Thread: Legal Charges Against Trump

Originally Posted by helge

Yes
Maybe it confused me that she didn't ..'sue' him for the rape or maybe she couldn't do that.

Didn't the jury clear Trump of the rape accusation ?


Just checked:

She says that she was raped.

Jury found her not to have been raped, but sexually abused and defamed.

Can't say that I am much wiser.

They probably assumed he couldn't get his tiny mushroom dick up her.

I blame Stormy Daniels.

• Trumps Fail To Turn Over Documents In Fraud Case, New York Attorney General Claims

Donald Trump, his three eldest children and the Trump Organization failed to turn over emails and other communications in a fraud lawsuit, the New York attorney general’s office claimed in a letter submitted in court last week. The office singled out “an unexplained drop-off in emails for Ivanka Trump” as one of the more significant issues.

The refusal to provide material goes back to the investigation into the Trumps’ business practices that preceded the lawsuit, the letter notes. In May 2022, the former president paid a $110,000 fine after Judge Arthur Engoron found Trump in contempt for failing to comply with a subpoena from the attorney general’s office. “For years, Mr. Trump and the Trump Organization have tried to thwart our lawful investigation, but today’s decision makes clear that no one can evade accountability,” Attorney General Letitia James said when a judge ordered Trump ordered to pay the fine last year.

The attorney general’s office is now saying the Trumps’ evasiveness has continued into the discovery process of the $250 million lawsuit, which alleges Donald Trump, his children, the Trump Organization and some of its top executives inflated property values to obtain economic benefits, such as securing cheaper loans. The defendants have denied the charges.

Last week, the attorney general’s office asked Engoron to intervene, saying the Trumps had started turning over documents but have not provided a timeline for when they will hand over everything. According to the attorney general, the Trumps also have not answered questions about how they are collecting the materials.

The letter notes a significant decline in emails turned over from Ivanka Trump, dropping from an average of 1,200 emails per month in the first nine months of 2014 to just 37 emails a month in 2016. The attorney general’s office asked Ivanka’s lawyers about the issue and was unimpressed by their response. “Not only have defendants failed to offer any substantive response to this inquiry, but there have been no documents produced by Ms. Trump,” the attorney general’s office told the judge on Friday.

Ivanka Trump recently replaced the attorneys representing her in this lawsuit, although some of them continue to defend Don Jr. and Eric.

In response to the letter, Engoron granted some of the attorney general’s requests on Monday, requiring all defendants to submit affidavits detailing how they have compiled with discovery and setting a deadline of May 12 for the Trumps to turn over all outstanding documents.

The Trumps, their attorneys and the New York attorney general’s office did not respond to requests for comment.

DocumentCloud

• Fulton County DA Willis rebuts Trump’s efforts to remove her from 2020 election probe

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis is rebuking Donald Trump’s attorneys’ claims that she should be dismissed from an investigation into his interference in the 2020 presidential election due to alleged political bias and a tainted investigation.

The Democratic district attorney filed a 24-page response on Monday to the former Republican president’s motion for her removal from an investigation that could put Trump in legal peril. Trump is also seeking to block the release of the special grand jury report that accused multiple witnesses of committing perjury while testifying to the panel last year.

Trump’s attorneys had argued in a motion filed in March that Willis harbors a political bias and she should be disqualified from the case. Prosecutors in Fulton pointed out on Monday that no criminal charges have been filed against anyone in the case and disapproval of comments made by Willis or other Fulton court officials did not justify disqualifying her office.

The Fulton D.A. also rejected Trump’s attorneys’ claims that Georgia’s law for a special grand jury is unconstitutionally vague. The special panel heard from 75 witnesses over the course of eight months last year weighing whether Trump and his allies broke any laws by trying to overturn Trump’s 2020 loss in Georgia to President Joe Biden.

Special grand juries in Georgia have more time to investigate than regular grand juries, but are not able to issue criminal indictments.

“They refer vaguely to violations of their own due process rights arising from a ‘tainted’ grand jury process without making a showing demonstrating the existence of either,” Willis said in the motion.

According to Willis, Trump’s lawyers didn’t provide a valid reason to challenge the proceedings before Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney simply because Trump disagreed with his decisions in the past.

McBurney has publicly released several sections of the report with limited details on the case, but has said that as the case progresses that more portions will become available.

Willis launched the investigation in early 2022 after the public release of a recording of a phone conversation in which Trump asked Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to find enough votes to declare him the winner of Georgia’s November 2020 general election. Raffensperger refused Trump’s overtures as Biden won the closely contested race by nearly 12,000 votes over the Republican incumbent.

Immediately after the Georgia election, Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal attorney, held court before state Senate and House legislators at committee hearings where he and others spread wild conspiracy theories of widespread election fraud, urging lawmakers to intervene to stop Biden from winning.

Among the witnesses to appear before the Fulton panel last year was Giuliani former chief of staff Mark Meadows and U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina. Among the other witnesses were fake Republican electors who cast their votes for an alternate slate in support of Trump, even as the official Democratic electoral votes for Biden were being cast.

Willis also responded Monday to a motion for her removal filed by attorneys representing Cathy Latham, an ex-Coffee County GOP chair turned false Republican elector in 2020.

Willis rebutted Latham’s claims that the special grand jury was unconstitutional and argued that her legal challenge was without merit since Latham did not testify or face any charges.

On May 10, Willis halted her attempt to disqualify attorney Kimberly Burroughs Debrow from representing 10 of the fake GOP electors because of concerns about a conflict of interest. In a court filing, Willis said she no longer opposed Debrow staying on the case since several of her defendants without immunity have hired other counsel.

Willis has notified Atlanta-area law enforcement to prepare to provide extra security late this summer in the expectation she could bring charges in that timeframe.

_________

Little more.....

• Village People Threaten To Sue Donald Trump Over Look-Alike Band

Village People Threaten To Sue Donald Trump Over Look-alike Band Allegedly Playing at Mar-a-Lago

Disco legends Village People sent a cease-and-desist letter to Donald Trump on Monday (May 15), threatening legal action over a costume-clad tribute band at his Mar-a-Lago resort that’s allegedly been performing “Macho Man” and other hit songs without permission.

