Trump Trial
- Thread starter GURPS
- Start date
Who is she?
Grumpy
Well-Known Member
One of Trump's lawyers
5 Things to Know About Trump's Gag Orders
1. The DC Order Is Unprecedented
U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan's gag order restricts President Trump's ability to speak about that case and its underlying events. Assuming that President Trump wins the GOP nomination, his main opponent is currently slated to be the man whose administration is prosecuting him for how he challenged the results of their previous contest.President Trump's legal team cited two cases that resemble their client's case but weren't anywhere near the scale of a presidential election. One involved an appellate court overturning a gag order on former Rep. Harold E. Ford (D-Tenn.). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled in 1987 that Mr. Ford "is entitled to fight the obvious damage to his political reputation in the press and in the court of public opinion, as well as in the courtroom and on the floor of Congress. He will soon be up for reelection."
2. Orders Could Limit How Trump Campaigns
3. Headed Toward Appeals
4. Stiff Penalties for Defiance
5. Not Hurting His Popularity
Trump Lawyers Go on Offense, Seek Mistrial in NYC Fraud Case
President Trump’s lawyers went on offense on Wednesday and asked a judge to grant a mistrial in the civil fraud case brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James.
Trump’s lawyers argued that the fraud case was tainted by bias.
Radical Marxist New York Attorney General Letitia James is seeking $250 million in ‘damages’ when there is no victim in this fraud case and she is also seeking to ban Trump and his sons from operating any businesses in New York.
Far-left Judge Arthur Engoron has displayed bizarre behavior in the court by smiling for the cameras. He has also shown clear bias against Trump and recently expanded his gag order to Trump’s attorneys.
CNBC reported:
Rep. Stefanik provided several examples of Judge Engoron’s clear judicial bias against Trump and overall bizarre behavior in court:
[1] At the start of the trial, Judge Engoron infamously smiled and posed for the cameras.
[2] After the defendant won an appellate ruling against Judge Engoron on the appropriate statute of limitations in this case, the judge simply ignored the ruling.
[3] Judge Engoron entered summary judgment against the defendant before the trial even began, without witnesses, other evidence, and cross-examination. This, despite the fact there’s disputed material evidence–and there’s no victim of the defendant’s supposed fraud. Indeed, as the trial evidence has made clear, the defendant paid back the sophisticated Wall Street banks, on time, in full, with interest, as agreed.
[4] No insurance company paid a penny. And these banks and insurance companies, supposedly defrauded, continue to do business with the defendant. Yet Judge Engoron decreed before trial the defendant somehow committed fraud. Now, the judge is holding a trial–with no jury–to determine how much of Tish James’ requested $250 million in damages–with no victims–he will extract from the defendant.
“How does this not violate the defendant’s Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial?” Stefanik wrote.
Stefanik also said Judge Engoron illegally gagged Trump and his attorneys and quoted Engoron: “We are not here to listen to what you have to say.” He told the defendant’s counsel: “I am not here to hear what he has to say, now sit down!” And Judge Engoron even threatened the defendant’s counsel if he filed a routine motion for a directed verdict: “You better not, Chris!”
Fulton County judge indicates he'll issue protective order in Trump case after confidential video disclosure
"On November 13, 2023, confidential video recordings of proffers conducted by the State with certain witnesses pursuant to guilty plea agreements were published by ABC News and other media outlets," the Tuesday filing from the Fulton County District Attorney's Office said.
During Wednesday's hearing, the state and nearly all defendants in the case agreed to to a proposal under which the DA's office would designate which discovery material they consider sensitive and give defendants an opportunity to challenge that. Material designated as sensitive would then fall under a protective order to keep it from being made public.
"Everything that we've turned over, we believe were prepared to go through it to say what's sensitive and what's not," special prosecutor Nathan Wade told the judge.
An attorney for co-defendant Harrison Floyd said that his client opposed a protective order entirely. An attorney representing multiple media outlets, not including ABC News, argued against a protective order in the case, saying the standard for such an order had not been met.
Still, Judge McAfee indicated he would issue some sort of protective order, saying that it would "mitigate" any issues surrounding the potential jury pool and keep the discovery process flowing.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/boss-leave-proffer-videos-show-trump-lawyers-telling/story?id=104831939
In win for Trump, judge stays gag order in New York civil fraud case
Engoron's top clerk, Allison Greenfield, has faced accusations of making excessive political contributions in violation of judicial rules. Trump attorney Christopher Kise last week informed the court that it was considering seeking a mistrial in light of those claims. Engoron subsequently imposed a second gag order that applied not just to Trump, but his entire legal team.
