Thread: Donald Trump : Former POTUS

• Jack Smith responds to Trump legal team arguing for special counsel to be held in contempt

One day after attorneys for former President Donald Trump asked a judge to hold special counsel Jack Smith in contempt for filing motions ahead of deadlines, Smith's team hit back in a new court filing Friday.

Smith's office argued that they did not violate a court order by providing discovery ahead of deadlines, and that Trump's "recycled allegations of partisanship and prosecutorial misconduct remain baseless."

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan last month paused proceedings in the case while an appeals court considers whether it should be dismissed on presidential immunity grounds, as Trump has argued.

Chutkan's ruling to pause the proceedings said that if her court continues on the case, she would consider whether to keep or change the dates of future deadlines. She specified that the deadlines were temporarily paused, "rather than permanently vacated."

Smith's filing noted that three days before Chutkan entered her order pausing deadlines in the case, prosecutors informed all parties in a public filing that they would continue to voluntarily comply with the previously established deadlines.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documen...ptresponse.pdf

________

• N.Y. AG calls for $370M fine against Trump and lifetime ban from state real estate industry

New York Attorney General Letitia James is calling for a $370 million fine against former President Donald Trump and his companies and a lifetime ban on him and two of his former company executives from the real estate industry in the state.

Attorneys from James' office requested the punishment in post-trial motions filed Friday in the Trump fraud case. They said that Trump owes $168 million of interest allegedly saved through fraud; $152 million from the sale of the Old Post Office building in Washington, D.C., the site of one of Trump's hotels; $60 million through the transfer of the Ferry Point Golf Course contract; and $2.5 million from severance agreements for former Trump Organization chief financial officer Allen Howard Weisselberg and ex-Trump Organization controller Jeff McConney.

James also called for lifetime bans for Trump, Weisselberg and McConney from participation in the real estate industry as well as from serving as officers or directors in New York corporations or entities. The attorney general also asked for five-year bans for Trump's eldest sons, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, with the same conditions.

The summary judgment in the case found the former president, his company and top executives liable for repeated and persistent fraud in preparing and certifying as true Trump’s statements of financial condition, which were falsely inflated by between $812 million and $2.2 billion.

In a separate motion filed Friday, the defense attorneys said the evidence doesn’t support a finding that he intended to defraud, and said the same applies to Weisselberg and McConney. The lawyers argued that attorney general’s office has failed to prove insurance fraud and has not demonstrated any real-world impact, and banks did their own due diligence on the financial statements.

Trump has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing in the case, calling the law the lawsuit a partisan “witch hunt,” and has vowed to appeal the judge's ruling.

Like some Members here (not mentioning any names), watching this is sort of like feeling slightly bilious and

The rapist’s immunity claim denied in E. Jean Carroll's civil court case


The New York Second Circuit Court of Appeals denied Trump's request Monday to reconsider his immunity claim in the civil lawsuit brought by former journalist E. Jean Carroll, court records show.

• Trump seeks dismissal of Georgia indictment, again claiming broad immunity

Donald Trump is urging a county judge in Georgia to throw out the criminal case brought against him by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, claiming he’s immune from prosecution for the alleged conspiracy to corrupt the 2020 election results.

Trump’s lawyers contended in court papers Monday that Trump’s January 2021 call to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger — encouraging him to “find” enough votes to overturn Joe Biden’s victory in the state — was part of his official duties as president.

Similarly, Trump’s attorneys contend that he was also acting as president when he allegedly directed efforts in Georgia and other states to organize so-called alternate slates of presidential electors who purported to cast electoral votes for him even though state officials determined he had lost those states.

“The indictment is based entirely on alleged actions that lie at the heartland of the President’s official duties,” Trump’s attorney Steve Sadow wrote of the case, a conspiracy charged under a Georgia racketeering law against Trump and 18 other co-defendants, several of whom have pleaded guilty to lesser charges.

The arguments echo Trump’s parallel attempt to scuttle the federal charges against him in Washington, D.C., where he’s facing similar conspiracy charges brought by special counsel Jack Smith. Trump’s motion claiming presidential and federal immunity came among a raft of other filings in Georgia that also mirrored his arguments in Washington, including an argument that he can’t be prosecuted because of his acquittal in a 2021 Senate impeachment trial.

_________

• Trump says he’ll attend immunity hearing Tuesday in DC

Former President Trump will attend a hearing in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday over whether he can be prosecuted for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

Trump confirmed on Truth Social that he plans to attend the hearing in person as he and his legal team push the argument that he has absolute presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts.