In the letter, Karen Willis (wife of Village People lead singer Victor Willis) warned Trump’s lawyers that such performances potentially violate federal trademark law by confusing consumers into thinking the real band was playing at the former president’s resort.

Since a video of the Mar-a-Lago performance was posted on Twitter last week, Karen Willis said the band had been “inundated” with social media posts from people who thought it was the real Village People.

“The performance has and continues to cause public confusion as to why Village People would even engage in such a performance. We did not,” Karen Willis wrote in the letter, obtained by Billboard. “Though my husband has tolerated your client’s use of his Village People music, we cannot allow such use by him to cause public confusion as to endorsement.”

In a statement to Billboard on Monday, Trump attorney Joseph Tacopina said: “I will only deal with the attorney of the Village People, if they have one, not the wife of one of the members. But they should be thankful that President Trump allowed them to get their name back in the press. I haven’t heard their name in decades. Glad to hear they are still around.”

Top artists have long chafed at the use of their music by politicians, particularly conservatives. Foo Fighters and John Mellencamp blasted John McCain for using their music during the 2008 presidential election, and Neil Young, Guns N’ Roses, Pharrell Williams, Rihanna and the estate of Tom Petty have all spoken out about their music being used at campaign events for Trump.

Victor Willis has already complained about it once. In June 2020, angered by Trump’s use of police force to clear protesters from Lafayette Square in Washington, D.C., Victor Willis took to social media to request that the president stop playing his music at events.

Owing to the complex thicket of blanket licenses that govern the public performance of music, it’s actually more difficult than expected for artists to prevent politicians from playing their music at rallies. Many times, artists lack a clear route to take formal legal action, and instead are left to complain in the court of public opinion.

But in the letter this week, Karen Willis says that a live performance by a tribute band dressed to look like Village People — a construction worker, a cowboy, a policeman and so on — crossed the line into a clearer violation of the law by suggesting that the band had endorsed him.

“Your client is hereby on notice that U.S. trademark law protects against the unauthorized use of the Village People image and trade dress,” Karen Willis wrote. “To be certain, the use of the group’s image and likeness at Mar-a-Lago was unauthorized.”

If such performances don’t stop, Karen Willis made a clear threat of legal action: “We shall be forced to bring suit preventing further use, not only of the Village People trademarked image and trade dress, but of the music as well (and we’d hate to have to do that) but such combined use causes public confusion and is suggestive of endorsement.”

The letter gave Trump 10 days to respond.

The Legal Breakdown episode 68: @GlennKirschner2 joins to discuss reporting that Giuliani was selling pardons for $2 million each, with proceeds being split between him and Trump.

Further to the above ...

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

They probably assumed he couldn't get his tiny mushroom dick up her.

I blame Stormy Daniels.

Speculating about the size of Trump's penis now ?

You should get out more

Start with the closet

Originally Posted by helge

Speculating about the size of Trump's penis now ?

You should get out more

Start with the closet

Like I said, you're shit at trolling, you stupid scandihooligan retard.

Exclusive: New evidence in special counsel probe may undercut Trump’s claim documents he took were automatically declassified

The National Archives has informed former president Donald Trump that it is set to hand over to special counsel Jack Smith 16 records which show Trump and his top advisers had knowledge of the correct declassification process while he was president, according to multiple sources.

In a May 16 letter obtained by CNN, acting Archivist Debra Steidel Wall writes to Trump, “The 16 records in question all reflect communications involving close presidential advisers, some of them directed to you personally, concerning whether, why, and how you should declassify certain classified records.”

The 16 presidential records, which were subpoenaed earlier this year, may provide critical evidence establishing the former president’s awareness of the declassification process, a key part of the criminal investigation into Trump’s mishandling of classified documents.

The records may also provide insight into Trump’s intent and whether he willfully disregarded what he knew to be clearly established protocols, according to a source familiar with recent testimony provided to the grand jury by former top Trump officials.

Trump and his allies have insisted that as president, Trump did not have to follow a specific process to declassify documents. At a CNN town hall last week Trump repeated the claim that simply by removing classified documents from the White House he had declassified them. “And, by the way, they become automatically declassified when I took them,” Trump said.

According to the letter, Trump tried to block the special counsel from accessing the 16 records by asserting a claim of “constitutionally based privilege.” But in her letter, Wall rejects that claim, stating that the special counsel’s office has represented that it “is prepared to demonstrate with specificity to a court, why it is likely that the 16 records contain evidence that would be important to the grand jury’s investigation.”

The special Ccunsel also told the Archives that the evidence is “not practically available from another source.”

The letter goes on to state that the records will be handed over on May 24, 2023 “unless prohibited by an intervening court order.”

A source close to Trump’s legal team told CNN that the former president has received several letters like this from the Archives over the course of the investigation.

Trump’s team may challenge this in court, this person said, but claimed in the past the Archives has handed over documents before the Trump team has had a chance to challenge the release in court.

Trump’s legal team would not reveal what was in the 16 records, but the source said the former president’s attempt to block the special counsel from accessing them is “more of a strategic fight about constitutional and presidential protections rather than keeping evidence from the special counsel.”

The special counsel’s office and the Archives declined to comment. A Trump spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.

Little more in the link above

• Ga. prosecutor indicates charges in Trump probe could come August

Georgia prosecutor indicates charges in Trump election probe could come in early August

The Georgia prosecutor investigating possible interference in the 2020 election by then-President Donald Trump and his allies has requested no trials or in-person hearings be held at the Fulton County courthouse in early August — a sign of when a decision on charges could be announced.

In a letter Thursday to the chief judge of the courthouse, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis said she plans on having 70% of her staff working remotely between July 31 and Aug. 18. Those who will remain in the courthouse at that time include the leadership staff and "all armed investigators," according to the letter, a copy of which was obtained by NBC News.

"I respectfully request that judges not schedule trials and in person hearings during the weeks beginning Monday, August 7 and Monday, August 14," it said.

Willis did not give a reason for the unusual request in the letter, which was first reported by The New York Times.

In a separate letter to local law enforcement last month, she said she'd "announce charging decisions resulting from the investigation my office has been conducting into possible criminal interference in the administration of Georgia’s 2020 general election” during the state Superior Court’s fourth term, which begins July 11 and ends Sept. 1.

