Thread: Donald Trump : Former POTUS

Originally Posted by Seekingasylum

Can’t someone put a fucking bullet through the fat orange cvunt’s head?

You could start a gofundme to raise the dosh for that to be arranged. Even better would be to get the Trump Election campaign to start the fundraising for it...suitably worded, I'm pretty sure he's stupid enough to fund his own assassin

Wouldn't it be hilarious if Trump became president again?

Thank You Lincoln Project ... a fitting and timely rebuttal

Jury Selected in 2nd Trump Defamation Trial Brought by E. Jean Carroll - The New York Times

Rapist update

• What to Know as Trump Faces Another Defamation Trial by E. Jean Carroll

A Manhattan jury is expected to begin considering on Tuesday how much money former President Donald J. Trump will have to pay the writer E. Jean Carroll for defaming her after she accused him of raping her nearly three decades ago.

Mr. Trump is planning to attend the first day of the trial before he heads to New Hampshire to campaign ahead of the presidential primary there next week. He was expected to fly to New York late Monday night from Iowa, where the first-in-the-nation caucuses were held that evening.

Ms. Carroll, 80, has said she encountered Mr. Trump in the mid-1990s at the Bergdorf Goodman department store in Manhattan, where he shoved her against a dressing room wall and forced himself on her. Mr. Trump, 77, has loudly denied the allegations ever since Ms. Carroll first leveled them more than four years ago.

The civil trial focuses on statements by Mr. Trump in June 2019 after Ms. Carroll revealed her allegation in New York magazine. Mr. Trump called her claim “totally false,” saying that he had never met Ms. Carroll, a former Elle magazine advice columnist, and that she had invented a story to sell a book.

The trial is the second in eight months in which Ms. Carroll will face off against the former president. Last May, a jury awarded her just over $2 million after finding Mr. Trump liable for sexually assaulting her in the dressing room and nearly $3 million for defamation when he wrote on his Truth Social website in October 2022 that her claim was a “complete con job” and “a Hoax and a lie.”

Here’s what to know about the case:

Courtroom Curtain Call

The judge, Lewis A. Kaplan of Federal District Court, has ruled that, given the jury’s findings in the first trial, Mr. Trump cannot now contest Ms. Carroll’s version of the events that occurred in the dressing room — as he frequently does in public statements.

“Mr. Trump is precluded from offering any testimony, evidence or argument suggesting or implying that he did not sexually assault Ms. Carroll, that she fabricated her account of the assault or that she had any motive to do so,” Judge Kaplan wrote in an opinion on Jan. 9.

The judge previously ruled that Ms. Carroll did not need to prove again that Mr. Trump’s comments in 2019 were defamatory, finding that they were substantially the same as the statements that prompted last year’s award.

“This trial will not be a ‘do-over’ of the previous trial,” Judge Kaplan said on Jan. 9.

Double Punishment

Despite the jury’s total award of $5 million against Mr. Trump last May, his attacks against Ms. Carroll did not stop.

The former president continues to relentlessly lash out at her — on Truth Social, on the campaign trail and in a news conference on Thursday after he attended the final day of a civil fraud trial brought against him in state court by the New York attorney general. Mr. Trump told reporters that he would attend Ms. Carroll’s trial, “and I’m going to explain I don’t know who the hell she is.”

In the trial starting on Tuesday, Ms. Carroll is seeking at least $10 million in damages for harm to her reputation, plus an unspecified amount of punitive damages, which are intended to punish and to deter misconduct. Legal experts have said that a substantial punitive damages award may be the most effective way for Ms. Carroll to try to silence Mr. Trump.

Ms. Carroll’s lawyer, Roberta A. Kaplan, and Mr. Trump’s lawyer, Alina Habba, have each declined in recent days to comment on the case.

What Happened at Bergdorf Goodman

Ms. Carroll testified last spring that the attack at Bergdorf’s came after she bumped into Mr. Trump one evening and he asked her to help buy a present for a female friend.

They ended up in the lingerie section, where he motioned her to a dressing room, shut the door and began assaulting her. Using his weight to pin her, he pulled down her tights and forced his fingers and then, she said, his penis into her vagina. The jury did not, however, find that he had raped her.

Judge Kaplan has ruled that because the jury found that Mr. Trump had used his fingers to assault her, her rape claim was “substantially true under common modern parlance.”

Little more detail: Trump damages trial gets underway in E. Jean Carroll defamation case with former president in courtroom

Trump goes back to court as E. Jean Carroll’s defamation trial begins - POLITICO

_______

Just for fun.

• 'He's too old': Internet roasts Trump for claiming he won the Iowa Caucus 'twice'

Trump's rewriting his winning record.

If you took it from the mouth of babes, former President Donald Trump is undefeated as a politician in Iowa.

Hours before the Iowa caucuses, he stepped down a staircase of the Hotel Fort Des Moines and, for a moment, offered his prognostication: "We’ve won it twice, as you know; I think we’re going to have a tremendous night."

It's false. The 45th president, while the victor in the state back in 2020 — didn't take home the victory back in 2016.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) did.

Cruz, who was Trump's staunchest opponent, won the contest with 27.6% of the vote, narrowly squeaking out Trump's 24.3%. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) took home third with 23.1%.

Trump was curt after the results and moved on to the next ones.

“We love New Hampshire, we love South Carolina,” he said.

But then he tweeted soon after that the Caucus was snookered.

“Ted Cruz didn’t win Iowa, he illegally stole it. That is why all of the polls were so wrong any [sic] why he got more votes than anticipated. Bad!” Trump posted, and later deleted it.

"Needs a community note," said @Shannonsheeha18, asking for the X fact-checking process.

Trump did go on to take New Hampshire, South Carolina and Alabama to ultimately nab the GOP nomination and face off against former secretary of State and Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.
The unsavory response to The Don's fact-challenged bravado drew jeers.

@BrianCrow14 mocked Trump's election conspiracies after he was defeated in 2016: "I remember. When Ted Cruz cheated. /Sarcasm".

"Oh you mean he lied, imagine that…" reads a tweet by @Skydive101.

"Trump flew to Iowa on Saturday, and in that time he’s done 1 rally, 1 virtual event and a pizza photo op," posted Peter Henlein. "Now on caucus day he didn’t leave his hotel for the first time until 2pm Iowa time…and he can barely descend a flight of stairs. He is too old."

