Trump Indictment ( includes NY AG and Fed documents case ) (3 Viewers)

[SteveSBrickNJ]

Former President D. Trump has been indicted by a New York Grand Jury. There will be much to talk about on this topic because this is just the first step in a lengthy process.
Possibly it is worthy of its own thread here rather than posting about Trump's indictment in already existing threads?
*
This 3/31/23 story might get the ball rolling....
*

Manhattan’s DA wanted a Friday Trump arrest. Trump’s team said no.

Secret Service needed more time to prepare, according to the ex-president’s legal team.

www.yahoo.com

 

[UriUT]

LOL.

edit: So some clever folks tracked elon's plane to Mar-A-Lago sometimes in the last week or so. And I believe this was confirmed in his interview with Don Lemon. I'm gonna conclude that Musk didn't want to lose more money.

 

[fooferdoggie]

LOL.

because they are not stupid? trump is a horrible risk. they figure some foreign government will step in.

 

[UriUT]

Experts: Cannon’s ruling against Trump opens up “nightmare scenario”

Cannon seemed to invite Trump to raise the argument again at trial, where Jack Smith can't appeal, expert says.

www.salon.com

“But that’s not the case if, after today’s ruling in the government’s favor, she permits Trump to resurrect the motion at trial,” Vance explained. “She could grant the motion to dismiss the case then and at that point, with very rare exceptions (that the Judge would be in a position to prevent), the government can’t appeal. That’s because once a jury has been empaneled, double jeopardy ‘attaches’ and prevents the government from retrying the defendant on the same charges if he’s acquitted, which is what would happen if the Judge granted a motion to dismiss at that point and before a jury rendered a guilty verdict. That’s the nightmare scenario here.”

I saw this the other day.

edit: Same conclusion here as well.

In what should be viewed as a break glass moment - and the final straw on the recusal front - Trump-appointed Judge Aileen Cannon delivers Trump an absolute gift. Although she denied Trump's motion to dismiss his 32 espionage charges, she denied the motion "without prejudice." This means Trump can raise the motion again during the trial, at a time when - if she decides to dismiss the charges - Special Counsel Jack Smith COULD NOT APPEAL HER DISMISSAL.

 

[UriUT]

because they are not stupid? trump is a horrible risk. they figure some foreign government will step in.

Believe it or not, someone I know mentioned Levin as one of his trusted news source. American media is so forked up.

 

[DaveXA]

It's time for her to get punted from the bench imo.

 

[superchuck500]

It's time for her to get punted from the bench imo.

She clearly never should have been there - it's disgusting how little they actually care for competence. Her resume was just atrocious. But there's this ongoing belief that Jack Smith is going to be able to get her removed and it's just not realistic.

 

[MT15]

She clearly never should have been there - it's disgusting how little they actually care for competence. Her resume was just atrocious. But there's this ongoing belief that Jack Smith is going to be able to get her removed and it's just not realistic.

What can be done? Do we have to wait for a trial (if she even lets one happen) and then appeal? If I was as bad at my job as this, in the hospital, there would have been consequences - I would have already been removed.

 

[MT15]

 

[superchuck500]

What can be done? Do we have to wait for a trial (if she even lets one happen) and then appeal? If I was as bad at my job as this, in the hospital, there would have been consequences - I would have already been removed.

True - I think it's the same for most of us but in our jobs we weren't appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The only way for her to lose her job is to be impeached.

Smith filed the case in SD-FLA because he had to and she was allotted the case based on the court's case assignment process. There's no process to remove her from the case based on incompetence or otherwise bad judging, just have to let the 11th Circuit address that. The only way to her off the case, apart from impeachment, is to have her recused under the recusal rules - but that's unlikely because the rules are only clear about things like family relationships, financial relationships, and past work on cases . . . beyond that, the language about bias and perceptions of lack of impartiality don't have much to go on. And the criminal defendant (Trump) is going to object vigorously, so without something really concrete, it's just not going to happen.

Apart from this case, the problem is that judicial appointment and confirmation has been run by custom for so long that senators are now asleep at the switch. She never should have been confirmed - it's shameful.

 

[MT15]

Trump used a brokerage account as collateral.

 

[DaveXA]

Trump used a brokerage account as collateral.

So, we're using this brokerage account as collateral and we won't tell you how much it's worth? How does that even work?

 

[MT15]

So, we're using this brokerage account as collateral and we won't tell you how much it's worth? How does that even work?

I would assume Chubb knows but doesn’t have to disclose the value.