The special grand jury that Willis tapped last year to help investigate possible election interference by Trump and his allies recommended indicting more than a dozen people, Emily Kohrs, the jury foreperson, said on NBC News’ “Nightly News" in February.

“There are certainly names that you will recognize, yes. There are names also you might not recognize," Kohrs added.

In the months since, a number of "fake electors" — people who signed a certificate falsely declaring that Trump had won Georgia in the 2020 election and themselves as the state's official electors — have struck immunity deals with Willis' office, according to court filings.

Trump has denied any wrongdoing in the case. His lawyers submitted a court filing in March arguing that all the evidence gathered by the grand jury should be deemed unconstitutional and that Willis should be “disqualified from further investigation and/or prosecution of this matter.”

___________

Just for fun.

• Republican who won $5 million by debunking Mike Lindell's election fraud claims sues to collect

MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell is reportedly being sued by the computer scientist and fellow Republican who won $5 million by debunking Lindell's claims about the 2020 election as part of the "Prove Mike Wrong" challenge.

Lindell, who pushes mass voter fraud conspiracy theories, vowed to award a multimillion-dollar prize to any cyber security expert who could disprove his claims. An arbitration panel awarded software developer Robert Zeidman the $5 million payout about a month ago.

Lindell responded by seeking to vacate the award, and claiming that the panel exceeded its given powers.

Now Zeidman, who voted for Trump twice and has not ruled out voting for him a third time, is now taking the next step needed to collect his earned funds, according to a report by the Washington Post.

"Zeidman’s attorneys on Friday filed a petition in federal district court in Minnesota to force Lindell to pay the prize, plus interest of 10 percent a year," the outlet reported.

"They are asking a judge to confirm the legitimacy of the arbitrators’ award and to enter a $5 million judgment against Lindell’s firm. Such a judgment would empower Zeidman with stronger legal tools he could use to collect his winnings," according to the Post's story.

“There are no circumstances under which I’m letting him run away with that money,” said Brian Glasser, one of Zeidman’s attorneys, according to the report.

Lindell has vowed to fight the expert's award, which he won by showing the materials provided by Lindell had nothing to do with the 2020 election at all.

“It’s not about payment, it’s wrong. They’re just doing this trying to discredit the evidence and the evidence is all there,” he said in an interview Friday, according to the Post. “We’re taking it to court. It’s just all corrupt.”

"Under federal and state law, a decision to vacate the award would require finding that the arbitrators had committed misconduct, exceeded their powers or that the process was otherwise corrupt," it reported.

__________

• Former Montco District Attorney Bruce Castor files legal motion to drop Rudy Giuliani as a client

Bruce Castor dumps Rudy Giuliani as a client: ‘He’s not cooperating, and he’s not paying me’

Bruce Castor, the former Montgomery County district attorney and county commissioner who represented former President Donald Trump during his second impeachment trial, filed an eight-page motion in Philadelphia Common Pleas Court on Tuesday, asking to no longer represent former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani in a civil suit.

Castor summed up his gripe about Giuliani to Clout more succinctly: “He’s not cooperating, and he’s not paying me.”

James Savage, a Delaware County voting-machine supervisor, sued Trump, his 2020 presidential campaign, Giuliani, and two local Republican poll watchers in November 2021, saying their unsubstantiated claims about the 2020 election made him a target of hatred, ridicule, and physical threats.

Castor initially agreed to serve as Giuliani’s local lawyer but a lawyer from Texas was supposed to take over from there. That didn’t happen, and Castor, according to his motion, reluctantly tried to defend Giuliani.

Tim Parlatore, key Trump attorney, departs legal team

Timothy Parlatore, an attorney for Donald Trump who played a key role in the Mar-a-Lago documents investigation and once testified before the grand jury, is leaving the former president’s legal team, two sources familiar with the exit tell CNN.

Parlatore’s departure became official Tuesday, though it had been rumored for several weeks among the former president’s inner circle. The high-profile departure comes as special counsel Jack Smith appears to be in the final stretch of investigations into the possible mishandling of classified documents and efforts to obstruct the 2020 election.

“It’s been an incredible honor to serve and work through interesting legal issues. My departure was a personal choice and does not reflect upon the case, as I believe strongly the (Justice Department) team is engaging in misconduct to pursue an investigation of conduct that is not criminal,” Parlatore said in a statement to CNN.

Parlatore spoke with Trump regarding his exit as well.

Parlatore’s exit is notable given he was the attorney who organized searches for additional classified documents last year at Trump Tower, Trump’s properties in Bedminster, Mar-a-Lago, an office in Palm Beach and a Florida storage unit.

He also testified before the grand jury as Trump’s team and the Justice Department were embroiled in a dispute in which the Justice Department unsuccessfully sought to hold Trump in contempt for failing to hand over all classified documents after receiving a subpoena in May 2022.

Parlatore appeared before the grand jury for roughly seven hours in December.

“They repeatedly tried to ask me about my conversations with President Trump, which is totally outside the scope of what I was there for,” Parlatore said in March.

Parlatore recently co-authored a letter to House Intelligence Chairman Mike Turner asking Congress to tell the Justice Department to step aside because they believe the intelligence community should conduct the investigation into what happened with the classified documents.

The former president’s legal team has been rife with infighting for several months as his attorneys have dealt with the multiple investigations facing him amid his third run for office. Trump has privately expressed unhappiness with his large legal bills and asked why the investigations, namely the documents one, have not yet gone away.

In a town hall with CNN last week, Trump misrepresented the Presidential Records Act and asserted he was “allowed” to take documents when he left office.

“When we left Washington, we had the boxes lined up on the sidewalk outside for everybody,” Trump said. “People are taking pictures of them. Everybody knew we were taking those boxes.”

When asked if he had ever shown classified documents to anyone after leaving the White House, he said, “Not really. … Not — not that I can think of.”

__________

In other news.....

Supreme Court to take up Trump DC hotel dispute

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case on whether Democratic lawmakers should be able to sue to obtain documents related to former President Trump’s former Washington, D.C., hotel.

The hotel documents have largely fallen out of focus in the dispute, as several lawmakers who filed the lawsuit have since left Congress or died, and Democrats obtained many of the requested materials through other means.