__________

• Judge denies ex-Trump aide Peter Navarro's request for new trial in contempt of Congress case

A federal judge has denied former Trump White House adviser Peter Navarro's request for a new trial after he was convicted of ignoring a subpoena from the House Jan. 6 committee.

Navarro argued that the jury that found him guilty of contempt of Congress may have been influenced by protesters outside the courthouse when the jurors exited the building for a break before returning a verdict.

On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta said that while there were demonstrators outside the courthouse, they did not have direct contact with the jurors.

"The evidence establishes that the jurors only interacted with each other and [Court Security Officer] Torres in John Marshall Park," Mehta wrote in his ruling. "No one directed any words or displayed any signs at them."

"Defendant not only fails to demonstrate prejudice, he has not shown that any juror was actually exposed to any improper external influence," Mehta ruled.

Navarro was found guilty of contempt of Congress last September, for defying a subpoena issued in February 2022 by the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol attack.

The former Trump adviser was convicted on one count over his refusal to appear for a deposition in front of the committee, and on a second count for refusing to produce documents.

Navarro's sentencing is scheduled for Jan. 25.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...4001.158.0.pdf

Originally Posted by Joe 90

Wouldn't it be hilarious if Trump became president again?

For a select few. Disasterous for most, including those who vote for him.

Originally Posted by Norton

Disasterous for most, including those who vote for him.

Exactly, I think it is a disgrace that this rapist, con man, and mentally unstable gimp is even allowed to run again.
I wouldn't be surprised if he gets in sadly. Luckily, I don't live in the US. It is bad enough that senseless mass gun violence happens on an almost daily basis, now it'll get even worse I'd imagine if Trump gets in.

Originally Posted by MarilynMonroe

Luckily, I don't live in the US.

Is it too early to be cruel to it?

• Judge rejects Donald Trump motion to compel Jan. 6 committee evidence

The judge overseeing former President Donald Trump’s Georgia racketeering indictment has denied a request from Trump and co-defendant Jeff Clark to compel new information from prosecutors.

Late Wednesday afternoon, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee denied the motions, which referred to alleged evidence presented to the U.S. House Select Jan. 6 Committee. That committee was appointed and coordinated by Congressional Democrats who said they were charged to investigate Trump’s role in the deadly Capitol riot on the same day the 2020 electoral results were to be certified.

“The items demanded do not exist,” McAfee wrote. “The motion is therefore moot.”

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis issued dozens of indictments in August 2023 accusing Trump and his allies of trying to overturn Georgia’s 2020 election results.

Her indictments accuse Trump and his allies of suggesting Georgia’s Republican secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, could find enough votes for him to win the battleground state; harassed an election worker who faced false claims of fraud; and attempted to persuade Georgia lawmakers to ignore the will of voters and appoint a new slate of electors favorable to Trump.

Trump is charged alongside several others — including Giuliani and former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows — with violating the state’s anti-racketeering law by scheming to illegally overturn his 2020 election loss.

Clark is a former U.S. Justice Department official who championed Trump’s claims of election fraud. He presented colleagues with a draft letter pushing Georgia officials to convene a special legislative session on the election results, according to testimony before the U.S. House committee that investigated the riot.

Clark wanted the letter sent, but Justice Department superiors refused.

_________

• Trump lawyers preview arguments of 'political bias' in classified documents case

Donald Trump’s lawyers on Tuesday night previewed their defense arguments in the case over the former president's handling of classified documents, saying they plan to rebut prosecutors’ accusations that sensitive government documents were stored at insecure locations on his Mar-a-Lago estate.

In a motion filed Tuesday, Trump lawyers signaled they will argue that prosecutors carried out a “politically motivated and biased” investigation into his handling of classified documents, with the intent to damage the former president’s 2024 campaign.

Trump’s lawyers said they are seeking communications between prosecutors at the Justice Department and associates of President Joe Biden, alleging without providing evidence that the Biden administration is orchestrating legal efforts to interfere with Trump's campaign.

“The Special Counsel’s Office has disregarded basic discovery obligations and DOJ policies in an effort to support the Biden Administration’s egregious efforts to weaponize the criminal justice system in pursuit of an objective that President Biden cannot achieve on the campaign trail: slowing down President Trump’s leading campaign in the 2024 presidential election,” Trump’s lawyers wrote.

They also point to Trump’s decisive victory in the Iowa caucuses this week in arguing that the charges against him in the case show “partisan election interference."

“The patent absurdity of the Office’s efforts is illustrated by the fact that, while working toward a historic landslide victory in the Iowa caucuses yesterday, President Trump was also preparing to bring to Your Honor’s attention today the record of misrepresentations and discovery violations that have marred this case from the outset and illustrate that the Office has disregarded fundamental fairness and its legal obligations in favor of partisan election interference,” they wrote.

DocumentCloud

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

He will be convicted well before the election.

_________

Rapist update

• Agitated Trump says 'I would love it' after judge threatens to boot him from E. Jean Carroll defamation trial

The judge presiding over E. Jean Carroll's damages trial in New York federal court on Wednesday warned former President Donald Trump that he might bar him from the courtroom for grousing loudly and animatedly to his lawyer during Carroll's testimony about how he repeatedly defamed her.

"Mr. Trump has the right to be present here. That right can be forfeited, and it can be forfeited if he is disruptive and if he disregards court orders," U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan told Trump and his attorney after the jury had left the courtroom. "Mr. Trump, I hope I don’t have to consider excluding you from the trial. I understand you are very eager for me to do that," the judge said.

"I would love it. I would love it," Trump responded.

"I know you would because you just can’t control yourself in this circumstance. You just can't," the judge shot back before an exasperated Trump threw his hands in the air.

Trump returned to court after lunch, and posted two attacks against the judge on his social media platform Truth Social at about the same time, calling Kaplan a "seething and hostile Clinton-appointed Judge." "He is abusive, rude, and obviously not impartial but, that’s the way this crooked system works!" he said in one of the posts.

In another post a short time later, Trump said, Kaplan "should be sanctioned for his abuse of power — No wonder our Country is going to Hell!" He told reporters after court, "That's a nasty man. He's a nasty judge. He's a Trump-hating guy."

Trump, who was found liable last year for sexually abusing and defaming Carroll, had appeared visibly upset throughout Carroll's testimony.

