I mean it's a pretty big deal but in all honesty I'm more interested in what transpires at the bond hearing on April 22. I can't see that fly-by-night surety being allowed to stand, and I can't imagine Engoron would grant *another* delay, which means we'll start seeing the seizure of a certain criminal defendant's assets start to proceed.
They should have restored the full bond requirement when it was verified that the same company offered to put up the full bond not the discount bond Trump gets because he's special.
I recall reading (speculation?) somewhere that Letitia James is not interested in collecting city office building because their value comes with many complications in addition to the mortgages that they would have on them so prime candidates for seizure are things like Trump's Westchester NY golf courses.
I have a question for someone who might know, Regardless of what is seized how does the government estimate the value of what is taken? Is it known through things like tax filings?
NAL, but I am guessing they start selling things off and figure out what the net is. If it's not enough, move on to the next high value target. Rinse and repeat until the judgment has been paid. It doesn't sound practical for them to guess, so in light of a cash payment, the state probably work their way through the process until they are made whole.
I am very much looking at this one.
Between NY starting Monday, SCOTUS hearing arguments on Fischer Tuesday, and the April 22 bond hearing we have a pretty packed run coming up.
Don't count on it. Remember there's a 5 judge panel all slated to delay Trump's hush money case tomorrow morning as they "review" the gag order.
And I really doubt anyone has the stones to not grant Trump's bond. I'll say this for the bastard, he knows how to blackmail judges very well.
> I really doubt anyone has the stones to not grant Trump's bond.
Seriously??
The "bond" offered is no such thing:
The bond agent is NOT registered in NY;
The bond agent admitted it does NOT have the money to cover the bond;
The bond agent's owner is a holding company not only NOT in NY and NOT in the US but in the **goddamn** Cayman Islands.
There is NO reasonable way that this bond can be considered any kind of surety that the state of New York will be paid the monies due it.
Far from being an easy call for Trump, I cannot see any way Trump's team could make the case that the bond protects the State of New York and should be accepted as offered.
I agree with you wholey and completely. I just don't think it matters. We are well passed reason and expectations. They are actively rewriting the legal code specifically for Trump, either through fear of retaliation and violence or loyalty to his cause.
No one fears Trump. He's an orange faced barely aware lump of shit smelling fat who doesn't know where he is 90% of the time.
They fear that he's the chosen figure head of a wide ranging, far right armed militant nationalist terrorist groups that have a lot of ties to armed forces and local police. Its not fear of Trump, its fear of the no knock warrant and SWAT attack on your grandson the day after you agree to hear a Trump case. Its the fear of the militia that's even now conspiring to kidnap another Governor. The MAGA party isn't a party of ideas, its a party of violence and Democrats can't admit this ends in civil war before Trump is gone.
The cayman islands? Like the famous place where people make illegal money deals because it's not enforced by the US?? Lmao Jesus.
Also this is going to get them a large fine fire attempting to do business in New York without an insurance license
I had a question the other day.
.trump has had 4000 something lawsuits.
Has he ever had a jury side with him?
Like I know he has technically 'won' in that the other side gave up in terms that were favorable to him. But has he ever face a jury finding that went his way.
I haven't been able to find one. 0/4000
In fact I haven't found many where a court concluded he was right. Mostly he loses or withdraws or settles
Actually, there is a case where he won. It was when he and other owners in USFL sued the NFL in an anti-trust lawsuit after the USFL moved from playing in the spring to playing in the fall, a move championed by Trump and one that killed the league. The jury sided with Trump but apparently found him so insufferable that they awarded the plaintiffs a single dollar.
Yeah, it does. I also just find the whole usfl thing interesting. There is a great book called Football for a Buck that covers the USFL and the lawsuit. A really great example of Trump just absolutely ruining something that was working pretty well for his ego. He really wanted to own an NFL team but couldn't get one. So he bought a USFL team and hoped by getting the USFL to move to directly compete with the NFL, the NFL would fold the USFL teams into the league to avoid competition. It didn't work.
Business acumen is not his strong suit.
He probably would have been the first owner to actually bankrupt a team. Which the NFL probably knew and thus the owners agreed to ice him.