But the case will more broadly impact how the minority party in Congress can scrutinize a presidential administration.

Democrats, in seeking the documents, leveraged a federal law known as the “Seven Member Rule.” It allows any seven members of the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability or any five members of the Senate Homeland Security Committee to ask for information within their purview from executive agencies.

After a Trump-era agency declined to turn over the documents under the rule, Democrats sued to enforce their demand. In a brief, unsigned order on Monday, the Supreme Court agreed to consider whether the lawmakers have legal standing to move ahead in their case.

The order sets up the case to be heard during the court’s next annual term, with a ruling expected by summer 2024.

Trump criticized over hotel

Trump’s hotel, which was located a few blocks from the White House, became a popular meeting place for GOP power players during his administration.

Democratic lawmakers sought financial records related to the hotel from the General Services Administration (GSA). The federal government owns the building, the Old Post Office Pavilion, and GSA leased it to Trump to convert into a luxury hotel.

Democrats have accused the former president of hiding a significant amount of debt during the GSA’s initial bidding process for the hotel. They have also raised concerns about how Trump managed potential conflicts of interest while he served as president, including doing business with foreign governments who stayed at the hotel at the same time they were seeking to influence U.S. foreign policy. Trump has denied any wrongdoing.

Biden administration opposes precedent

• Trump makes video appearance in New York criminal case, trial date tentatively set for late March

Donald Trump threw up his hands in frustration Tuesday as a judge scheduled his criminal trial for March 25, putting the former president and current candidate in a Manhattan courtroom in the heat of next year’s presidential primary season.

Trump, appearing by video conference at a pretrial hearing in the hush-money case, glowered at the camera as New York Judge Juan Manuel Merchan advised him to cancel all other obligations for the duration of the trial, which could last for several weeks.

Trump, wearing a blue suit against a backdrop of American flags at his Florida estate, then turned to a lawyer by his side — their brief discussion inaudible on the video feed — before sitting with his arms folded for the remainder of the hearing.

Trump had pleaded not guilty last month to 34 felony counts of falsifying business records at his family company, the Trump Organization.

Trump has made the New York case and the long list of other investigations he faces central to his campaign to reclaim the White House, portraying himself as the victim of a coordinated effort to sully his chances. Trump often discusses the cases at his rallies and in other speeches, and has repeatedly attacked prosecutors and judges by name.

At Tuesday’s hearing, Merchan reviewed an order barring Trump from publicly disseminating certain evidence turned over by prosecutors.

Trump was spared a personal appearance at the courthouse, avoiding the mammoth security and logistical challenges that accompanied his arraignment last month. Instead, the Republican was connected by video conference, with his face beamed onto courtroom TV monitors.

Trump is allowed to speak publicly about the criminal case, according to Merchan’s order, but he risks being held in contempt if he uses evidence turned over by prosecutors in the pretrial discovery process to target witnesses or others involved in the case.

Trump faces 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to payments his company made to his former lawyer, Michael Cohen. Prosecutors say those payments were intended to reimburse and compensate Cohen for orchestrating hush money payments during the 2016 campaign to bury allegations of extramarital sexual encounters. Trump denies having had extramarital flings and says the prosecution is politically motivated.

Merchan’s protective order bars Trump and his lawyers from disseminating evidence to third parties or posting it to social media, and it requires that certain sensitive material shared by prosecutors be kept only by Trump’s lawyers, not Trump himself.

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

Merchan, noting Trump’s “special” status as a former president and current candidate, has made clear that the protective order shouldn’t be construed as a gag order and that Trump has a right to publicly defend himself.

Trump’s lawyers are seeking to have his criminal case moved to federal court. It will continue in state court while that plays out.

__________

• Prosecutors Sought Records on Trump’s Foreign Business Deals Since 2017

Federal prosecutors overseeing the investigation into former President Donald J. Trump’s handling of classified documents have issued a subpoena for information about Mr. Trump’s business dealings in foreign countries since he took office, according to two people familiar with the matter.

It remains unclear precisely what the prosecutors were hoping to find by sending the subpoena to Mr. Trump’s company, the Trump Organization, or when it was issued. But the subpoena suggests that investigators have cast a wider net than previously understood as they scrutinize whether he broke the law in taking sensitive government materials with him upon leaving the White House and then not fully complying with demands for their return.

The subpoena — drafted by the office of the special counsel, Jack Smith — sought details on the Trump Organization’s real estate licensing and development dealings in seven countries: China, France, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and Oman, according to the people familiar with the matter. The subpoena sought the records for deals reached since 2017, when Mr. Trump was sworn in as president.

The Trump Organization swore off any foreign deals while he was in the White House, and the only such deal Mr. Trump is known to have made since then was with a Saudi-based real estate company to license its name to a housing, hotel and golf complex that will be built in Oman. He struck that deal last fall just before announcing his third presidential campaign.

The push by Mr. Smith’s prosecutors to gain insight into the former president’s foreign business was part of a subpoena — previously reported by The New York Times — that was sent to the Trump Organization and sought records related to Mr. Trump’s dealings with a Saudi-backed golf venture known as LIV Golf, which is holding tournaments at some of his golf clubs. (Mr. Trump’s arrangement with LIV Golf was reached well after he removed documents from the White House.)

Collectively, the subpoena’s demand for records related to the golf venture and other foreign ventures since 2017 suggests that Mr. Smith is exploring whether there is any connection between Mr. Trump’s deal-making abroad and the classified documents he took with him when he left office.

It is unclear what material the Trump Organization has turned over in response to the subpoena or whether Mr. Smith has obtained any separate evidence supporting that theory. But since the start of their investigation, prosecutors have sought to understand not only what sorts of materials Mr. Trump removed from the White House, but also why he might have taken them with him.

Among the government documents discovered in Mr. Trump’s possession were some related to Middle Eastern countries, according to a person familiar with Mr. Smith’s work. And when the F.B.I. executed a search warrant in August 2022 at Mar-a-Lago, Mr. Trump’s private club and residence in Florida, among the items recovered was material related to President Emmanuel Macron of France, according to court records.

A spokesman for Mr. Trump did not respond to emails seeking comment. A Trump Organization spokeswoman did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Mr. Trump has long argued that the documents belonged to him and that he need not return them to the government. When the Justice Department subpoenaed him last year to turn over any classified documents, he initially asked his lawyers whether he had to comply with the demand, according to a person with knowledge of the discussion. They said he was obligated to do so.

