I wonder why he decided to stop trying to get transferred to federal court in the Georgia case. On the surface, it looks like he had a sudden attack of common sense (as in, "let's stop pissing off the judge"); but this is Trump we're talking about, so it has to be something else.
At this point its purpose is more or less to determine damages. I believe the figure mentioned was a quarter billion dollars, but it might rise or fall.
At this point its purpose is more or less to determine damages. I believe the figure mentioned was a quarter billion dollars, but it might rise or fall.
There is also the issue of putting the Trump Corp into receivership. The purpose of that receivership and its length--at least that is what I heard on CNN this morning. And I believe the issue of continuing to do business under a NY license is till up in the air.
I can't believe what I heard yesterday--that apparently his lawyer made a mistake and chose NOT to ask for a jury trial? And then made a stink about it in court, only to have her mistake pointed out?
I could be wrong in the details, as this is all thirdhand; but I've read the form, and she definitely requested a "judge only" trial. Which seems unwise for a man who is constantly slagging off the judge.
MSN says his lawyers checked "Trial without jury" when they filed the case, apparently by mistake; one of them said, "I know my client did want a jury, and we did want that," but offered no explanation of why they didn't ask for one. A jury would be better for Trump -- there's a decent chance someone would be on his side, even in New York.
But Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron noted that neither side "asked for" a jury trial.
A jury trial probably would not have been available under New York Executive Law 63(12), the statute under which the case was brought. That's because the lawsuit only seeks injunctive and equitable relief, and instead of money damages, it seeks the disgorgement of "ill-gotten gains."
The Seventh Amendment protects the right to a jury trial in civil cases involving large cash damages, but New York State precedent holds that disgorgement is equitable.
Laurance O'Donnel on MSNBC opined Trump is showing up in court as a publicity stunt. Him taking on the racist DA (who happens to be black) and the rogue judge. When I hear a white person calling someone of a different color racist, I see a white nationalist claiming reverse discrimination.
Yesterday, the trial was delayed by nine minutes due to his rants outside the courtroom. If it had been me ranting outside a court room, my trial would have started without me, and I would likely be admonished, if not fined or worse, for contempt of court.
Yesterday, the trial was delayed by nine minutes due to his rants outside the courtroom. If it had been me ranting outside a court room, my trial would have started without me, . . . .
Only if the judge wanted to give Trump something to argue on appeal.
Interestly (to me in NZ where the election is less than 2 weeks away) the Engineers Union have put up posters of the leader of the National Party (tory) that resemble Trump's mugshot. Obviously it wasn't just me that found it funny.
The judge in the New York civil case called Trump into his office and purportedly admonished him for posting a picture of a court employee with Chuck Shumer, calling her his girlfriend.
Then the judge ordered a partial gag order on Trump, telling him to stop saying anything about court employees.
So what does Trump do? He posts another complaint about a court employee.
The judge in the New York civil case called Trump into his office and purportedly admonished him for posting a picture of a court employee with Chuck Shumer, calling her his girlfriend.
Then the judge ordered a partial gag order on Trump, telling him to stop saying anything about court employees.
So what does Trump do? He posts another complaint about a court employee.
More to come later.
Oh please, please, please let him get jailed for contempt of court.
The judge in the New York civil case called Trump into his office and purportedly admonished him for posting a picture of a court employee with Chuck Shumer, calling her his girlfriend.
Then the judge ordered a partial gag order on Trump, telling him to stop saying anything about court employees.
So what does Trump do? He posts another complaint about a court employee.
More to come later.
Oh please, please, please let him get jailed for contempt of court.
The judge in the New York civil case called Trump into his office and purportedly admonished him for posting a picture of a court employee with Chuck Shumer, calling her his girlfriend.
Then the judge ordered a partial gag order on Trump, telling him to stop saying anything about court employees.
So what does Trump do? He posts another complaint about a court employee.
More to come later.
Oh please, please, please let him get jailed for contempt of court.
Or any reason you can find
Thank you, no - the whole point is due process and rule of law.
I have seen no reporting that Trump complained about another court employee. Does anyone have a sour e for this info?