Friedman's decision applies to Trump and his attorneys, permitting them to criticize the judge and his staff while the appeal moves forward.
The case itself involves allegations from New York Attorney General Letitia James that Trump manipulated the value of his assets to securable favorable loan terms and lower insurance premiums. Engoron previously ruled in summary judgement that Trump had done so, setting up a contentious trial to address the remainder of James's claims.
Appeals court panel appears critical of Trump gag order in D.C. case
Chutkan's order barred Trump from attacking herself, court staff, the prosecution, and witnesses. The appeals court heard arguments over the order on Monday and the judges signaled some skepticism of the order's parameters.
Judge Patricia Millett, for instance, expressed concerns that the order would effectively prevent Trump from discussing a pertinent issue during the 2024 presidential campaign.
"He has to speak 'Miss Manners' while everyone else is throwing targets at him?" she asked, according to Politico. "It would be really hard in a debate, when everyone else is going at you full bore. Your attorneys would have to have scripted little things you can say."
Trump's lawyer goes to battle with government over his ability to call January 6 trial witness a 'slimy liar': Fireworks in federal court over ex-president's gag order
- Trump attorney and DOJ lawyer faced off over Judge Chutkan's partial 'gag'
- Panel judge asked if 'slimy liar' or 'untruth speaker' attacks were fair game
- The court wants balance Trump's free speech rights with need to protect trial
Last month, The Gateway Pundit reported that a Deutsche Bank executive who worked to approve at least one of Trump’s loans testified that it is “atypical, but not entirely unusual” to reduce a client’s asset values and still approve a loan.
This type of lending is typical in high net-worth, high-profile clients like Donald Trump. Anyone with basic knowledge of banking, lending, portfolio and credit risk management knows this.
“A Deutsche Bank AG executive gave testimony that could bolster Donald Trump’s defense in his civil fraud trial, telling a New York judge that prospective clients can get loans even after reporting a net worth far higher than the lender’s own calculations,” Bloomberg reported.
Williams testified that Trump’s stated assets are merely an opinion and a difference of opinion in asset values does not disqualify the potential borrower from a loan.
“It’s just a difference of opinion,” Williams said.
In an interview with FOX News, Trump’s attorney, Halina Habba, said that the Deutsche Bank AG executive told the court that Letitia James’ complaint has no merit.
“After hearing Deutsche Bank say that they still consider the Trump Organization a great client – that they paid their loans off early, and nobody was not paid – their statements of financial condition were actually undervalued. And hearing that from experts who are on the Nobel Committee Executive Committee, recommendations saying that the accounting records were perfect, and those mistakes that may or may not have been on were not mistakes at all; they were called subjective valuations, which every real estate developer has. They were absolutely fine, and there was absolutely no fault at all. And frankly, they even went further and said the New York attorney general’s complaint had no merit; there was absolutely no violations of any accounting principles,” said Habba.
www.thegatewaypundit.com
This type of lending is typical in high net-worth, high-profile clients like Donald Trump. Anyone with basic knowledge of banking, lending, portfolio and credit risk management knows this.
“A Deutsche Bank AG executive gave testimony that could bolster Donald Trump’s defense in his civil fraud trial, telling a New York judge that prospective clients can get loans even after reporting a net worth far higher than the lender’s own calculations,” Bloomberg reported.
Williams testified that Trump’s stated assets are merely an opinion and a difference of opinion in asset values does not disqualify the potential borrower from a loan.
“It’s just a difference of opinion,” Williams said.
In an interview with FOX News, Trump’s attorney, Halina Habba, said that the Deutsche Bank AG executive told the court that Letitia James’ complaint has no merit.
“After hearing Deutsche Bank say that they still consider the Trump Organization a great client – that they paid their loans off early, and nobody was not paid – their statements of financial condition were actually undervalued. And hearing that from experts who are on the Nobel Committee Executive Committee, recommendations saying that the accounting records were perfect, and those mistakes that may or may not have been on were not mistakes at all; they were called subjective valuations, which every real estate developer has. They were absolutely fine, and there was absolutely no fault at all. And frankly, they even went further and said the New York attorney general’s complaint had no merit; there was absolutely no violations of any accounting principles,” said Habba.