Since it became public that Mr. Trump had hundreds of classified documents at his private properties, including Mar-a-Lago, in early 2022, people close to him have said that he often referred to the boxes of material that federal officials wanted back as “mine.”

This month, Mr. Trump said something similar during a televised town hall event on CNN, declaring that he knowingly took government records from the White House when he left. He further claimed that he was allowed to do so because he considered the documents to be his personal property.

“I took the documents; I’m allowed to,” Mr. Trump said during the town hall, asserting at one point that he had “the absolute right” to take control of government records under the Presidential Records Act. That law, enacted in 1978 after the Watergate scandal, gave control of presidential records to the government itself — not to individual presidents.

Mr. Trump’s comments about the records being his personal property were in line with advice he was said to have received from Tom Fitton, the head of the conservative group Judicial Watch, who has given testimony to prosecutors investigating the case, according to people familiar with their conversations.

While establishing a motive for why Mr. Trump kept hold of certain documents could be helpful to Mr. Smith, it would not necessarily be required in proving that Mr. Trump willfully maintained possession of national defense secrets or that he obstructed the government’s repeated efforts to get the materials back. Those two potential crimes have long been at the heart of the government’s documents investigation.

Mr. Smith is also examining Mr. Trump’s efforts to cling to power after he lost the November 2020 election to President Biden, an inquiry that includes what role he may have played in unleashing the violence that erupted at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

A third track of Mr. Smith’s investigation is focused on Mr. Trump’s efforts to leverage claims of investigating election fraud to raise money. Mr. Trump raised tens of millions of dollars in small increments from donors as he aired allegations about election fraud that were eventually debunked.

Mr. Smith’s team is still bringing witnesses to the grand jury in connection with that matter. One witness this week is William Russell, an aide to Mr. Trump who worked for him in the White House and who was paid by Mr. Trump’s political action committee, Save America, where much of the money raised went.

Mr. Trump was recently indicted in Manhattan, where prosecutors accused him of covering up a sex scandal during the 2016 election, and is under investigation by a prosecutor in Georgia over his effort to overturn the election results there.

Trump lawyers request meeting with Merrick Garland over DOJ probe

Former President Trump’s attorneys have requested a meeting with Attorney General Merrick Garland as the Justice Department’s special counsel investigates the former president, according to a letter Tuesday.

“Unlike President Biden, his son Hunter, and the Biden family, President Trump is being treated unfairly,” attorneys John Rowley and James Trusty wrote to Garland, according to a letter that Trump shared to his Truth Social account without further commentary.

The lawyers argue that no other president has been “baselessly investigated in such an outrageous and unlawful fashion.”

“We request a meeting at your earliest convenience to discuss the ongoing injustice that is being perpetrated by your Special Counsel and his prosecutors,” they wrote.

The request for a meeting notably comes after the Wall Street Journal reported on Tuesday that the DOJ’s special counsel Jack Smith is rounding off his investigation into Trump’s handling of classified material — and that the former president’s team is readying for a possible indictment.

Smith is also leading an inquiry into efforts to interfere with the transfer of power when Trump lost his reelection bid in 2020. Trump is now running again to reclaim the White House in 2024.

The brief letter from Rowley and Trusty does not delve into details on what the pair hope to discuss with Garland. The Hill has reached out to Rowley at the contact shared in the letter for more. The Hill has also reached out to the DOJ for comment.

Trump was recently indicted by a grand jury in Manhattan on criminal charges of falsifying business records.

Originally Posted by helge

Yes

Just checked:

She says that she was raped.

Jury found her not to have been raped, but sexually abused and defamed.

.

Just to quibble slightly, the jury found there was not enough evidence to support the claim of rape - which is quite different to them saying she was not raped...

Originally Posted by nidhogg

- which is quite different to them saying she was not raped...

Ok, my mistake.

I thought that if you can't prove it, it didn't happen.


Couldn't Trump sue her for defamation ?

Mr. Smith knows someone will be calling jail, home.

• What Jack Smith knows

Special counsel Jack Smith is wrapping up his criminal investigation into whether former President Trump mishandled classified documents, having interviewed virtually every employee at his Mar-a-Lago home, the Wall Street Journal reports.

Why it matters: This is the probe widely believed to pose the most serious threat to Trump's freedom. Based on the publicly reported evidence, Republicans may struggle in their efforts to defend Trump and undermine Smith's credibility in the way they've tried to do with Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg.

• Former Attorney General Bill Barr, who slammed Bragg's indictment last month as an "abuse of prosecutorial power," warned last week that Trump could be "very exposed" legally in the Mar-a-Lago case.
• "I think this is a tight obstruction case," former Trump White House lawyer Ty Cobb also told CNN last week. "Yes, I do think he will go to jail on it."

What we know: The FBI executed a search warrant at Mar-a-Lago last August on suspicion that Trump had not returned all of the government documents in his possession, even after months of requests and a subpoena in May.

• Trump's lawyer, Evan Corcoran, was forced to testify after a judge determined Trump may have used him to lie to prosecutors — piercing traditional attorney-client privilege with a "crime fraud exception."
• Corcoran's remarkably detailed notes indicated he warned Trump that he could not keep the documents after the subpoena — and that Trump asked if they could push back against the Justice Department, according to The Guardian and CNN.

Between the lines: Proving that Trump deliberately took the documents and resisted giving them back — despite being told the law required him to — will be key to making Smith's case iron-clad.

• Trump appeared to hand prosecutors a gift by confirming in his CNN town hall this month that he knowingly "took the documents" because he was "allowed to" — citing an inaccurate interpretation of the Presidential Records Act.

• He also claimed the documents became "automatically declassified" when he took them.
• The National Archives recently gave the special counsel 16 records showing Trump and his top advisers were aware of "whether, why and how" he could declassify documents — potentially undercutting that defense.

The big picture: Trump's indictment in Manhattan led to a surge in GOP support and fundraising, as Republicans — including Trump's rivals for the nomination — rallied to defend the former president and attack Bragg.