@ Ruth. In truth, Trump is skating on the edge when he attacks the Attorney General Ms James. She is also an officer of the court. Any time she says enough Trump will have violated the gag order.
@ Ruth. In truth, Trump is skating on the edge when he attacks the Attorney General Ms James. She is also an officer of the court. Any time she says enough Trump will have violated the gag order.
Judge Engeron said, "Consider this statement a gag order forbidding all parties from posting, emailing or speaking publicly about any of my staff" (Politico). The AG is not on the judge's staff. Moreover, it's not up to her to make any decisions about what does or does not violate the gag order -- it's up to the judge.
@ Ruth. In truth, Trump is skating on the edge when he attacks the Attorney General Ms James. She is also an officer of the court. Any time she says enough Trump will have violated the gag order.
Judge Engeron said, "Consider this statement a gag order forbidding all parties from posting, emailing or speaking publicly about any of my staff" (Politico). The AG is not on the judge's staff. Moreover, it's not up to her to make any decisions about what does or does not violate the gag order -- it's up to the judge.
And she can file for a gag order which would likely be granted post haste.
Baloney. She's a political figure, an elected official. She signed up for people to complain about her. If Trump were to do something like call for her assassination, I could see the judge issuing a broader gag order, but Trump is free to criticize the AG and say mean things about her.
A gag order is a prior restraint on free speech. The law "applies a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity" (source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/gag_order). Free speech is right there at the top of the Bill of Rights, and any prior restraint on free speech is a curtailment of a constitutional right that should be, and in this case is, as narrow as possible. Like it or not, Trump has rights. Due to who he is, he's actually more likely than most people who find themselves in court to have their rights respected, but that's respect everyone is due. And it's extremely important for the country that his rights are respected, for the practical reason that the judge shouldn't give a higher court easy grounds to overturn his judgements and rulings and for the more idealistic reason that this prominent case that so many are following can show people how things should be done in court.
The purpose of a judicial gag order is not to just shut someone up, but to protect the defendant from self-incrimination. Take the case of the Mar a Lago papers. Trump keeps saying over and over he had a right to those papers. That has yet to be proven in court. Nevertheless, he admits to taking them. That is self-incrimination. He also admits he had a right to intervene in the Georgia election case. And in this civil case he has said he can find a buyer who will pay his stated evaluation of his properties. He just really needs to shut up for his own protection.
The purpose of a judicial gag order is not to just shut someone up, but to protect the defendant from self-incrimination.
No, the purpose of a judicial gag order is to protect the defendant’s right to a fair trial by prohibiting public statements that could improperly influence a jury or potential jurors. When it comes to self-incriminating statements, it’s his lawyers’ job to convince him to keep his mouth shut, not the court’s job to order him to.
... and also to protect officers of the court, jury members, etc. who may face danger to their lives or family when someone like Trump riles up his supporters to commit violence. Being an officer of the court (or even a politician) does not mean that you've signed up to be assassinated. If there's a significant risk of somebody's free speech creating such a hazard, I can totally see a judge saying "Fuck this" and requiring him to stop threatening court officials/jurors' lives.
... and also to protect officers of the court, jury members, etc. who may face danger to their lives or family when someone like Trump riles up his supporters to commit violence. Being an officer of the court (or even a politician) does not mean that you've signed up to be assassinated. If there's a significant risk of somebody's free speech creating such a hazard, I can totally see a judge saying "Fuck this" and requiring him to stop threatening court officials/jurors' lives.
That’s something a bit different, though. Judicial gag orders generally deal with not commenting on the case itself. When it comes to threats against officers of the court, jurors or whoever, there are generally criminal laws that come into play, as well as the court’s contempt power.
You’re likely right. In the case of Trump, though, i could see a judge using a gag order in preference to something more immediately punitive, because everybody’s handling him with kid gloves on. Plus he tends to commit multiple offenses at once in his communications—libel, doxxing, incitement to violence, even passing out classified info as he did on Twitter a couple years ago, I’m told. I could well see a judge using multiple strategies to cope with him.