“I am here because Donald Trump assaulted me, and when I wrote about it he lied and he shattered my reputation,” Carroll, 80, told the jury.

Trump repeatedly shook his head in anger and made comments to his lawyer throughout Carroll's testimony. At one point, Kaplan told Trump's attorney to sit down after denying her objection. Trump slammed the table and commented to his attorney, "nasty guy," apparently referring to the judge.

During the morning break, Carroll lawyer Shawn Crowley told the judge that Trump had been loudly making comments, saying some statements were "false" and making cracks about Carroll's memory.

Before the jury returned, Kaplan said, "I’m just going to ask Mr. Trump to take special care to keep his voice down so the jury does not overhear it.”

The request did not take. When the jury broke for lunch, Crowley told the judge that Trump had continued his commentary, and that some jurors could have heard him say "this really is a con job" and "it's a witch hunt."

That led to the back-and-forth with the judge.

After the parties returned from lunch, one of Trump's attorneys, Michael Madaio, complained to the judge that he had issued his warning to Trump "without giving us a moment to respond" to the Carroll team's claim that he was disruptive. Madaio told the judge he had displayed a "general hostility towards the defense" and asked him to recuse himself from the case.

"Denied," the judge said.

E. Jean Carroll defamation trial against Donald Trump

Originally Posted by David48atTD

Thank You Lincoln Project ... a fitting and timely rebuttal

Hmm

Goebbels would have liked it.

But if that's the way to reach the american voter, then....

I reckon shite like that will turn even more away.

Sadly we haven't got any "out in the open republicans" on TD to ask about their opinion.

Maybe Norton

Originally Posted by helge

Sadly we haven't got any "out in the open republicans" on TD to ask about their opinion.

Maybe Norton

Not sure what an "out in the open Republican" is but yes I am and have been a registered Republican my entire voting life. However, I have yet to come out.

What I meant was, that I don't think we have any "Trump voters" left.

Too bad

I would like to hear their opinions

• Judge hints at delay for Trump’s March trial date in federal election case

The judge overseeing the federal criminal case against Donald Trump for attempting to subvert the 2020 presidential election indicated Thursday that the March 4 trial date is unlikely to hold.

In a six-page order, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan barred special counsel Jack Smith from filing substantive new motions without advance permission while Trump is seeking to have the case thrown out on “presidential immunity” grounds.

The judge, an appointee of President Barack Obama, noted that she set the March trial date last August to allow Trump and his attorneys seven months to prepare.

But that clock was paused in December, after Trump appealed Chutkan’s determination that Trump was not immune from criminal prosecution. The appeal also meant that all of Chutkan’s previously established deadlines for pretrial filings were paused as well, freeing Trump from any legal steps he might need to or choose to take in advance of trial.

In Thursday’s order, Chutkan suggested that the time that has elapsed since his appeal would not be counted against him if the case gets back on track.

“Contrary to Defendant’s assertion, the court has not and will not set deadlines in this case based on the assumption that he has undertaken preparations when not required to do so,” she wrote.

That remark suggests that a delay of weeks or even months in the trial is possible, as Trump’s bid to dismiss the case remains pending before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...8148.195.0.pdf

__________

Rapist update

• E. Jean Carroll is cross-examined in Trump sex assault case

With former President Donald Trump no longer in the courtroom Thursday, a columnist who accused him of sexually attacking her concluded her testimony with an emphatic denial that she had benefited from the publicity that followed the allegations.

A Trump attorney tried to show the jury that E. Jean Carroll has achieved the fame, if not the fortune, she desired after the publication of a memoir accusing Trump of raping her in a department store dressing room in the 1990s.

Carroll responded: “No, my status was lowered. I’m partaking in this trial to bring my own reputation and status back."

The testimony came on the third day of a trial in Manhattan federal court that will determine what damages, if any, Trump owes for remarks he made about Carroll when he was president. A jury has already found Trump liable for sexually abusing Carroll in 1996 and defaming her in a separate round of denials he made following his presidency.

In her final day on the witness stand, Carroll said her allegations against Trump — first made public in a 2019 article in New York Magazine — had brought her an unexpected degree of infamy, along with death threats.

An attorney for Trump, Alina Habba, countered that Carroll's social media followers increased “exponentially” since the allegations, adding that she had gained professional opportunities and social standing among left-leaning celebrities.

“I've been invited to two parties,” Carroll responded dryly, before adding: “Yes, I’m more well known and I’m hated by a lot more people.”

On Thursday, Habba also showed jurors a series of mean tweets sent to Carroll in the hours after her allegations became public in 2019 but before Trump released his first public statements — an apparent effort to prove the vitriol directed at Carroll was unrelated to the former president's statements.

“They follow Donald Trump. They want to emulate him,” Carroll said. “They're standing up for the man they admire.”

The judge quickly shut down the line of questioning, saying it was “simply repetitious.”

Carroll has testified that her life changed dramatically after Trump branded her a liar, claimed he never met her and asserted that she made her claims against him to promote her book and damage him politically. She said she lives in fear, sleeps with a loaded gun beside her and wishes she could boost her security but doesn't have enough money.

_________

• Judge in Trump’s Georgia case orders DA to respond to allegations of impropriety

The judge overseeing the Fulton County prosecution of former President Donald Trump and numerous co-defendants has directed District Attorney Fani Willis to respond to allegations that she is in a romantic relationship with one of the lead prosecutors and has violated ethics rules.

Judge Scott McAfee ordered Willis to file a written response by Feb. 2. He said he will hold a hearing on the allegations on Feb. 15.

Mike Roman, a former Trump campaign official and one of the defendants in the case, lodged the bombshell allegations against Willis in court papers last week filed by his lawyer, Ashleigh Merchant. Merchant claimed that Willis is involved in an improper relationship with Nathan Wade, an outside lawyer whom Willis hired on a contract basis as a “special prosecutor” to help run the case.

Merchant claimed, without proof, that Willis and Wade traveled on expensive vacations financed by the income Wade earned from his work on the case. The arrangement violates rules barring conflicts of interest, Merchant argued, and is grounds for the judge to disqualify Willis and her team from the prosecution.

Before joining the Trump probe, Wade does not appear to have had any experience prosecuting complex cases. Wade’s biography on his law firm’s website touts his experience on personal injury issues, family law, contract disputes and other civil matters.