Special counsel Jack Smith urged the Supreme Court to weigh Trump’s efforts to toss his election interference prosecution, but the high court declined to take up the case.

While the Supreme Court agreed to expedited briefing over whether to formally take up the matter, the justices ultimately sided with Trump, who argued the case should first be considered by the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, which scheduled a Jan. 9 hearing.
__________

• What to know about Trump's immunity claims in the 2020 election cases

Lawyers for former President Trump have claimed he should receive "absolute immunity" from charges that he plotted to overturn the 2020 election.

Why it matters: No court has denied or granted a sitting or former president immunity from criminal charges, though that's primarily because before Trump, no sitting or former president had been charged with a crime.

• The theory of presidential immunity from criminal charges is legally untested, so any precedent set in Trump's case could have bearing on executive power and how presidents may be held accountable for abusing it.
• The immunity fight could also push back Trump's trial in the election interference case, which is due to begin in the middle of election season.

The latest: Trump on Dec. 8 also tried to claim immunity from Georgia's criminal case against him, which accuses him of leading a conspiracy to overturn election results in the state.

Catch up quickly: Special counsel Jack Smith urged the Supreme Court last month to quickly rule on whether Trump is immune from prosecution in the federal election interference case.

• Smith made the request directly to the Supreme Court in order to bypass the federal appeals court and prevent a possible delay to the trial, which is currently scheduled for March 4.
• However, the high court subsequently rejected Smith's request, instead forcing the the immunity question to go through normal federal judicial proceeding.
• The case has been paused while Trump's appeals a lower-court rejection against his immunity claims. A federal appeals court will hear arguments on the question next week.

What is Trump arguing?

Lawyers for Trump have argued that the federal Jan. 6 case should be dismissed on the grounds of presidential immunity.

• They cite the 1982 Nixon v. Fitzgerald case, which granted the president immunity from civil damages — but not criminal charges — stemming from his official duties.
• By citing the case, the lawyers have argued that Trump cannot be charged for any crimes he may have committed because he was acting within his official capacity as president.

His lawyers have also said that Trump cannot be charged in the case because of the Constitution's Impeachment Judgment Clause, which states:

Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: But the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law."

• They claim the clause dictates that a president can only be criminally charged if he is the "party convicted" in a Senate impeachment trial.
• And since Trump had been tried and acquitted within the Senate for his actions around the Jan. 6 riot, they say he cannot be a "convicted" party and therefore cannot be criminally charged for those actions.
• He's used the Impeachment Judgment Clause to make a similar argument while attempting to get a dismissal in the Georgia case.

Why some lawyers call his argument "absurd"

Former government officials and constitutional lawyers in an amicus curiae brief filed last month said that the impeachment argument wasn't just "absurd" but had dire consequences for the rule of law.

• If upheld, they said it could effectively immunize former presidents and other impeachable officials for criminal conduct that takes place or is discovered "too late for the impeachment process to run its course."
• The argument was also rejected by some members of his own party after the Senate trial.
• For example, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Trump could still face the criminal justice system or civil litigation, saying, "former presidents are not immune from being held accountable by either one."

What has Jack Smith said about Trump's defense?

In a filing last month, Smith said Trump's immunity defense, if upheld, would deeply damage the rule of law and the country's democratic process.

• As examples, he said it would allow a president to order the National Guard to murder his critics, sell nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary or direct the FBI Director to plant incriminating evidence on a political enemy.
• If Trump's legal argument is upheld, Smith said, a president who commits such acts should not fear potential criminal prosecution because he can "assert that he was simply executing the laws; or communicating with the Department of Justice; or discharging his powers as Commander-in-Chief; or engaging in foreign diplomacy."
• "Such a result would severely undermine the compelling public interest in the rule of law and criminal accountability," Smith said.

What is presidential immunity?

The Constitution does not explicitly mention or confer immunities to the president as it does with members of Congress through the Speech and Debate Clause.

• Instead, the legal theory around presidential immunity has developed over the years, largely through the Supreme Court's interpretation of Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, which defines presidential powers.

The legal theory largely stems from Nixon v. Fitzgerald, in which a former U.S. Air Force analyst argued he was unjustly fired by then-President Richard Nixon after testifying to a congressional committee.