• Some of Trump's associates are preparing to fundraise off of Smith's potential prosecution, according to the Journal, but it remains to be seen whether federal charges would elicit the same GOP rallying effect.
• Meanwhile, the judge presiding over Trump's criminal case in Manhattan today set a March 25, 2024, trial date — smack dab in the middle of the GOP's presidential primaries.

• Washington Post: Trump employees moved boxes day before DOJ went to Mar-a-Lago

Two employees of Donald Trump moved boxes of papers at Mar-a-Lago a day before the Justice Department visited the former president’s residence to collect classified documents , The Washington Post reported Thursday.

The Post, citing people familiar with the matter, reported that investigators view the timing – just before FBI agents and a prosecutor visited the Florida resort to recover the documents sought as part of a subpoena – as a potential sign of obstruction.

nvestigators have evidence, the newspaper reported, that the former president kept classified documents in a visible place in his office and had shown them to others. He also allegedly conducted “a ‘dress rehearsal’ for moving sensitive papers” along with his team before they were subpoenaed in May 2022, according to the report.

CNN previously reported that following the May 2022 subpoena – which former president wanted to fight – federal prosecutors had a June meeting at Mar-a-Lago during which they were shown documents that had been held in a basement room. At the meeting, Trump lawyers turned over an envelope with 28 classified documents, according to a CNN breakdown.

The June meeting was later followed by a court-approved search of the property by the FBI in August, in part because investigators developed evidence that classified documents potentially remained at the residence, a source previously told CNN.

A lawyer for one of the Trump employees told the Post that his client had been trying to help Trump aide Walt Nauta and didn’t know what the boxes held. “He was seen on Mar-a-Lago security video helping Walt Nauta move boxes into a storage area on June 2, 2022. My client saw Mr. Nauta moving the boxes and volunteered to help him,” attorney John Irving told the Post.

Prosecutors have pressed for answers on why Nauta was seen on Mar-a-Lago surveillance footage moving boxes out of the storage room before and after the May subpoena, which he had said in one interview with investigators it was at Trump’s direction.

The latest revelations come as special counsel Jack Smith, who is investigating Trump’s handling of classified documents and possible obstruction of justice, has recently obtained new evidence that could undercut Trump’s defense in the documents case.

CNN exclusively reported last week that the National Archives planned to hand over 16 records that show Trump and his advisers were aware of the correct declassification process, which could undercut Trump and his allies’ persistent claims that he did not have to follow a specific process to declassify documents.

Trump told CNN during a Republican presidential town hall earlier this month that he had declassified documents simply by removing them from the White House.

“I had every right to under the Presidential Records Act,” Trump told CNN’s Kaitlan Collins, adding: “You have the Presidential Records Act. I was there and I took what I took and it gets declassified.”

Under the act, however, the National Archives becomes the legal custodian of the president’s records when a president leaves office.

_________

• Trump was warned about retaining classified documents, notes reveal

Federal prosecutors have evidence Donald Trump was put on notice that he could not retain any classified documents after he was subpoenaed for their return last year, as they examine whether the subsequent failure to fully comply with the subpoena was a deliberate act of obstruction by the former president.

The previously unreported warning conveyed to Trump by his lawyer Evan Corcoran could be significant in the criminal investigation surrounding Trump’s handling of classified materials given it shows he knew about his subpoena obligations.

Last June, Corcoran found roughly 40 classified documents in the storage room at Mar-a-Lago and told the justice department that no further materials remained at the property. That was later shown to be untrue, after the FBI later returned with a warrant and seized 101 additional classified documents.

The federal investigation led by special counsel Jack Smith has recently focused on why the subpoena was not compiled with, notably whether Trump arranged for boxes of classified documents to be moved out of the storage room so he could illegally retain them.

In particular, prosecutors have fixated on Trump’s valet Walt Nauta, after he told the justice department that Trump told him to move boxes out of the storage room before and after the subpoena. The activity was captured on subpoenaed surveillance footage, though there were gaps in the tapes.

The warning was one of several key moments that Corcoran preserved in roughly 50 pages of dictated notes described to the Guardian over several weeks by three people with knowledge of their contents, which prosecutors have viewed in recent months as central to the criminal investigation.

The notes revealed how Trump and Nauta had unusually detailed knowledge of the botched subpoena response, including where Corcoran intended to search and not search for classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, as well as when Corcoran was actually doing his search.

Although ordinarily off limits to prosecutors, the notes ended up before the grand jury in Washington hearing evidence in the case after a US appeals court allowed attorney-client privilege to be pierced because judges believed Trump might have used Corcoran’s legal advice in furtherance of a crime.

The notes described how Corcoran told Nauta about the subpoena before he started looking for classified documents because Corcoran needed him to unlock the storage room – which prosecutors have taken as a sign that Nauta was closely involved at essentially every step of the search.

Corcoran then described how Nauta had offered to help him go through the boxes, which he declined and told Nauta he should stay outside. But going through around 60 boxes in the storage room took longer than expected, and the search ended up lasting several days.

The notes also suggested to prosecutors that there were times when the storage room might have been left unattended while the search for classified documents was ongoing, one of the people said, such as when Corcoran needed to take a break and walked out to the pool area nearby.

In addition to his exchange with Trump, Corcoran described Trump’s facial expressions and reactions whenever they discussed the subpoena. The unusually detailed nature of his notes is said to have irritated Trump, who only learned about them after the notes themselves were subpoenaed.

The notes did not address why Corcoran only looked in the storage room, though he separately testified to the grand jury that while Trump did not mislead him about where to search, he did not say where to search either. The New York Times earlier reported a summary of his testimony.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...nts-mar-a-lago

__________

• E. Jean Carroll adds Trump’s CNN town hall remarks to defamation suit

E. Jean Carroll amended her ongoing defamation lawsuit against former President Trump on Monday to include his recent comments during a CNN town hall.

In an exchange that came one day after a jury ordered Trump to pay $5 million in civil damages for sexual battery and defamation in Carroll’s other lawsuit, the former president during his CNN appearance again denied assaulting her.

“And I didn’t do anything else either. You know what? Because I have no idea who the hell she is. I don’t know who this woman is,” Trump told moderator Kaitlan Collins.

“I have no idea who the hell she is. She’s a whack job,” he later added.