Willis’ office said it would respond to the allegations in court filings. In an order handed down Thursday, McAfee directed Willis to do just that.

Willis recently defended Wade’s qualifications in remarks during a church service honoring Martin Luther King, Jr. She did not address the allegations of impropriety.

In November 2021, a day after joining the district attorney’s team, Wade filed to divorce his wife of more than two decades. That divorce proceeding has now become intertwined with the Trump case, as Wade’s wife, Joycelyn Wade, recently subpoenaed Willis to testify in the divorce proceeding.

The Wade divorce proceedings are sealed. On Jan. 31 — two days before McAfee’s new deadline — there will be a hearing in the divorce case on whether to unseal it. Merchant has moved for the case to be unsealed, and earlier this week a coalition of media outlets weighed in to support unsealing the proceedings.

On Thursday, Willis moved to quash the subpoena for her deposition, which is scheduled for Jan. 23, arguing that she has no relevant evidence to offer in a divorce proceeding in which both parties have agreed the marriage has been “irretrievably broken” since 2021.

Willis called the subpoena an attempt to “embarrass” and “harass” her and suggested it had been coordinated with Roman. She noted that the subpoena for her testimony came simultaneously with Roman’s allegations of an inappropriate relationship between Willis and Wade. And she said the only conceivable relevant information she would have for Wade’s divorce — details about his compensation as her employee — had already been provided.

“Joycelyn Wade has not identified any other relevant basis for questioning or seeking discovery from the District Attorney Willis,” Willis’ attorney Cinque Axam wrote.

Willis’ filing did not address the allegations by Roman that she and Nathan Wade have a personal relationship.

Merchant, Roman’s attorney, responded to Willis’ claim of coordination.

“As she did in Fulton County, Willis attempts to create a conspiracy where none exists,” Merchant said. “We filed Mr. Roman’s motion on the day it was due, January 8th. We believe her filing in Cobb County is just another attempt to avoid having to directly answer the important questions Mr. Roman has raised.”

• DC bar authorities file disciplinary charges against pro-Trump 2020 election lawyers

Washington, D.C., bar investigators have filed disciplinary charges against three lawyers who aided Donald Trump ally Sidney Powell’s campaign to mount discredited legal challenges to the 2020 election results.

Filings made public Friday accused attorneys Juli Haller, Lawrence Joseph and Brandon Johnson of making knowingly false representations to courts about a slew of lawsuits they filed in the weeks after the 2020 election.

Joseph was most directly involved in a lawsuit brought by then-Rep. Louie Gohmert against then-Vice President Mike Pence, seeking to force Pence’s hand as Trump was pressuring him to assert unprecedented authority to choose the winner of the election. The suit was dismissed by a federal district court judge and appeals court panel before stalling at the Supreme Court on Jan. 6, 2021.

Haller, meanwhile, was instrumental in Powell’s so-called “Kraken” lawsuits, the nickname she gave to the campaign of ultimately unsuccessful litigation aimed at undoing Joe Biden’s victories in several swing states. After her stint with Powell, Haller represented a handful of Jan. 6 defendants — including Oath Keeper Kelly Meggs, who was ultimately convicted of seditious conspiracy — before moving to America First Legal Foundation, the Trump-aligned outfit started by former White House adviser Stephen Miller.

Johnson joined Haller in many of the Powell-related lawsuits and filings.

The new charges are the latest in a series of disciplinary proceedings filed across the country against attorneys who directly and indirectly aided Trump’s bid to subvert the 2020 election. Trump campaign lawyer Jenna Ellis was admonished by Colorado authorities after admitting to making false representations about election fraud in 2020. John Eastman, an architect of Trump’s last-ditch bid to block Biden’s Electoral College win, was found culpable for violating professional ethics after a lengthy trial in California and faces a final judgment in the next few weeks. And Rudy Giuliani was suspended from practicing law in New York and Washington, D.C. after proceedings that questioned his 2020 work on Trump’s behalf in Pennsylvania.

The new charges against Haller, Johnson and Joseph will be heard by a committee of the D.C. Bar, and if they’re found culpable they could face sanctions ranging from reprimand to suspension to disbarment.

Bar investigators say Haller and Johnson filed egregiously false claims about election fraud, particularly related to the contention that foreign governments and oligarchs had manipulated Dominion voting machines. Their claims were considered and rejected by courts at nearly every level in Arizona, Wisconsin, Michigan and elsewhere.

The attorneys “knew or should have known the lawsuits were frivolous,” the bar investigators charged. “They had no plausible factual basis for the claims they made and the relief they sought was unprecedented and beyond the authority of courts to grant.”

In a separate set of charges against Joseph, bar investigators say the conservative attorney falsely told courts that groups of pro-Trump presidential electors had been “duly qualified” in a handful of swing states, even though Biden had prevailed.

“[Joseph] knew that the claims about a ‘competing slate’ of electors in Arizona (as well as the slates in other ‘Contested States’) had no factual basis and was false,” they contend. “The state legislature in Arizona had not permitted, authorized, or endorsed the Republican slate of electors as competing or alternative electors for the state.”

Haller, Johnson and Joseph did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Haller and Johnson have been subject to disciplinary proceedings in other states as a result of their 2020 election litigation, including in Michigan, where a federal appeals court upheld sanctions against Powell and her allies.

________

• DOJ seeks prison term for former Trump adviser Peter Navarro

DOJ seeks 6-month prison term for former Trump adviser convicted of contempt of Congress

The Justice Department wants former Trump White House adviser Peter Navarro to spend six months behind bars after being convicted of criminal contempt of Congress for ignoring a subpoena.

Federal prosecutors said in a court filing Thursday that Navarro “deserves severe punishment” that includes a $200,000 fine in addition to prison time. He is scheduled to be sentenced Jan 25.

Navarro, 74, was found guilty last year on two counts of contempt after he rejected a congressional subpoena to testify before the now-defunct Jan. 6 committee and provide relevant documents.

“The Defendant chose allegiance to former President Donald Trump over the rule of law,” prosecutors wrote in Thursday’s sentencing memo.

“He cloaked his bad-faith strategy of defiance and contempt behind baseless, unfounded invocations of executive privilege and immunity that could not and would never apply to his situation,” they added.