• In a 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court found that the president enjoys immunity from civil lawsuits for damages resulting from official duties of his office, but not those arising from unofficial conduct.
• The Supreme Court further refined this immunity in the 1997 case Clinton v. Jones, which centered a sexual harassment suit filed by a former Arkansas state employee against then-President Bill Clinton.
• The court ruled that Clinton could not invoke the civil immunity defense for acts committed before taking office or acts unrelated to the office.

Is the president immune to criminal prosecution?

Whether the president enjoys immunity from criminal prosecution remains somewhat of an open question, largely because the courts have never had to issue a direct answer on the matter.

• However, the Supreme Court has discussed the prospect of criminal immunity for the president in similar cases.
• In Nixon v. Fitzgerald, for example, the court's majority opinion explicitly distinguished criminal and civil liability and stated that the immunity granted in the case "is limited to civil damages claims."
• In United States v. Nixon, a 1974 case stemming from the Watergate scandal, the Supreme Court held that the president does not have absolute immunity from all judicial processes, including criminal proceedings.

Though the Supreme Court has never held that a sitting president is immune from criminal prosecution, the Department of Justice has taken that position for decades.

• Its position was defined by two memorandums, one issued in 1973 and another in 2000.
• The Justice Department holds that the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting president would undermine the executive branch's ability to perform its constitutional functions.
• However, according to the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, the memorandums do not prevent former presidents from being indicted or tried for offenses, even if he is impeached by the House for the offenses but is acquitted by the Senate.

Trump's response today after the immunity hearing was quite pathetic. His attachment to the "big lie" of voter fraud is wearing pretty thin with not many straws to grasp.

Can only hope he pops his clogs in the next 12 months

No matter how much inanity comes from his mouth , his acolytes all as fervent as always, and the risk that the voter suppression and gerrymandering will allow him to win is high

Originally Posted by baldrick

Can only hope he pops his clogs in the next 12 months

No matter how much inanity comes from his mouth , his acolytes all as fervent as always, and the risk that the voter suppression and gerrymandering will allow him to win is high

You got that right. Lemmings like this one that still believes:

Loved this ...

Originally Posted by thailazer

Trump's response today after the immunity hearing was quite pathetic. His attachment to the "big lie" of voter fraud is wearing pretty thin with not many straws to grasp.

Most have had enough.......

• Majority Says Trump Should Not Get Immunity: Poll

As former President Donald Trump appears in court on Tuesday in Washington D.C., to argue that he should have presidential immunity in the federal cases against him, a majority of Americans disagree with his immunity request, according to a new poll from CBS News/YouGov.

The poll asked respondents if the former president “should have immunity from criminal prosecution for actions he took while he was president," referring to the probe into his interference with the results of the 2020 election. A total of 64%, or over six in 10, poll participants disagreed with Trump's position rejecting the notion that he should be granted immunity.

• Trump’s immunity claim gets frosty reception at appeals court

A federal appeals court panel strongly suggested Tuesday that it would reject Donald Trump’s claims of immunity from criminal charges related to his effort to subvert the 2020 election.

With Trump looking on, the three judges expressed deep skepticism of his contention that a president could not be prosecuted — even for assassinating a rival or selling military secrets — if he were not first impeached and convicted by Congress.

“I think it’s paradoxical to say that his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed allows him to violate criminal law,” said Judge Karen Henderson, a George H.W. Bush appointee.

Despite that inclination, the judges — who also include Biden appointees Florence Pan and Michelle Childs — appeared divided during Tuesday’s oral argument over how to shape their decision. Their ruling, no matter where they land, is likely to trigger a further appeal to the Supreme Court for a final determination on whether Trump’s criminal trial in Washington, D.C. will take place this year.

That trial is currently scheduled to begin March 4, but it is likely to be postponed by the litigation over Trump’s immunity claims. His claims hinge on his argument that the charges against him, brought by special counsel Jack Smith, arose out of his official acts as president. Smith alleges that Trump tried to disenfranchise American voters and defraud the nation by spreading lies about the 2020 election and attempting to cling to power.

U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is set to preside over the trial, rejected Trump’s immunity claims last month, prompting Trump to appeal the matter and effectively put the trial proceedings on hold until the immunity issue is resolved.

During Tuesday’s hearing, which lasted over an hour, the three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals seemed inclined to uphold Chutkan’s ruling — but the precise reasoning they might use, and how quickly they might rule, remained unclear.