The nine-member jury had found that Trump more likely than not assaulted Carroll, a longtime advice columnist, in the mid-1990s at a New York City department store and later defamed her by denying her claims.

Carroll’s first lawsuit against Trump, which has not yet reached trial, solely included claims of defamation.

It originally revolved around Trump’s initial denials when Carroll came forward publicly in 2019, citing a written statement given to reporters, comments Trump made on the South Lawn and an interview he gave The Hill at the White House three days after the allegation was first published.

But the case has been wrapped up in questions over whether Trump was protected in making those statements since he was serving as president at the time. On Monday, Carroll’s attorneys updated the complaint to note the recent verdict and Trump’s town hall comments.

“Ms. Carroll’s eleventh hour attempt to amend her complaint exposes the true motivation behind her numerous lawsuits,” Alina Habba, an attorney for Trump, said in a statement.

Carroll further updated her complaint to ask for at least $10 million in damages from Trump, after previously asking for an unspecified amount.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court...famation-suit/

Guilty

• Prosecutors in Trump's criminal case say they have recording of Trump and a witness

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Trump lawyer said to have been waved off searching office for secret records

Donald Trump’s lawyer tasked with searching for classified documents at Mar-a-Lago after the justice department issued a subpoena told associates that he was waved off from searching the former president’s office, where the FBI later found the most sensitive materials anywhere on the property.

The lawyer, Evan Corcoran, recounted that several Trump aides had told him to search the storage room because that was where all the materials that had been brought from the White House at the end of Trump’s presidency ended up being deposited.

Corcoran found 38 classified documents in the storage room. He then asked whether he should search anywhere else, like Trump’s office, but was steered away, he told associates. Corcoran never searched the office and told prosecutors the 38 papers were the extent of the material at Mar-a-Lago.

The assertion that there were no classified documents elsewhere at the property proved to be wrong when the FBI seized 101 classified documents months afterwards, including from the office, which was found to be where the most highly classified documents had been located.

Corcoran’s previously unreported account, as relayed to the Guardian by two people familiar with the matter, suggests he was materially misled as the special counsel Jack Smith examines whether his incomplete search was actually a ploy by Trump to retain classified documents.

It was not clear who waved off Corcoran from searching elsewhere at Mar-a-Lago – whether it was Trump himself or Trump employees who advised him to look for classified documents in the storage room, according to an account of his testimony to the grand jury.

Corcoran did not respond to a request for comment.

A Trump spokesperson said: “This is completely false and rooted in pure fantasy. The real story is the illegal weaponization of the justice department and their witch-hunts targeted to influence an election in order to try and prevent President Trump from returning to the White House.”

The criminal investigation, which appears to be nearing its end, has recently focused on why the subpoena was not complied with, including whether Trump might have arranged for boxes of classified documents to be moved out of the storage room so he could retain them.

In particular, prosecutors have examined why Trump ordered his valet, Walt Nauta, to move certain boxes out of the storage room before and after the subpoena was issued – as Nauta later told the justice department – and crucially where the boxes might have been taken.

The movement of boxes has taken on added significance for prosecutors after they saw on surveillance tapes that boxes were returned to the storage room on 2 June 2022, the day before the justice department travelled to Mar-a-Lago to collect what Corcoran had found, the Washington Post reported.

It was also not clear when Corcoran was waved off from searching other parts of Mar-a-Lago; it could be notable if it came before the boxes were brought back to the storage room, as it would raise questions as to whether he was held off while classified documents were moved back.

The Guardian has previously reported that prosecutors determined Trump and Nauta knew when and where Corcoran intended to search because Corcoran needed Nauta to unlock the storage room, according to Corcoran’s roughly 50 pages of notes that were turned over to the grand jury in the case.

Corcoran also memorialized how he told Trump he could not retain any classified documents at Mar-a-Lago when Trump asked what he was allowed to keep, as well as when he took breaks during the search by walking out to the pool deck nearby, and therefore leaving the storage room unattended.

To obtain Corcoran’s account, otherwise off-limits because of attorney-client privilege, prosecutors persuaded a US appeals court to pierce the protection because Trump may have used Corcoran’s legal advice in furtherance of a crime, according to another lawyer briefed on the case.

While Corcoran testified that Trump did not personally mislead him about where to search at Mar-a-Lago, he also acknowledged that Trump did not suggest he look anywhere else. The New York Times earlier reported a summary of his testimony.

Corcoran appears to have been told the prevailing belief among Trump aides and employees at the time: that any classified documents would probably be in the storage room with the rest of the material brought from the White House at the end of Trump’s presidency.

Before he could start his search, Corcoran ended up telling Nauta about the subpoena, where at Mar-a-Lago he was searching and when he was searching, because Corcoran needed Nauta to unlock the storage room so he could gain access.

Once he gained entry, Corcoran realized he needed a deadline extension because he was the only Trump lawyer dealing with the subpoena and had underestimated the number of boxes there. The justice department agreed to a shorter extension that he wanted, and pushed the reply date to June.

As the new subpoena deadline approached, Corcoran asked around whether there were other locations at Mar-a-Lago that he should search to ensure the response would be complete. Corcoran was told just searching the storage room should be sufficient and he did not look anywhere else.

Corcoran completed his search of just the storage room and told the justice department on 2 June 2022 to collect some documents the next morning. When prosecutors arrived, he provided a certification letter signed – and caveated – by another Trump lawyer, Christina Bobb, which attested to a “diligent search”.

The subpoena had been issued to Trump’s political office, and Corcoran treated it as an administrative subpoena and assumed he would be in recurring contact with the justice department about the documents matter, he has told associates.

When Corcoran turned over the 38 classified documents, according to court filings, he told the department the “records that came from the White House were stored within one location at Mar-a-Lago, the storage room … [and] he was not advised there were any records in any private office space”.

But that advice turned out to be wrong. When the FBI returned with a warrant months later, agents found in Trump’s desk drawer two classified documents mixed together with three other documents dated after Trump left the presidency, the Guardian has reported.

Just keeps piling up. This will be a key talking point by Republican pres candidates to prevent Trump getting nominated.

Originally Posted by Norton

This will be a key talking point by Republican pres candidates to prevent Trump getting nominated.