I'd take a bow, but credit goes to Ken White, a former federal prosecutor who now does criminal defense and First Amendment litigation - I highly recommend his podcast Serious Trouble for analysis of the cases of prominent American criminal defendants.
Yesterday Trump got admonished in his civil trial for throwing up his hands and talking loudly with his lawyers during the testimony of a witness. Seems like it was a way of trying to intimidate the witness. Trump wanted the witness to be charged with giving false testimony. Story here.
Kind of reminded me of the trail of the Chicago 7 back in 1969 in which seven Vietnam War protestors were bound and gagged during their trial for instigating the riots during the Democratic Convention in 1968. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Seven
Of course, Trump is a civil trial and the Chicago seven was a criminal trial.
But I would have liked to have seen the judge bind and gag Mr. Trump for his continued antics in the court.
Bobby Seale's rights were violated, and he was bound, gagged, and chained to a chair in court for protesting that. The judge had to sever his case from the others and declare a mistrial. He sentenced Seale to four years for contempt of court, and was overturned on appeal. The convictions of the other seven were reversed on appeal essentially because he didn't give them a fair trial.
I for one would rather not see any defendant's rights violated.
In other news, Sydney Powell has pleaded guilty in the Georgia case and will testify at trial. I wouldn't want the job of wiping the ketchup off the walls of wherever Trump is right now.
Former Donald Trump attorney Sidney Powell has pleaded guilty in the Georgia election subversion case, one day before her trial was set to start.
As part of her guilty plea, Powell is admitting her role in the January 2021 breach of election systems in rural Coffee County, Georgia. With the help of local GOP officials, a group of Trump supporters accessed and copied information from the county’s election systems in hopes of somehow proving that the election was rigged against Trump.
Fulton County prosecutors are recommending a sentence of six years probation. Powell will also be required to testify at future trials, write an apology letter to the citizens of Georgia, pay nearly $9,000 in restitution and fines and turn over documents.
I've bolded the bit that's probably most of interest to everyone other than Powell P01135778 and her immediate family. There's always a "first mover" advantage to whoever cuts a deal first. The deals always get less favorable to defendants the more previous defendants have cut deals.
Contrary to the CNN article, Powell P01135778's trial was set to start on Monday. Assuming the judge approves the plea deal the trial will still go forward since Kenneth Chesebro P01135766 was scheduled to be tried at the same time, though on different charges.
I for one would rather not see any defendant's rights violated.
This. Very much this.
Any semi-competent judge will go out of their way to try not to give Trump things to argue on appeal, especially things that could be used to argue that he didn’t receive a fair trial.
It surely ought to be, but it's also a shame the Sidney Powell story is getting buried in the H.o.R. Speaker Saga and Hamas/Israel/Palestine -- not to mention Russia/Ukraine / Russia/N.Korea(?) / Russia/China...
It surely ought to be, but it's also a shame the Sidney Powell story is getting buried in the H.o.R. Speaker Saga and Hamas/Israel/Palestine -- not to mention Russia/Ukraine / Russia/N.Korea(?) / Russia/China...
If she rolls over on Trump and lands him in jail it doesn't matter how big a story it is.
Kenneth Chesebro, a key co-defendant in former President Donald Trump's Georgia election interference case, has taken a last-minute plea deal in which he has agreed to testify in the case.
Chesebro will plead guilty to a single felony charge of conspiracy to commit filing of false documents and receive five years' probation and a $5,000 fine, in exchange for agreeing to testify in the case.
The agreement makes this the first felony plea deal among the 19 defendants in the case. Two others have also taken deals.
We'll see if this starts a stampede. Probably not, since the trial of the remaining defendants probably won't start until next year.
Comments
Yes, but can you imagine him trying do business at all, now that the judgement has dropped?
I'm so pleased.
Here you go, via the Associated Press.
Thank you @Crœsos. You are right, the judgment is an interesting read. You could say, the judge threw the book at DJT.
You mean, (GASP), he could end up with nothing?
Sounds as if he could lose his golden toilet seat.
Maybe he will end up couch surfing.