Navarro’s attorney Stanley Woodward declined to comment on the Justice Department’s sentencing request.

Navarro has said that he ignored the congressional subpoena because Trump told him to invoke executive privilege, an argument that was later rejected by prosecutors and a judge.

In a separate court filing Thursday, Navarro’s attorneys asked that the court not sentence him to more than six months in prison and to pay a $200 fine.

“Despite the government’s effort to label Dr. Navarro as an insurrectionist, the reality is that his conviction arises solely from a conviction for his refusal to comply with the Select Committee’s subpoena and has nothing to do with the events that occurred at the Capitol on January 6, 2021,” Navarro’s lawyers wrote in their filing.

Navarro isn’t the first former Trump adviser to face the possibility of imprisonment after defying a Jan. 6 committee subpoena. In 2022, Steve Bannon was sentenced to four months behind bars plus a $6,500 fine — prosecutors had sought six months in prison and a $200,000 fine.

Bannon has appealed his conviction, and a federal judge suspended his sentence during the appeal process.

Prosecutors drew comparisons to Bannon in their sentencing memo for Navarro.

“Like Stephen Bannon before him, throughout the pendency of this case, the Defendant has exploited his notoriety — through courthouse press conferences, his books, and through podcasts — to display to the public the reason for his failure to comply with the Committee’s subpoena: a disregard for government processes and the law, and in particular, the work of the Committee,” prosecutors wrote.

Rapist updatede

• Trump’s defamation trial is postponed until Wednesday, delaying Trump’s possible testimony

The judge overseeing Donald Trump’s federal defamation trial delayed proceedings until Wednesday, meaning any further testimony, including Trump’s, won’t occur until after Tuesday’s primary contest in New Hampshire.

The reason for the delay wasn’t immediately clear and U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan didn’t provide an explanation.

On Monday morning, Kaplan dismissed court for the day after a juror reported feeling ill. But Trump also requested a further delay, citing the primary contest.

During a brief exchange in court, Trump’s lawyer Alina Habba asked Kaplan to delay Trump’s own testimony until Wednesday. “My client reminded me tomorrow is the New Hampshire primary, and he needs to be in New Hampshire,” Habba said, with Trump, the Republican presidential frontrunner, seated alongside her.

Habba said Trump had arrived in court Monday “planning to testify.”

A lawyer for the plaintiff, writer E. Jean Carroll, objected to such a delay, telling Kaplan, “we’d like to get this trial over,” and adding, “I just think we should finish tomorrow.” The trial, which began last Tuesday, was expected to take between three and five days. The trial took a pre-planned break on Friday.

Kaplan did not immediately rule on Trump’s request to postpone the proceedings an extra day. But later on Monday, in a brief docket entry, he indicated that court would not be in session on Tuesday and would resume Wednesday. A court spokesperson did not comment on whether the cancellation of Tuesday’s session was due to the juror’s illness or was granted to accommodate Trump’s campaign schedule.

In addition to the sick juror, health concerns arose Monday on Trump’s own legal team. Habba told the judge she attended a dinner over the weekend with her parents, who subsequently tested positive for Covid-19, and that she had been feverish. Trump’s other lawyer on the case, Michael Madaio, also dined with them, she said.

Kaplan said both lawyers had tested negative for Covid on Monday morning.

Habba, Madaio and Trump, who sat between his lawyers in court, went unmasked throughout Monday’s brief proceedings.

Carroll lawyer says Trump attorney violated court decorum

_________

• Judge orders the unsealing of divorce case of Trump special prosecutor in Georgia accused of affair

A judge on Monday ordered court records to be made public in the divorce involving a special prosecutor hired in the election case against Donald Trump and others and accused of having an affair with Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis.

The newly unsealed court records, however, didn’t include any references to the affair allegations that have roiled the case that charges Trump and 18 allies of working to overturn his 2020 election loss in the state.

The judge ordered the unsealing of the divorce case involving special prosecutor Nathan Wade after a request brought by a defense attorney who alleges an inappropriate relationship between Willis and Wade. The judge also put off a final decision on whether Willis will have to sit for questioning in the divorce case, but delayed her deposition that had been scheduled for Tuesday.

Willis has defended her hiring of Wade, who has little prosecutorial experience, and has not directly denied a romantic relationship. She has accused Wade’s estranged wife of trying to obstruct her criminal election interference case against Trump and others by seeking to question her in the couple’s divorce proceedings.

The affair allegations threaten to taint the prosecution, with the Republican primary front-runner and others seizing on the claims to attack the case and Wade’s qualifications as a prosecutor. Trump has pleaded not guilty, denied any wrongdoing and called the charges politically motivated.

Willis was served with the subpoena to sit for a deposition in the divorce case the day that defense attorney Ashleigh Merchant, who represents former Trump campaign staffer and onetime White House aide Michael Roman, filed a motion earlier this month alleging the romantic relationship between Willis and Wade.

Documents filed in court show Wade bought plane tickets in Willis’ name, and Joycelyn Wade’s lawyer has argued there “appears to be no reasonable explanation for their travels apart from a romantic relationship.” Joycelyn’s Wade’s lawyer, Andrea Dyer Hastings, told the judge on Monday that they believe Willis has some “unique personal knowledge” related to the divorce case and should be subject to questioning.

“She’s trying to hide under the shield of her position,” Hastings said of Willis.

Cinque Axam, a lawyer for Willis, said the issue before the court is how to divide the marital assets, and the determination of how that should be done has nothing to do with Willis, who doesn’t share any accounts with Nathan Wade and doesn’t determine how he spends money.

During a brief hearing in the Cobb County Superior Court, Judge Henry Thompson said he can’t rule on whether Willis should have to sit for a deposition in the divorce case until after Wade himself is questioned later this month. In ruling that court documents in the divorce case must be made public, he said a previous judge improperly ordered the case to be sealed without holding a hearing.

Joycelyn Wade’s lawyer wrote in court papers filed Friday that Nathan Wade has taken trips to San Francisco and Napa Valley, Florida, Belize, Panama and Australia and has taken Caribbean cruises since filing for divorce and that Willis “was an intended travel partner for at least some of these trips as indicated by flights he purchased for her to accompany him.”

The filing includes credit card statements that show Nathan Wade — after he had been hired as special prosecutor — bought plane tickets in October 2022 for him and Willis to travel to Miami and bought tickets in April to San Francisco in their names.