I doubt it will have any effect, though - disgruntled Trump faithful would not vote for someone who stopped their messiah from running.

Election - Democrats.

Originally Posted by panama hat

I doubt it will have any effect, though - disgruntled Trump faithful would not vote for someone who stopped their messiah from running.

Election - Democrats.

I guess you haven't been watching what's going on in Texas then.

Most people don't give a flying fuck what he thinks any more, and it shows.

You only have to look at how the candidates he endorsed in the mid terms did.

Lashing out,.....for support/money

• Trump escalates attacks on judges amid increasing legal scrutiny

As former President Trump’s legal problems mount, he is frequently lashing out at a familiar target: judges.

Trump has taken aim at the judge overseeing the civil case involving the writer E. Jean Carroll, deriding him as a “Clinton-appointed judge.”

The former president has also claimed the judge handling the hush money case brought against him by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg “hates” him.

It is not a new tactic for Trump, who throughout his presidency would question the motives or legitimacy of court rulings. But it is notable at a time when his 2024 campaign for the White House has included vows for “retribution” for those who feel they have been wronged by the government.

When Trump was indicted in Manhattan for his alleged role in a hush money scheme during the 2016 campaign, the former president wasted little time painting the New York state judge in the case as partisan.

Trump posted multiple times about Judge Juan Merchan on his Truth Social platform, referring to him as a “Trump Hating Judge,” and claiming Merchan “HATES ME.”

When asked about the comments, Trump’s lawyer, Joe Tacopina, said he had no reason to question Merchan’s credibility.

More recently, Trump has taken aim at federal Judge Lewis Kaplan, who oversaw the civil case brought against Trump by Carroll, the writer who alleged the former president raped her in a department store dressing room in the 1990s.

“This Clinton appointed Judge, Lewis Kaplan, hated President Donald J. Trump more than is humanly possible,” Trump posted after a jury found him liable for defamation and sexual abuse. “He is a terrible person, completely biased, and should have RECUSED himself when asked to do so. He quickly refused! This case should never have been allowed to be tried in this completely partisan venue, perhaps the worst for me in the Nation!”

Previously, Trump has lambasted the judge who oversaw the Paul Manafort case, derided some jurists who ruled against him as “Obama judges” and suggested a judge’s Mexican heritage meant he was potentially biased against him.

The attacks have alarmed the legal community, where observers have noted that Trump has a team of lawyers who can seek to fight any number of the decisions he has deemed unfair, rights available to any defendant but much more feasible for him than most.

“Irresponsible attacks in social media, that are based on misinformation or untruths or merely designed for partisan gain … do damage to our justice system. They undermine the rule of law and the system we have in place to provide justice for all,” said Marcy Kahn, who spent more than 30 years on the bench and now is the head of the New York City bar’s Task Force on the Rule of Law.

“There’s a huge cost to the people who are caught up in this and who are the focus of the untrue statements. And this is really, really dangerous when there is no effort to be restrained about it, and when the person speaking has great influence over a great number of people who, for whatever reason, feel aggrieved and angry and are looking for some target to displace their anger on.”

Judges, like all government officials, have seen an increase in threatening communications in recent years.

The number of threats against federal judges hit about 4,500 in 2021, following the Jan. 6 riot and claims the election was stolen. Those figures jumped again in 2022, to more than 5,000, according to the U.S. Marshals Service, which tracks both threats and inappropriate communications against federal judges.

Kahn noted that Merchan and his family received death threats after Trump criticized him.

The episode also disrupted the entire courthouse, requiring officers to provide ​​“extra security to all affected staff members.” Bragg’s office later chose to remove staff bios from their website.

Separately, a bomb threat interrupted the beginning of proceedings for the $250 million civil litigation brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James against the Trump Organization as well as the Trump family.

Susan Kohlmann, president of the New York City bar, said the disruptions go far beyond one case or one courthouse.

“I do think we need to think about the future, and I think there are people who would consider being a judge, being a juror, being any part of the court system, who are going to think twice in the face of very, very serious threats to them and their families,” she said.

As Trump pursues another White House term, he has grown increasingly aggressive in his pledge to dismantle the “deep state.”

“In 2016, I declared, ‘I am your voice,’” Trump said in a March speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference. “Today, I add: I am your warrior. I am your justice. And for those who have been wronged and betrayed, I am your retribution.”

While Trump’s rhetoric and disregard for the norms around the justice system alarm Democrats and may dissuade some independents from voting for him, only a small number of Republicans have raised it as a potential issue in a primary.

Asa Hutchinson, a 2024 presidential candidate and one of the few Republican governors to criticize Trump while he held the Arkansas office until earlier this year, argued in a recent CNN interview that voters should take into account Trump’s legal problems and attacks on the judiciary.

“What’s remarkable about the United States of America is our rule of law and our justice system. It’s the envy of the world,” Hutchinson said. “And we can’t have leaders that undermine it and disrespect it.”

It’s not uncommon for people involved in the legal system to vent their frustrations, but few do it as visibly — and to such a wide audience — as Trump.

“It’s a bit unseemly for the judges to respond. And if it’s a response by a judge on a pending case, then it raises issues about their fairness,” said Bruce Green, a law professor at Fordham University and an expert in legal ethics.

“So they try to appear to be above the fray, even though deep down in their hearts they may be, you know, personally stung. They’re not supposed to go on TV and defend themselves.”

It often falls to bar associations such as the New York City bar to respond, calling for respect for the legal system when the judicial system or judges are attacked.

Trump has seen his speech restricted in one case; Merchan agreed to a request from Bragg’s team to bar Trump from posting any evidence in the case on social media.

But he remains free to discuss the case itself on social media, including his opinions on the judge.

“It’s hard to see an upside to making the judge angry at you, right? And nobody likes to be criticized,” Green said. “I suppose he’s playing in more than one court. He’s also playing in the court of public opinion. And that’s in part because he’s running for president, and so he’s raising funds for his campaign. So he may not be thinking strategically, ‘What’s the best way to approach the trial?’

“Maybe he’s counting on the fact that the judge can’t take it out on him. So maybe he’s just thinking, ‘Well, the trial is irrelevant. What I do in the media is not going to impact the trial, but it sure may impact my campaign and my fundraising. So that’s what I’m going to think about.’”