"I Will Not Be Testifying on Monday. MAGA!" — Trump Cancels Scheduled Testimony, Slams New York Investigation as 'Election Interference Witch Hunt' | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hᴏft
In a fiery statement released on Sunday, former President Donald J.
www.thegatewaypundit.com
GUILTY!!! Of with his head!
Judge Chutkan Pauses Trump DC Case Amid Dispute Over Immunity Argument
In September Trump was hit with 4 counts in Jack Smith’s January 6 case up in DC: Conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights.
Trump’s lawyers argued that Trump is immune from federal prosecution for alleged ‘crimes’ committed while he served as US President.
Earlier Wednesday Trump’s lawyers filed a response to Jack Smith’s demand to expedite appeal of Judge Chutkan’s presidential immunity order at the DC Circuit Court of Appeals (this is separate from Trump’s response to Jack Smith’s appeal to SCOTUS).
It appears Jack Smith’s March 4 trial date got blown out!
“Chutkan just admitted the pretrial calendar is suspended,” Julie Kelly said. “This March trial date is all but gone.”
COMMUNISM: NY Attorney General Letitia James Admits Her Guilt in Denying Trump Due Process — Says Judge Found Donald Trump Guilty “Before This Trial Even Began”
In a video statement released on Friday, Letitia James admitted that Judge Engoron had already determined Trump engaged in “significant financial fraud” prior to the commencement of the current trial.
“Before this trial even began, the judge ruled in our favor and found that Donald Trump did engage in years of significant financial fraud,” the “corrupt” Attorney General admitted. “We uncovered throughout this trial, we revealed the full extent of that fraud. We introduced extensive evidence and questioned more than two dozen witnesses.”
This is true.
According to the New York Times, “Justice Engoron ruled before the trial began that Mr. Trump had fraudulently inflated his net worth, and announced an initial round of punishments. That blow recast the trial as a battle over how steep a penalty the former president would face.”
How A Left-Wing Appeals Panel Is Rigging Trump’s J6 Case Through Bogus Fast-Track Process
District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan has done everything in her power to speed up the process for one of the complicated cases Democrats have filed against former President Donald Trump. Whereas the standard federal fraud and conspiracy case takes about two years to get to trial, controversial Special Counsel Jack Smith and Chutkan have worked in concert to get the trial started in March, a breathtaking seven months after Trump’s indictment.
Likewise, D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Florence Pan is doing her part to assist the effort to give Trump far less time than other defendants to prepare for a trial against him. Last week, she led a panel to fast-track an appeal in order to facilitate Smith’s goal of securing a quick conviction before one of Washington, D.C.’s notoriously partisan juries.
“Any fair-minded observer has to agree” that Smith and Chutkan are acting based on the election schedule, conceded former federal prosecutor and left-wing pundit Elie Honig. “Just look at Jack Smith’s conduct in this case. The motivating principle behind every procedural request he’s made has been speed, has been getting this trial in before the election.”
Election interference isn’t incidental to this prosecution, then, it’s the entire point.
‘That’s How High The Stakes Are’: CNN Legal Analyst Explains The One Way Jack Smith’s Jan. 6 Case Could Be Over
“I think this will end up in the Supreme Court. It’s a constitutional issue. It’s an issue that we don’t really have precedent on, and that we need some guidance on,” Honig responded. “I think they will take it up before the election happens. I’m not sure they’ll expedite it anymore, they may want to let it go through the Court of Appeals.”
“So the March 4 date is very clearly probably in question?” Bolduan asked, referring to the trial start date Smith requested.
“I think either way, whether it’s expedited or not, March 4 is in big trouble. And keep in mind, it’s not just March 4. Jury selection starts Feb. 9, so even if the Supreme Court says, ‘We’re gonna take this, and we’re gonna expedite it to the highest degree,’ I don’t think they get it done by Feb. 9.”
CBS: Sources Claim Hired Gun Jack Smith Has "Sprawling" Evidence Against Trump (VIDEO) | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila
Another day, another leak.
www.thegatewaypundit.com
Special Counsel Jack Smith has “sprawling” evidence against President Trump, CBS News reporter Robert Costa said citing sources.
“Based on our reporting at CBS News, the special counsel has phone records,” Robert Costa said. “He has memos and diary entries from key witnesses, like former Vice President Mike Pence, key eyewitness testimony from people who are inside the Oval Office with Trump.”
Robert Costa continued, “But they had something in the special counsel’s office the January 6th Committee never had which is subpoena power to really go deep with witnesses and not just get public testimony and some depositions. They’ve gone deep and I’ve talked to people who participated in this investigation as lawyers, sometimes even as witnesses.”