Trump’s attorney, John Sauer, argued that permitting Smith’s case to proceed would trigger a “republic-shattering” cycle of recrimination in which future presidents would reflexively prosecute their predecessors from opposing parties.

To “authorize the prosecution of a president for his official acts would open a Pandora’s Box from which this nation may never recover,” Sauer said.

All three appeals judges, however, sounded dubious. Pan, for instance, said that dismissing the Trump prosecution would have its own set of ill effects on the nation, like weakening the enforcement of criminal laws or diminishing the Constitution’s guarantee that executive power will be vested in a duly elected president.

"It's paradoxical": Judges voice skepticism at Trump lawyer's immunity claims

________

• Trump Says He Hopes if Economy Crashes It Happens in 'Next 12 Months'

Former President Donald Trump said that if the economy is going to crash, he "hopes" it happens in the "next 12 months," before he would take office if he wins another term in the White House.

"When does it crash? I hope it's gonna be during these next 12 months because I don't wanna be Herbert Hoover," Trump says in a clip of an interview on MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell's television network, posted by the Biden-Harris campaign. "The one president, I just don't wanna be Herbert Hoover."

President Herbert Hoover was elected into office in 1929, the same year as the start of the Great Depression, the worst economic downturn in U.S. history.

Although Trump has suggested the economy is not doing well, according to statistics released by the White House in December, real growth is stronger than expected in the last year and inflation decelerated throughout the year.

___________

Victor Shi - Whoa. Special Counsel Jack Smith has just filed a brief in the Mar-a-lago documents case & tells the Court that Donald Trump & his lawyers have not produced ANY documents in the discovery process. They have absolutely nothing.: https://twitter.com/Victorshi2020/st...83010673942704

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...8653.252.0.pdf

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

He will be convicted well before the election.

What is wrong with the education system in America, about half want sex pest conman as their leader, plus easy gun access and the only large democracy without socialized medicine, weak unions bit obscene private wealth for the few?

They no longer teach civics

Trump says that he should have immunity as he was president, and then in the next breath says that he will prosecute Biden if he wins the election.

Originally Posted by TizMe

Trump says that he should have immunity as he was president, and then in the next breath says that he will prosecute Biden if he wins the election.

Both things appeal to the idiots that follow him, right?

Originally Posted by david44

What is wrong with the education system in America, about half want sex pest conman as their leader,

Not much of a choice over there.

I do not take you for a Biden fanboy, but..

I guess that you would vote for Biden as the lesser evil.


Could be that some see Trump as the lesser evil.


My faith is in the largest group of seppos, who won't vote for either.

The menu is a stinker. Boycott it

I knew it

• Judge denies Trump's bid to deliver own closing argument at civil fraud trial

The New York judge overseeing President Trump's civil fraud trial rejected a bid by the former president on Wednesday to deliver his own closing argument in the trial.

Why it matters: The trial, stemming from a lawsuit brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James last year, will determine whether Trump must pay hundreds of millions of dollars in damages and his future ability to do business in the state.

State of play: Trump's lawyers indicated that Trump wished to deliver part of the closing argument, alongside members of his legal team, AP reported.

• Closing arguments are slated to take place on Thursday.

Context: New York Judge Arthur Engoron initially approved the plan with the caveat that Trump would have to limit his remarks to the "relevant, material facts that are in evidence," according to a recent email exchange from Engoron that was filed in court Wednesday.

• The judge said Trump could not introduce new evidence, "deliver a campaign speech," or attack himself, his staff or others involved in the case.
• After Trump's attorney said the former president would not agree to the preconditions because he considered them unfair, Engoron withdrew his permission, per AP.

A spokesperson for Trump did not immediately respond to Axios' request for comment regarding the matter.

The big picture: The lawsuit from James accuses Trump and members of his family of financial fraud.

• Trump had previously taken the stand to testify over the course of the trial.
• His children Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump and Ivanka Trump also testified as part of the civil fraud trial.
• Trump has repeatedly denied wrongdoing in the case.

__________

Extra

sentenced Tuesday to six months in jail

• Florida Trump supporter signed dead dad's name on ballot

Head of ‘Villagers for Trump’ imprisoned for signing his dead dad’s name to mail-in ballot pursues legal fight from behind bars

A Florida man sentenced to jail for using his dead father’s ballot to fraudulently cast a vote in the 2020 presidential election will be fighting multiple legal battles from behind bars.