Maybe even, (GULP) on the streets.
Homeless?
Carex, thanks for choosing a non=paywalled site. I sometimes find it challenging to find reputable overseas sources.
The Attorney General's response. Our message is simple, no matter how powerful or how much money you think you have, nobody is above the law
This is a civil trial, not a criminal trial.
There is also the issue of putting the Trump Corp into receivership. The purpose of that receivership and its length--at least that is what I heard on CNN this morning. And I believe the issue of continuing to do business under a NY license is till up in the air.
I could be wrong in the details, as this is all thirdhand; but I've read the form, and she definitely requested a "judge only" trial. Which seems unwise for a man who is constantly slagging off the judge.
Yesterday, the trial was delayed by nine minutes due to his rants outside the courtroom. If it had been me ranting outside a court room, my trial would have started without me, and I would likely be admonished, if not fined or worse, for contempt of court.
Competent lawyers don't want to work for Trump. He has a reputation for not paying their fees.
Relevant X-Twitter post for those who can still read X-Twitter.
Then the judge ordered a partial gag order on Trump, telling him to stop saying anything about court employees.
So what does Trump do? He posts another complaint about a court employee.
More to come later.
Oh please, please, please let him get jailed for contempt of court.
Or any reason you can find
Thank you, no - the whole point is due process and rule of law.
I have seen no reporting that Trump complained about another court employee. Does anyone have a sour e for this info?
Judge Engeron said, "Consider this statement a gag order forbidding all parties from posting, emailing or speaking publicly about any of my staff" (Politico). The AG is not on the judge's staff. Moreover, it's not up to her to make any decisions about what does or does not violate the gag order -- it's up to the judge.
And she can file for a gag order which would likely be granted post haste.
A gag order is a prior restraint on free speech. The law "applies a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity" (source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/gag_order). Free speech is right there at the top of the Bill of Rights, and any prior restraint on free speech is a curtailment of a constitutional right that should be, and in this case is, as narrow as possible. Like it or not, Trump has rights. Due to who he is, he's actually more likely than most people who find themselves in court to have their rights respected, but that's respect everyone is due. And it's extremely important for the country that his rights are respected, for the practical reason that the judge shouldn't give a higher court easy grounds to overturn his judgements and rulings and for the more idealistic reason that this prominent case that so many are following can show people how things should be done in court.
@Ruth got it exactly right.
I'd take a bow, but credit goes to Ken White, a former federal prosecutor who now does criminal defense and First Amendment litigation - I highly recommend his podcast Serious Trouble for analysis of the cases of prominent American criminal defendants.
Kind of reminded me of the trail of the Chicago 7 back in 1969 in which seven Vietnam War protestors were bound and gagged during their trial for instigating the riots during the Democratic Convention in 1968. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Seven
Of course, Trump is a civil trial and the Chicago seven was a criminal trial.
But I would have liked to have seen the judge bind and gag Mr. Trump for his continued antics in the court.
I thought that only Bobby Seale was bound and gagged during the C8 trial.
Okay. Bobby Seale was bound and gagged.
Still the same point.
I for one would rather not see any defendant's rights violated.
In other news, Sydney Powell has pleaded guilty in the Georgia case and will testify at trial. I wouldn't want the job of wiping the ketchup off the walls of wherever Trump is right now.
I've bolded the bit that's probably most of interest to everyone other than Powell P01135778 and her immediate family. There's always a "first mover" advantage to whoever cuts a deal first. The deals always get less favorable to defendants the more previous defendants have cut deals.
Contrary to the CNN article, Powell P01135778's trial was set to start on Monday. Assuming the judge approves the plea deal the trial will still go forward since Kenneth Chesebro P01135766 was scheduled to be tried at the same time, though on different charges.
Any semi-competent judge will go out of their way to try not to give Trump things to argue on appeal, especially things that could be used to argue that he didn’t receive a fair trial.
If she rolls over on Trump and lands him in jail it doesn't matter how big a story it is.
We'll see if this starts a stampede. Probably not, since the trial of the remaining defendants probably won't start until next year.