“And it’s evident to me, based on my conversations with sources, that Jack Smith has a sprawling case against former President Donald Trump,” Costa said.
CBS reporter Jan Crawford appeared on “Face the Nation” on Saturday where she predicted the US Supreme Court would rule against Trump’s immunity argument.
“They are not going to rule that he is immune from criminal prosecution,” she says. “And I don’t think it’s even going to be close. It could be 9-0,” CBS reporter Jan Crawford said.
Judge criticizes Trump’s expert witness as he again refuses to toss fraud lawsuit
“Judge Engoron challenges the highly respected Expert Witness for receiving fees, which is standard and accepted practice for Expert Witnesses,” Trump wrote on his social media platform Truth Social.
During testimony earlier this month, Bartov disputed the attorney general’s claims that Trump’s financial statements were filled with fraudulently inflated values for such signature assets as his Trump Tower penthouse and his Mar-a-Lago club in Florida.
Bartov said there was “no evidence whatsoever of any accounting fraud.”
But Engoron, in his ruling Monday, noted that he had already ruled that there were “numerous obvious errors” in Trump’s financial statements.
“By doggedly attempting to justify every misstatement, Professor Bartov lost all credibility,” the judge wrote.
In an email to The Associated Press, Bartov said he never “remotely implied” at the trial that Trump’s financial statements were “accurate in every respect,” only that the errors were inadvertent and there was “no evidence of concealment or forgery.”
Colorado Supreme Court Repeatedly Quotes Trump Out of Context to Ban People From Voting For Him
“Very Different Rules”
In their decision, the majority of judges assert that Trump “told his supporters” on January 6th that “they were ‘allowed to go by very different rules’” and that those words “were intended to produce imminent lawless action.”
The judges repeat the phrase “very different rules” four different times, but they never reveal the words that immediately follow. These prove that Trump was not talking about his “supporters,” as the judges allege, but Mike Pence. Per the transcript of Trump’s speech:
Those words refer to Trump’s call for Pence to send the electors “back to the States to recertify,” as Trump said in the same speech.
The broader context also reveals that Trump was speaking about Congress, a point he raised four times in his speech. That’s because Congress was debating on that day whether the 2020 election was carried out in accord with the U.S. Constitution and whether the federal Electoral Count Act allowed Congress to object to “States that did not follow the constitutional requirement for selecting electors.”
Trump’s statement was true at the time, as shown by the text of the Electoral Count Act, which specified very different rules for cases of potential fraud. However, Democrats, several Republicans, and President Biden changed this law in 2022 to remove certain checks against election fraud.
“Fight Like Hell”
Echoing the 2021 impeachment resolution of Trump, the Colorado judges claim that Trump “gave a speech in which he literally exhorted his supporters to fight at the Capitol.” Their alleged proof of this is that Trump “used the word ‘fight’ or variations of it” 20 times on January 6.
Yet, the judges only cite the following cases of Trump using the word “fight,” none of which literally calls for violence:
- “Republicans are constantly fighting like a boxer with his hands tied behind his back. It’s like a boxer. And we want to be so nice. We want to be so respectful of everybody, including bad people. And we’re going to have to fight much harder.”
- “And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”
Seemingly ignorant of the fact that the words “literal” and “coded” have opposing meanings, the judges claim that the statements above were “coded language” that Trump used as “literal calls to violence.”
More importantly, the full record of Trump’s remarks show that he was talking about legal and verbal fighting, not physical violence. Ten of the 20 times in which Trump used the word “fight” are found in the following statements where the context is unmistakable:
- Rudy Giuliani has “guts, he fights. He fights.”
- “Jim Jordan, and some of these guys. They’re out there fighting the House.”
- “If they don’t fight, we have to primary the hell out of the ones that don’t fight. You primary them.”
- “The American people do not believe the corrupt fake news anymore. They have ruined their reputation. But it used to be that they’d argue with me, I’d fight. So I’d fight, they’d fight. I’d fight, they’d fight. … They had their point of view, I had my point of view. But you’d have an argument. Now what they do is they go silent. It’s called suppression. And that’s what happens in a communist country.”
Exposing the double standards of those who claim that Trump’s use of the word “fight” was a call for violence, video footage shows Congressional Democrats using the word “fight” more than 200 times, including more than a dozen times in which they used the exact phrase for which they impeached Trump: “fight like hell.”