Robert Henry Rivernider Jr., 58 — a leader of a political organization supporting Donald Trump — was accused of signing his father’s name to a vote-by-mail ballot in the 2020 presidential election. Rivernider reportedly ran a group called “Villagers for Trump,” linked to the famously pro-Donald Trump community The Villages in Central Florida.

Rapist update…….

• A federal judge has denied former President Donald Trump his try to buy a week in the in E. Jean Carroll's rape defamation case in order to grieve the loss of his mother-in-law.

"The application is DENIED," reads U.S. District Court Judge Lewis Kaplan's order filed on Friday. "The trial shall begin at 9:30 a.m. on Jan. 16 as scheduled. Mr. Trump is free to attend the trial, the funeral , or all or parts of both as he wishes."

Trump civil fraud trial is over; judge aims for decision by Jan. 31

• Judge in Trump’s civil fraud trial faces bomb threat ahead of closing arguments

Police on Long Island responded Thursday morning to a bomb threat at the home of Judge Arthur Engoron, who is presiding over former President Donald Trump’s civil fraud case, a source with direct knowledge of the situation told NBC News.

The threat came hours before closing arguments in the trial were scheduled to begin, with those arguments expected to proceed.

• Trump enters court with son Eric

Trump is in the courtroom, escorted by his son Eric, who is sitting in the first row of the gallery. Trump adviser Boris Epshteyn is here as well.

• Trump says he'll hold news conference after closing arguments

Speaking to reporters outside of the courthouse, Trump repeated his accusation that the civil fraud case against him is part of an effort to interfere with his presidential campaign.

“It’s election interference at the highest level,” he said, before alleging without evidence that President Joe Biden and the White House are behind the trial “because he can’t win an election fairly.”

• Trump lawyer says trial is part of a 'manufactured claim to pursue a political agenda'

Trump attorney Chris Kise is delivering closing arguments. He lamented the lack of a jury. (His lawyers agreed to a bench trial, but it became a point of contention early in the process.)

Kise said that not a single witness in the trial has testified that Trump and his company committed fraud, that banks lost money or that the certifications affected the loan terms.

The only witness James’ office has cited, Kise argues, is Michael Cohen.

This is “a manufactured claim to pursue a political agenda,” Kise said.

• Trump's lawyer calls AG's fine amounts pure speculation

Kise said the attorney general's proposed fines are based on sheer speculation and argues the banks were satisfied with Trump's financial statements.

That prompted Engoron to counter, “You’re supposed to disgorge profits” from ill-gotten gains, but there doesn’t have to be evidence of harm to a third person.

Kise disagreed: “They still have to demonstrate some harm, that President Trump got something that he otherwise wouldn’t have received.”

Kise added there was no proof that the loan terms would have been different.

• Habba says AG hasn't proven her case

Alina Habba, pacing the well of the courtroom, says the case started before James was elected and points at the attorney general. Engoron reminds her to stick to the facts, which she says she is trying to do, but that James’ conduct is part of the factual record.

James has not proven her case in the six weeks of trial, Habba argues, and repeats the defense's allegation that Cohen lied on the stand.

She then focuses on Weisselberg and McConney, whom she represents, and says the attorney general used them as “pawns” because “they can’t get to the president.”

Weisselberg is “one of the saddest stories,” Habba says. “It’s all part of an agenda” to abuse a “faithful employee” by naming him as a defendant. There are no emails to prove what the AG says happened, so they tried to intimidate Weisselberg and McConney, she alleges.

She turns to the claims of insurance fraud. The employee at the insurance company, Zurich, on whose testimony the AG relies, admitted she did not understand the difference between an appraisal and a valuation, Habba says.

Zurich also continues to write bonds to the Trump Organization without statements of financial condition. They wrote seven alone in 2023. How then was this “sophisticated” highly regulated entity defrauded?

If McConney was “overly aggressive in valuations,” why did he independently decide to use more conservative figures at points in time they don’t critique, she asks.

• Robert says Trump's sons had only 'peripheral involvement' in financial statements

Cliff Robert, presenting the defense argument for Trump's sons, has less than 15 minutes, but he’s focused: No witness has testified to Eric Trump or Donald Trump Jr. having anything more than “peripheral involvement” with the statements of financial condition, he argues.

• How did Trump end up talking?

Lawyer Kise asked for permission to have Trump speak.

Engoron replied, “Do you promise to just comment on the facts and the law?”

Trump started talking immediately without agreeing.

• Trump spoke without interruption

Trump went on — without any interruption from Engoron or James' team — and attacked James, accusing her of election interference.