It’s one of four cases Trump is facing as he vies to return to the White House. Prosecutors are using a statute normally associated with mobsters to accuse the former president, lawyers and other aides of a “criminal enterprise” to keep him in power. Four people have already pleaded guilty in the Georgia election case after reaching deals with prosecutors. The remaining 15, including Trump and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, have pleaded not guilty.

Denied

more later

• Court rejects Trump’s request to reconsider appeal against gag order in election interference case

A federal appeals court on Tuesday rejected Donald Trump’s request that it reconsider his appeal against a gag order imposed against him in the criminal case over his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

The move paves the way for a potential final challenge to the US supreme court.

The decision by the US court of appeals to deny Trump an en banc rehearing – where the full bench of judges consider the matter – marks the latest setback for the former president after an earlier three-judge panel also rejected his appeal.

For months, Trump has been attempting to free himself from a limited protective order entered by the US district judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing the criminal case in Washington. The order prohibits him from making inflammatory statements that could intimidate trial witnesses or poison the jury pool.

The gag order came after special counsel prosecutors complained that Trump’s brazen public statements attacking them, court staff and potential trial witnesses could chill witness testimony and impede the fair administration of justice.

The filing from prosecutors drew attention to Trump’s rally speeches and posts on his Truth Social platform. In one post, Trump attacked his vice-president, Mike Pence, wildly claiming he had “made up stories about me” and had gone over to the “dark side” by talking to prosecutors.

Trump has also attacked Gen Mark Milley, the former chair of the joint chiefs of staff and another likely trial witness, after his testimony was cited in the indictment. Trump suggested that Milley had committed treason and mused that people who committed treason have historically been executed.

Chutkan agreed with prosecutors and issued an order preventing Trump from assailing prosecutors, court staff and trial witnesses. She allowed Trump only to have free rein to attack the Biden administration and the US justice department, and to allege the case was politically motivated.

Trump appealed but had his challenge largely rejected by a three-judge panel at the DC circuit, which upheld the restrictions with the caveat that Trump would also be free to assail the special counsel Jack Smith and people involved in post-2020 election matters as long as he did not target their trial testimony.

The panel rejected Trump’s position that there could only be a gag order after a statement by him had chilled a witness to be misguided, not least because the point of the gag order was to ensure no such harm would occur in the first place.

“Mr Trump is a former president and current candidate for the presidency,” the appeals court wrote in a 68-page opinion. “But Mr Trump is also an indicted criminal defendant, and he must stand trial in a courtroom under the same procedures that govern all other criminal defendants.”

Appeals court shoots down Trump’s bid to sideline his DC gag order

________

• Trump’s E. Jean Carroll defamation trial paused another day

Former President Trump’s defamation trial brought by E. Jean Carroll will remain on pause Wednesday, the court said.

The additional pause was announced in a brief update on the docket without explanation and marks the third consecutive one-day delay.

________

• The Smiths’ Johnny Marr Blasts Trump For Playing Band’s Tunes At Rallies; Joins Stones, Queen, Bowie & More In Not Wanting Music Used By Ex-POTUS

The Smiths’ guitarist Johnny Marr took to social media Tuesday to blast the former POTUS for blasting the iconic band’s songs at his rallies in the Granite State and elsewhere. The Manchester-born Marr put it very bluntly when new and video of MAGA meet-ups featuring the band’s B-side 1984 tune “Please Please Please Let Me Get What I Want” on their playlist came to light.

“Ahh…right…OK. I never in a million years would’ve thought this could come to pass,” said Marr on X today. “Consider this sh*t shut right down right now”

Frequently slapped by bands and performers for using their music over the use of their songs, Trump has been admonished by what would constitute most of the Rock’n’Roll Hall of Fame. Adele and Aerosmith, The Beatles, Bruce Springsteen, Elton John, The Rolling Stones, Queen, Tom Petty, the estate of Prince, and even the Village People are among those who have objected to the former Celebrity Apprentice host playing their music. David Bowie’s son, director Duncan Jones gave a particularly pointed rebuke back in April of 2023 over one Trump appearance and the use of his father’s classic “Rebel Rebel” by the twice impeached Republican.

First……..

• Trump expected to testify as E. Jean Carroll damages trial resumes after Covid delay

__________

• Letitia James Puts the Squeeze on Donald Trump

Donald Trump should be banned for life from the real estate industry, New York Attorney General Letitia James' office has argued in a court filing.

Colleen Faherty, a lawyer in James' office, submitted a letter to the judge in Trump's New York fraud case requesting that he stop Trump from ever working in the real estate industry again.

In her letter, filed on Tuesday, Faherty informed Engoron about the appeal court decision in the case of Martin Shkreli, nicknamed 'Pharma Bro' by the media, who has been banned for life from the pharmaceuticals industry. She noted that Shkreli was also fined more than $60 million.

According to Faherty, New York State Executive Law 63(12)—which was used in the New York attorney general's lawsuits against both Trump and Shkreli—gives the court the ability to "issue a permanent and plenary ban in a particular industry" and should be applied to Trump.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a lower New York federal court's decision to ban Shkreli for life because he tried to block competition while increasing the price of a drug by more than 4,000 percent in 2015. His actions raised the price of the life-saving drug Daraprim by more than $700 per tablet.

The ruling stemmed from an antitrust lawsuit that James, the Federal Trade Commission, and six other states filed against Shkreli.

"We write to provide the Court with notice of supplemental authority: the recent Second Circuit decision in Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Shkreli," Faherty stated in her letter.

"The Second Circuit unanimously affirmed in full the district court's order enjoining Martin Shkreli from participation in the pharmaceutical industry for life and ordering him to disgorge $64.6 million," Faherty wrote.

__________

• National Debt Grew by $8.4 Trillion Under Trump: Report

Policy initiatives passed by former President Donald Trump added $8.4 trillion to the national debt over the following 10 years, according to analysis from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

"Of the $8.4 trillion President Trump added to the debt, $3.6 trillion came from COVID relief laws and executive orders, $2.5 trillion from tax cut laws, and $2.3 trillion from spending increases, with the remaining executive orders having costs and savings that largely offset each other," reads the CRFB report.

Those figures are derived from policies passed during Trump's administration plus interest on those costs, but ignoring "policies put in place before President Trump took office."