 

[MT15]

Too good not to share. James calls BS on Trump being unable to secure a bond. Says it isn’t unusual for these types of litigants to be able to get larger bonds than this one.

 

[efil4]

Too good not to share. James calls BS on Trump being unable to secure a bond. Says it isn’t unusual for these types of litigants to be able to get larger bonds than this one.

like i said a few pages back- the bond amount isnt the issue.

its the "financials" of the one seeking the bonding. He can use property(ies) as collateral, but remember, property value is basically what someone is willing to pay for it. So he could use say, Mar-a-Lago and they assign $200,000,000 value. He defaults and the bond company now has to pay NY the $464,000,000. They move on liquidating Mar a Lago but now its "value" could be reduced for any number of factors.

Furthermore, his history of "paying his debts" is quite sketchy. And a bond is a legal/binding contract where the bonding company is assuming the debt of the bond holder and now fully obligated to pay the obligee in the event of default.

So there are ways to "layer" coverage ( we do the same for insuring very large property value ) where you get say 10 bonding companies to each bond him for $46,400,000. It reduces the risk/exposure over 10 companies vs 1. However, there could be some issue with regards to who is primary and who is excess. Unless agreed by all that in the event of defaut, they all share 1/10th of the default.

 

[J-DONK]

True - I think it's the same for most of us but in our jobs we weren't appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The only way for her to lose her job is to be impeached.

Smith filed the case in SD-FLA because he had to and she was allotted the case based on the court's case assignment process. There's no process to remove her from the case based on incompetence or otherwise bad judging, just have to let the 11th Circuit address that. The only way to her off the case, apart from impeachment, is to have her recused under the recusal rules - but that's unlikely because the rules are only clear about things like family relationships, financial relationships, and past work on cases . . . beyond that, the language about bias and perceptions of lack of impartiality don't have much to go on. And the criminal defendant (Trump) is going to object vigorously, so without something really concrete, it's just not going to happen.

Apart from this case, the problem is that judicial appointment and confirmation has been run by custom for so long that senators are now asleep at the switch. She never should have been confirmed - it's shameful.

Realistically, how many more of this crazy rulings can she make before Jack Smith could request her recusal and succeed? Is like the Chiefs win the superbowl, or the falcons in terms of odds?

 

[MT15]

like i said a few pages back- the bond amount isnt the issue.

its the "financials" of the one seeking the bonding. He can use property(ies) as collateral, but remember, property value is basically what someone is willing to pay for it. So he could use say, Mar-a-Lago and they assign $200,000,000 value. He defaults and the bond company now has to pay NY the $464,000,000. They move on liquidating Mar a Lago but now its "value" could be reduced for any number of factors.

Furthermore, his history of "paying his debts" is quite sketchy. And a bond is a legal/binding contract where the bonding company is assuming the debt of the bond holder and now fully obligated to pay the obligee in the event of default.

So there are ways to "layer" coverage ( we do the same for insuring very large property value ) where you get say 10 bonding companies to each bond him for $46,400,000. It reduces the risk/exposure over 10 companies vs 1. However, there could be some issue with regards to who is primary and who is excess. Unless agreed by all that in the event of defaut, they all share 1/10th of the default.

I am reading that most if not all of his assets are already leveraged. He only owns a few floors of Trump Tower in NY, for instance, and there is a mortgage on that. He can’t use real estate for collateral on the bond because it’s all encumbered in some way. I am beginning to believe he isn’t even a billionaire at all.

I also read that his airplane is actually the cheap way out - it’s so old it’s only worth around $20M. Nobody wants a plane like that - a new smaller jet would be worth 4-5x that. (going from memory, so feel free to correct my memory on this).

 

[fooferdoggie]

I also read that his airplane is actually the cheap way out - it’s so old it’s only worth around $20M. Nobody wants a plane like that - a new smaller jet would be worth 4-5x that. (going from memory, so feel free to correct my memory on this).

I have heard and knowing trump the plane is not in that great of shape. it costs a shirt ton to maintain a plane and a big jet like that a hell of a lot.

 

[superchuck500]

Realistically, how many more of this crazy rulings can she make before Jack Smith could request her recusal and succeed? Is like the Chiefs win the superbowl, or the falcons in terms of odds?

I don't know, I'm not sure if there are any examples of past instances to look at. She hasn't ruled entirely for Trump, so I really don't know how to handicap it.

Here's a comprehensive review from a 2002 piece from the Federal Judicial Center.

https://famguardian.org/PublishedAuthors/Govt/FJC/Recusal.pdf