“You have your own agenda,” Trump angrily said to Engoron. “You can’t listen for more than one minute!”

There may be a reason that James' staff didn't interrupt. The AG’s office may have struck gold because some of what Trump said was so damaging to him, especially his explanation of the triplex square footage “error.”

• Attorney for AG's office says the 'buck stops' with Trump

Amer argued for the AG's office that the “buck stops” with Trump when it comes to the former president's alleged intent to defraud.

"He was the one responsible for the preparation and the buck stops with him," Amer said, adding that Trump had personally signed bank certifications "so he clearly knew the statements were being used to satisfy the loan guarantees and was important to make sure net worth was high as possible."

• Judge interrupts arguments to criticize prosecution's post-trial brief

Engoron interrupted closing arguments from the prosecution this afternoon to say that their post-trial brief did not show much evidence that Eric and Don Jr. knew there was fraud.

The interruption came as Amer was arguing that Eric and Don Jr. "did not do anything to fulfill their responsibilities," and that a decision they allegedly made to leave statements of financial condition with Weisselberg and McConney and not Hawthorne demonstrated their intent to defraud and inflate their father’s net worth.

• Closing arguments conclude; trial is over

Trump's civil fraud trial is over.

Attorneys for the AG's office finished their closing arguments shortly before 5 p.m. ET.

Engoron said he will try to have a final decision by Jan. 31, adding that there is "no guarantee" on that timing.


What to expect from Trump’s trials and court cases in 2024

_________

• Judge orders Trump to pay nearly $400,000 for New York Times' legal fees

A judge in New York has ordered former President Donald Trump to pay nearly $400,000 to cover The New York Times' legal fees from a now-dismissed lawsuit he brought against the paper, three of its reporters and his niece.

Trump sued the New York Times in 2021, accusing the paper of conspiring with his estranged niece, Mary Trump, to obtain and publish his tax records. New York Judge Robert Reed dismissed the lawsuit against with the Times and its reporters in May 2023, ruling that they were protected under the First Amendment and ordering Trump to cover their legal fees.

On Friday, Reed determined that $392,638.69 was "a reasonable value for the legal services rendered," given the complexity of the case and the attorneys involved. (A portion of the lawsuit against Mary Trump was allowed to proceed, and her request to be reimbursed for legal fees was denied in June.)

• Lawyer for E. Jean Carroll suggests Trump misrepresented need to adjourn trial

The attorney for writer E. Jean Carroll suggested that the lawyer for former President Trump misrepresented the former president’s need to delay the trial in connection to $10 million in defamation damages that the writer is seeking.

Roberta Kaplan, the lawyer for Carroll, submitted a letter to U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan on Saturday regarding the former president’s one-week adjournment request of the trial to attend the funeral of Melania Trump’s mother. Kaplan wrote in the letter that Trump’s legal team said the former president could not attend the trial on Jan. 17 because he would be “traveling with family.”

However, Carroll’s attorney noted that Trump’s campaign scheduled an event featuring the former president on Jan. 17 in New Hampshire.

“There was no mention made of any scheduling conflict in connection with Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign,” Kaplan wrote in the letter. “It has come to our attention, however, that a campaign event featuring Mr. Trump has been scheduled for Wednesday, January 17, in New Hampshire.”

“We bring this to the Court’s attention because the same counsel who made representations about Mr. Trump’s availability on Wednesday are making filings today and tomorrow addressing their willingness to comply with the Court’s evidentiary rulings and other orders,” the letter states.

Trump said last week he planned to attend the trials of all his upcoming legal battles in person, including the trial with Carroll starting Tuesday. After the death of his mother-in-law, Trump’s legal team asked the court to adjourn the trial for one week so that the former president could travel with his family and attend the funeral on Jan. 17 and Jan. 18.

“Accordingly, President Trump, who plans to attend his trial, will not be able to be present on Wednesday and Thursday as he will be traveling to be with his family and be attending the funeral. Given that this is one of life’s sad unexpected realities, President Trump would greatly appreciate this minor accommodation during this difficult time,” Trump attorney Alina Habba wrote in the letter to the judge.

The judge ultimately denied the motion to adjourn the trial for one week — a decision that Trump blasted on social media.