A bit of perspective.

Rapist update

• Trump briefly takes stand in E. Jean Carroll trial, but doesn’t say much

Donald Trump testified in his own defense Thursday in a federal defamation trial, answering a total of five questions on the witness stand after the judge overseeing the trial severely curtailed the scope of the former president’s testimony.

Though Trump muttered under his breath before walking to the witness stand, his three minutes of testimony were devoid of antics. He gave mostly direct replies that were quickly cut off the moment they threatened to veer off-course — a stark contrast from his discursive filibustering when he took the stand last fall in an unrelated trial for business fraud.

Trump’s testimony Thursday came in a lawsuit filed by the writer E. Jean Carroll over remarks Trump made denying her rape allegation.

Trump’s lawyer, Alina Habba, first asked him whether he stood by the testimony he gave in a videotaped deposition that had been shown to the jury.

“100 percent, yes,” he said.

When Habba asked whether he had denied Carroll’s allegation in order to defend himself, Trump replied: “Yes, I did. That’s exactly right. She said something I considered a false accusation ... .”

His answer was cut off by an objection from one of Carroll’s attorneys, and U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan instructed the jury to disregard everything he said after, “Yes, I did.”

And after Habba asked Trump whether he had instructed anyone to hurt Carroll, Trump answered: “No, I just wanted to defend myself, my family and frankly, the presidency ... .” His answer, again, was interrupted by an objection from Carroll’s lawyer, and the judge then instructed the jury to disregard everything in Trump’s response aside from “no.”

Carroll is suing Trump for claiming in 2019, after she publicly accused Trump of having raped her in a department store dressing room in the 1990s, that he had never met her and suggesting she was motivated by money. The trial is the second one between Carroll and Trump. Last year, a jury ordered Trump to pay Carroll $5 million in damages after finding he sexually abused her and defamed her with separate comments he made in 2022.

Kaplan ruled before the current trial that Trump’s 2019 remarks about Carroll were defamatory, so the only question for the jury to decide is how much money in damages Trump will have to pay.

Trump was the final witness called in the trial, which began last week and was postponed for three days this week after a juror reported feeling ill. Lawyers for both sides are expected to deliver closing arguments on Friday, and then the nine-person jury will begin to deliberate.

Trump’s testimony Thursday marked the first he has given in front of a jury since leaving the White House.

In November, Trump testified in a civil fraud trial against him, his adult sons and their business associates, during which he excoriated the judge and offered performative bits lifted from his campaign rallies. But that trial wasn’t in front of a jury, and as a result the judge gave the former president considerable latitude during his testimony.

Before the current Carroll trial began, Kaplan limited Trump’s possible testimony, writing that, “Mr. Trump is precluded from offering any testimony, evidence or argument suggesting or implying that he did not sexually assault Ms. Carroll, that she fabricated her account of the assault, or that she had any motive to do so.” Kaplan reasoned that last year’s jury found that Trump did, in fact, assault Carroll, and therefore the issue is no longer in dispute as a legal matter.

On Thursday, before Trump took the witness stand and outside the presence of the jury, Kaplan spent about 20 minutes questioning Habba about what she planned to ask her client and what he planned to say.

“It is a very well-established legal principle in this country that prevents do-overs by disappointed litigants,” Kaplan told Habba.

During Kaplan’s exchange with Habba, Trump became audible on the microphone at the defense table, repeating some of the claims he has previously made about Carroll.

“I wasn’t at the trial. I don’t know who this woman is,” he said. “I never met this woman.”

“Mr. Trump, please keep your voice down,” the judge instructed him.

__________

• Peter Navarro sentenced to four months in prison for defying Jan. 6 committee

Peter Navarro, a former trade adviser to Donald Trump, has been sentenced to four months in prison for defying a subpoena from the Jan. 6 select committee.

U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta handed down the sentence Thursday, describing Navarro’s refusal to testify or provide documents to the panel as an affront to a branch of government seeking to understand a harrowing attack on democracy.

“In all of this, even today, there is little acknowledgement of what your obligation is as an American to cooperate with Congress, to provide them with information they are seeking,” Mehta said. “They had a job to do. And you made it harder. It’s really that simple.”

“You are not a victim. You are not the object of a political prosecution,” Mehta added. “These are circumstances of your own making.”

Ex-White House Trade Advisor Peter Navarro Sentenced to Four Months in Prison on Two Counts of Contempt of Congress

Jury Found the Defendant Failed to Comply With Subpoena From Congressional Committee Investigating Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol Attack

__________

• Trump seeks to disqualify Fani Willis from prosecuting him in Georgia

Donald Trump joined a motion on Thursday seeking to disqualify the Fulton county district attorney prosecuting him over efforts to overturn the 2020 election in Georgia after her recent remarks decrying allegations of an affair with one of her deputies.

The filing, submitted to Fulton county superior judge Scott McAfee on Thursday, adopted and added to an earlier motion to have the district attorney Fani Willis and her entire office thrown off bringing the case.

At issue is an explosive complaint from Trump’s co-defendant and former 2020 campaign election day operations chief Michael Roman, asking Willis to be relieved because her alleged relationship with special prosecutor Nathan Wade created a conflict of interest.

The filing itself included no concrete evidence that might give rise to a disqualification. But exhibits in related filings – notably Wade’s divorce proceeding – has shown that Wade paid for trips with Willis to California and Florida.

Willis has not formally responded to the complaint to date, though she addressed some of the claims in a speech delivered earlier this month at a historic Black church in Atlanta, suggesting the claims were in part racially motivated.

“How come, God, the same Black man I hired was acceptable when a Republican in another county hired him and paid him twice the rate?” Willis said in her remarks, in a thinly veiled effort to defend the hiring of Wade without specifically naming him.

In the new filing joining Roman’s motion, Trump lawyer Steve Sadow contended for the first time that Willis’s remarks, in addition to coming outside of proper court channels, were themselves improper.

“The DA’s provocative and inflammatory extrajudicial racial comments, made in a widely publicized speech at a historical Black church in Atlanta, and cloaked in repeated references to God, reinforce and amplify the ‘appearance of impropriety’ in her judgement and prosecutorial conduct,” Sadow wrote.

The district attorney’s office is expected to file a response before 2 February, ahead of an evidentiary hearing set for 15 February before McAfee in Atlanta.

