual Trumpian delay tactics, right on schedule. "Ich habe die Bilanzen nicht gemacht!"

                              What was it that Daddy said during COVID? Oh right: "I don't take any responsibility"

                              Sorry Princess, you're mixed up in this whether you like it or not.
                              “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Prosecutors Signal Criminal Charges for Trump Are Likely
                                The former president was told that he could appear before a Manhattan grand jury next week if he wishes to testify, a strong indication that an indictment could soon follow.


                                The Manhattan district attorney’s office recently signaled to Donald J. Trump’s lawyers that he could face criminal charges for his role in the payment of hush money to a porn star, the strongest indication yet that prosecutors are nearing an indictment of the former president, according to four people with knowledge of the matter.

                                The prosecutors offered Mr. Trump the chance to testify next week before the grand jury that has been hearing evidence in the potential case, the people said. Such offers almost always indicate an indictment is close; it would be unusual for the district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, to notify a potential defendant without ultimately seeking charges against him.

                                In New York, potential defendants have the right to answer questions in the grand jury before they are indicted, but they rarely testify, and Mr. Trump is likely to decline the offer. His lawyers could also meet privately with the prosecutors in hopes of fending off criminal charges.

                                Any case would mark the first indictment of a former American president, and could upend the 2024 presidential race. It would also elevate Mr. Bragg to the national stage, though not without risk, and a conviction in the complex case is far from assured.

                                Mr. Trump has faced an array of criminal investigations and special counsel inquiries over the years but has never been charged with a crime, underscoring the gravity of Mr. Bragg’s inquiry.

                                Mr. Bragg could become the first prosecutor to charge Mr. Trump, but he might not be the last.

                                In Georgia, the Fulton County District Attorney is investigating whether Mr. Trump interfered in the 2020 election, and at the federal level, a special counsel is scrutinizing Mr. Trump’s effort to overturn the election results, as well as his handling of classified documents.

                                The Manhattan inquiry, which has spanned nearly five years, centers on a $130,000 payment to the porn star, Stormy Daniels, in the final days of the 2016 presidential campaign. The payment was made by Michael Cohen, Mr. Trump’s former fixer, who was later reimbursed by Mr. Trump from the White House. Mr. Cohen is expected to testify in front of the grand jury, but has not yet done so.

                                The district attorney’s office has already questioned at least six other people before the grand jury, according to several other people with knowledge of the inquiry.

                                Mr. Bragg’s prosecutors have not finished the grand jury presentation and he could still decide against seeking an indictment.

                                Mr. Trump has previously said that the prosecutors are engaged in a “witch hunt” against him that began before he became president, and has called Mr. Bragg, a Democrat who is Black, a politically motivated “racist.”

                                A spokeswoman for the district attorney’s office declined to comment.

                                Even if Mr. Trump is indicted, convicting him or sending him to prison will be challenging. The case against the former president hinges on an untested and therefore risky legal theory involving a complex interplay of laws, all amounting to a low-level felony. If Mr. Trump were ultimately convicted, he would face a maximum sentence of four years, though prison time would not be mandatory.

                                Mr. Trump’s lawyers are also sure to attack Mr. Cohen, who in 2018 pleaded guilty to federal charges related to the hush money.

                                The $130,000 payout came during the final stretch of the 2016 presidential campaign, when Ms. Daniels’s representatives contacted the National Enquirer to offer exclusive rights to her story about an affair with Mr. Trump. David Pecker, the tabloid’s publisher and a longtime ally of Mr. Trump, had agreed to look out for potentially damaging stories about him during the 2016 campaign, and at one point even agreed to buy the story of another woman’s affair with Mr. Trump and never publish it, a practice known as “catch and kill.”

                                But Mr. Pecker didn’t bite at Ms. Daniels’s story. Instead, he and the tabloid’s top editor, Dylan Howard, helped broker a separate deal between Mr. Cohen and Ms. Daniels’s lawyer. Mr. Trump later reimbursed Mr. Cohen through monthly checks.

                                In the federal case against Mr. Cohen, prosecutors said that Mr. Trump’s company “falsely accounted” for the monthly payments as legal expenses and that company records cited a retainer agreement with Mr. Cohen. Although Mr. Cohen was a lawyer, and became Mr. Trump’s personal attorney after he took office, there was no such retainer agreement and the reimbursement was unrelated to any legal services Mr. Cohen performed.

                                In New York, falsifying business records can amount to a crime, albeit a misdemeanor. To elevate the crime to a felony charge, Mr. Bragg’s prosecutors must show that Mr. Trump’s “intent to defraud” included an intent to commit or conceal a second crime.

                                In this case, that second crime could be a violation of New York State election law. While hush money is not inherently illegal, the prosecutors could argue that the $130,000 payout effectively became an improper donation to Mr. Trump’s campaign, under the theory that because the money silenced Ms. Daniels, it benefited his candidacy.

                                Combining the criminal charge with a violation of state election law would be a novel legal theory for any criminal case, let alone one against the former president, raising the possibility that a judge or appellate court could throw it out or reduce the felony charge to a misdemeanor.

                                This is not the first Manhattan grand jury to hear evidence about Mr. Trump. Before leaving office at the end of 2021, Mr. Bragg’s predecessor, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., had directed prosecutors to begin presenting evidence to an earlier grand jury. That potential case focused on the former president’s business practices, in particular whether he fraudulently inflated his net worth by billions of dollars in order to secure favorable terms on loans and other benefits.

                                But Mr. Bragg, soon after taking office last year, grew concerned about the strength of that case and halted the presentation, prompting two senior prosecutors leading the investigation to resign.


                                Still, the portion of the investigation concerned with Mr. Trump’s net worth is continuing, people with knowledge of the matter said.

                                Defendants rarely choose to testify before a grand jury and it is highly unlikely that Mr. Trump would do so. As a potential defendant, he would have to waive immunity, meaning that his testimony could be used against him if he were charged. Although he could have a lawyer present in the grand jury to advise him, the lawyer would be prohibited from speaking to the jurors, and there would be few limits on the questions prosecutors could ask the former president.

                                In recent years, Mr. Trump has been wary of answering questions under oath, given the legal intrigue swirling around him. When the New York attorney general deposed him last year in a civil case, Mr. Trump refused to provide any information, availing himself of his Fifth Amendment right to refuse to answer questions more than 400 times over the course of four hours. If he testifies about the hush money to this grand jury, he will not have that option.
                                _______

                                It would be pretty absurd if Bragg, of all people, beats everyone else to the punch.
                                “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X