“Lewis Kaplan, the terrible, biased, irrationally angry Clinton-appointed Judge in the Bergdorf’s Hoax, refused to postpone the sham trial next week, even in light of the funeral of my beloved Mother-in-law. This Judge has been ruthlessly unfair from the first day of Crooked Joe Biden’s Election Interfering Witch Hunt,” he wrote on Truth Social.

The lawyer for Carroll also noted in the letter that a separate Truth Social post by Trump included false information.

“We further note that, today, Mr. Trump posted a statement on Truth Social in which he falsely wrote that he had moved to adjourn the upcoming trial only for ‘one day’ and that the trial ‘could have taken place at any time, including months ago,’” the letter reads.

_______

• Trump’s latest about-face: He now says 2020 election was ‘long over’

In the months after the 2020 election, Donald Trump leaned on his campaign to launch ad blitzes and legal challenges to the results, insisting to his supporters that the election was “a long way from over.” He even told state and federal courts he was suing in his capacity as a political candidate.

Now, in a bid to derail criminal charges, he’s saying the opposite. At least six times in the past two weeks, Trump has declared that the election was “long over” by the time he began pushing state officials and then-Vice President Mike Pence to overturn his defeat.

It’s a new piece of rhetoric that’s meant to bolster Trump’s assertion of “presidential immunity” from his criminal charges for interfering with the transfer of power. He wasn’t a candidate anymore, Trump’s new theory goes, so he must have been doing his job as president to ensure elections are fair.

But there’s a problem: It flies in the face of the legal arguments Trump made three years ago, during his frenetic push to subvert the election results. Even after the votes had been counted and certified, Trump filed lawsuits contesting the results — and he claimed he was doing so not as the outgoing president, but as a candidate.

It’s even what he told the Supreme Court in a Dec. 9, 2020 brief filed by his lawyer at the time, John Eastman. “He seeks to intervene in this matter in his personal capacity as a candidate for reelection,” Eastman wrote.

The contradiction could cause headaches for Trump and his current lawyers as they now press appellate courts to accept an aggressive immunity theory — a gambit that could hinge on whether Trump’s attempts to overturn Joe Biden’s victory can somehow count as official presidential acts or whether they were nakedly political.

“It certainly has at least some rhetorical force that even Trump has been inconsistent about the role in which he was acting,” said Steve Vladeck, a national security law expert at the University of Texas.

Rapist update - Maybe another desperate attempt to delay

• Trump dumped by attorney in New York before criminal trial

Trump dumped by high-profile defense attorney less than 24 hours before new Carroll trial begins

Donald Trump’s lawyer Joe Tacopina has filed a motion to withdraw as the former president’s defense attorney just ahead of a criminal trial in New York where Trump faces allegations he falsified records in an attempt to hide roughly $130,000 in hush money paid to adult film star Stormy Daniels.

The withdrawal was first reported by The New York Times on Monday.

Notably, court documents show Tacopina has also withdrawn from Trump’s appeal in the E. Jean Carroll case, where a New York jury found Trump liable for sexually abusing the writer in a Bergdorf Goodman department store dressing room in the 1990s and then defamed her when he accused her of lying about the accusation and argued, “she’s not my type.”

The concise motion withdrawing from the Carroll case is devoid of significant details.

Tacopina told Law&Crime via email Monday that he had no comment.

Jury selection was slated to begin in a second Carroll trial in New York on Tuesday. The latest trial was for comments Trump made following the jury’s decision in the first lawsuit. Following the jury’s verdict, Trump again denied the allegations and made disparaging comments about Carroll.

It is unclear what if any this departure will have on Trump’s overall litigation schedule given the criminal trial in New York was expected for March. Worth noting however is that Tacopina did not represent Trump in New York by his lonesome: attorney Todd Blanche is also on the roster there. Blanche also represents Trump in the Washington, D.C., election subversion case.

Trump tried to delay the Carroll trial determining damages he owes the writer last week when news arrived that his wife and former first lady Melania Trump’s mother Amalija Knavs had died. Trump wanted to attend her funeral in Florida, court records showed, and asked for a weeklong delay.

Republican voters in Iowa had three choices and they pick the con man. Why can't they see the truth with the orange one? My confidence in humanity continues its downward slide......

These Republican halfwits are not only terminally stupid but are clearly retarded to the extent they may well not qualify as homo sapiens. In fact, they’re probably Isaan thick.

But then over 72% of septics apparently believe in a god.

For the first time in my life I am quite fearful for the future.

And whoudda thunk it that we would have had most to fear, not from Russian scum or commie chinks, but redneck septic morons.

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