Rapist update


Donald Trump Storms Out Of Court During Closing Arguments Of Defamation Trial

• E. Jean Carroll seeks at least $24 million in defamation trial against Trump

Writer E. Jean Carroll's attorney on Friday asked a jury in the defamation trial against former President Trump to order him to pay at least $24 million in damages, multiple outlets reported.

Why it matters: Trump, who's running for president again, has been using the courtroom for the many legal cases against him as a campaign stop of sorts — lashing out at judges, lambasting prosecutors and casting himself as a victim of illegitimate proceedings.

By the numbers: Carroll's attorney, Roberta Kaplan, said during closing arguments that the $24 million would include compensation for the emotional and reputational harm Trump caused her client.

• As for punitive damages, Kaplan told the jury that only "unusually high" damages would prevent Trump from again defaming Carroll, reminding them of his wealth, according to CNN.
• She earlier told the jury that it would take at least $12 million to repair her client's damaged reputation, a figure that was established by an expert witness earlier in the trial.

State of play: A separate jury found Trump liable for sexually abusing Carroll in the 1990s and later defaming her.

• The jury in the current trial will only determine how much in damages the former president will pay her for defamation by denying that established fact.
• The trial will also determine the damages Trump owes after remarks he made about Carroll during a televised CNN town hall last year after he was found liable for sexual abuse and defamation.

Details: Trump left the New York federal courtroom in which the trial is being held on Friday after Kaplan began giving her closing arguments.

• After Trump stormed out, Judge Lewis A. Kaplan (no relation to Carroll's attorney) briefly interrupted the closing argument and said: "The record will reflect that Mr. Trump just rose and walked out of the courtroom."
• Trump returned to the courtroom before his defense began its closing arguments.

Alina Habba, Trump's attorney, implied in closing that Carroll lied about the assault for fame — a claim Judge Kaplan rejected, again citing the previous trial, according to NBC News.

• She also argued that Trump should not be responsible for the threats and harmful messages Carroll received hours after he initially denied her rape accusations.

Context: The current trial is over Carroll's original 2019 defamation lawsuit against Trump, who is the clear frontrunner for the Republican nomination in the 2024 election.

• While in the White House, Trump mocked Carroll and claimed that she fabricated her rape accusations against him to boost her book sales.
• She filed a second lawsuit in 2022 against Trump, which ended last year with a jury finding him liable and ordering him to pay Carroll $5 million in damages.

Trump appeared in person in court for several days throughout the trial and briefly testified on Thursday before the defense rested its case.

• Kaplan set restrictions on Trump's testimony, ordering that the he could not argue that he did not sexually abuse or defame Carroll since the previous jury established that he had.
• Kaplan threatened to remove Trump from the courtroom on Jan. 17 for making disruptive remarks during the proceedings.

Zoom out: Trump has repeatedly attempted to dismiss or delay the lawsuit at the center of the current trial by citing presidential immunity and filing a counter-lawsuit against Carroll, both of which were rejected by the courts.

• The jury's upcoming decision will add to the former president's mounting legal troubles, as he also faces 91 criminal indictments in four separate jurisdictions.

Rapist verdict might come Monday

• Trump awaits Carroll verdict after fiery closing arguments

The jury has begun deliberations Friday in former President Trump’s defamation case brought by columnist E. Jean Carroll after fervent closing arguments that saw Trump at one point storm out of the courtroom.

Trump and his lawyers repeatedly showed visible frustration, often shaking their heads as the judge overruled their various objections to portions of the other side’s argument.

When Carroll’s lead attorney, Roberta Kaplan, addressed the jurors, she urged them to award more than $24 million in damages, saying Trump’s denials of sexually assaulting the columnist “shattered E. Jean Carroll’s reputation.”

“Being infamous is different than being famous,” Kaplan said.

About 10 minutes into Kaplan’s argument, Trump suddenly stood up and walked out of the courtroom. He did not return for more than an hour, until his own lawyer began her argument.

Carroll is suing Trump for defamation over two statements he made in June 2019 denying the columnist’s story when she came first forward to accuse Trump of having assaulted her decades earlier.

Trump was found liable at a previous trial for sexually abusing Carroll, a finding that has made Trump automatically liable in the current case. The jury is only weighing how much Trump must pay.

“Now is the time to make him pay for it, and now is the time to make him pay for it dearly,” Kaplan concluded.

Trump frequently made comments to his lawyers during the other side’s argument but faced toward his own lawyer when she took the lectern.

Meanwhile, Carroll, who was seated in front of Trump close to the judge’s bench, turned to look back toward the lectern at times when her lawyers were arguing. When it became Trump’s turn, however, Carroll’s directed her gaze straight ahead.

Alina Habba, Trump’s lead attorney, attempted to persuade the jury that Carroll could not meet her burden of showing a causal link between Trump’s denials and the emotional and reputational harms the columnist claims to have suffered.

Much of Habba’s contention focused on a roughly five-hour gap between when Carroll’s accusation surfaced publicly in a New York magazine article and when Trump issued the first defamatory statement at issue in the case.

“That was some rendition of the facts,” Habba began her closing argument.

Days of antagonistic interactions between Habba and U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan, an appointee of former President Clinton who is overseeing the trial, escalated Friday, with Habba repeatedly trying to continue arguing after Kaplan had ruled against her on various objections.

At one point, after the judge forbade Trump’s team from showing jurors a slide displaying tweets people directed at Carroll before the then-president’s statements, Habba proceeded to argue, saying she needed to make a record of her point.

“You are on the verge of spending some time in the lockup,” said Kaplan, who is not related to Carroll’s lawyer.

At another moment, when Habba was discussing threats sent to Carroll, Habba noted that she, too, had received threats during the trial. The judge scolded her, telling Habba the comment was “inappropriate.”

During her argument, she went on to suggest that Carroll came forward in 2019 for financial gain and attention, claiming the columnist “loves her new reputation.”

“Ms. Carroll is a journalist. Her friends do TV. She knew what she was doing,” Habba said.

The jury of nine New Yorkers — two women and seven men — retired to their deliberations shortly before 2 p.m. EST.

The judge said that, if the deliberations go past 4:30 p.m. EST, they will resume Monday, unless the jury desires to continue into the evening.

Verdict has been reached

more soon