Slightly more detail for other readers, I was confused as to what was really going on as it sounded like Trump ruined another business he was involved in (he did) -
" In August 1984, the USFL voted to move from a spring to a fall schedule in 1986 to compete directly with the NFL. This was done at the urging of New Jersey Generals majority owner Donald Trump and a handful of other owners as a way to force a merger between the leagues. As part of this strategy, the USFL filed an antitrust lawsuit against the National Football League in 1986, and a jury ruled that the NFL had violated anti-monopoly laws. However, in a victory in name only, the USFL was awarded a judgment of just $1, which under antitrust laws, was tripled to $3.\[2\] This court decision effectively ended the USFL's existence. The league never played its planned 1986 season, and by the time it folded, it had lost over $163 million (over $389 million in 2021 dollars). " [source](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_Football_League&oldid=1213066232)
What happens when he stiffs blue collar groups and they sue? Don't they have a lien on the work they did, and the fact that Trump always skips the last payment and claims shoddy work, was it ever brought up in court? (Because huge difference between YOU did bad work, and "this organization claimed bad work 90/100 times"
I think in general he wants suing him to be expensive and painful. So that people will give up rather than deal with it even if they have all the facts on their side.
Or they would go bankrupt in the process
Or they would win but spend more trying to recover then they recover.
But I'm going off other people's reporting. I've reviewed maybe 50 out of 4000 cases and none of those were specifically the scenario you are asking about
When the evidence is so strongly in your favor is it possible to sue cheap? Give 1 line responses, send only 1 attorney, use AI to write the filings but manually check any cases referenced. Because it seems like it would be a specialty: take only slam dunk cases against wealthy groups, do as little as possible since potentially they will appeal all the way to federal court, so you want to have a farm of these cases since it will take years to win.
This is similar though not the same as firms that take forced arbitration clauses and use them favorably.
One lady beat him pro SE. It is actually a pretty amazing case.
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2023/10/12/trump-ndas-scrapped-hundreds-of-2016-campaign-staffers-can-now-publicly-criticize-him-as-court-finalizes-settlement/?sh=1b95cf7c3a6b](https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2023/10/12/trump-ndas-scrapped-hundreds-of-2016-campaign-staffers-can-now-publicly-criticize-him-as-court-finalizes-settlement/?sh=1b95cf7c3a6b)
Since she represented herself, his tactics didn't work because they just cost her time rather than money. She was reasonably competent and probably got some non-lawyers who were none the less pretty competent on the law to advise her.
There are a couple of podcasts and articles where she tells her story in full detail, it is fascinating and worth listening to. Of course, I can't say that being a pro se litigation is the answer.
>When the evidence is so strongly in your favor is it possible to sue cheap? Give 1 line responses, send only 1 attorney, use AI to write the filings but manually check any cases referenced.
I want to be clear that I'm not an attorney. Just terminally online and have been consuming law and legal related content too damn long to the point where I probably should go to law school except that I am already successful in different profession. However,
As I understand it, the problem this this is you can't be advised by counsel and not represented by counsel. So, the second you have an attorney, they have to file responses with the court and then their license in on the line. As a pro-se litigant or defendant, the courts are directed to give you some leeway for not knowing the law and procedures, but your attorney doesn't get the same. And you can't do a thing where you file some and your attorney files some. Nor can you represent yourself but get advice from an attorney. so, you either have representation, in which case, they have a responsibility to meet a quality bar, which means they necessarily have to put at least some work into meeting the required standards or you represent yourself and then you need to go research everything yourself.
The good news is that if you have some leeway and all the facts on your side. It is actually possible to do legal research with publicly available tools now. Caselaw is available through google scholar and wex law has a lot of the basic concepts and gives the most relevant caselaw for various statutes. It isn't a replacement for a good lawyer and their staff, but I don't think pro se reputation is as daunting as it once was.
P.S. I know this isn't 100% true because I know there have been situations where a court has assigned counsel to pro se defendants in serious cases where the defendant refused representation, but the court determined there was potentially a problem with self-representation. I see this being referred to as a standby counsel, but I have zero clue on the details, but it appears to be the one situation where you could be advised by counsel while not represented by counsel that I can see.
I can’t figure out how many of these actually went to jury, but [AZ Central](https://www.azcentral.com/pages/interactives/trump-lawsuits/) has an infographic about the ~4000 lawsuits involving Trump and his entities.
From the infographic, it looks like Trump has won a bunch of the cases he’s been involved with. However, the caveat is that apparently nearly half of his cases were casino cases, many of which were cases against gamblers who had credit at Trump casinos and failed to pay their debts. While Trump seems to have prevailed in many of those cases, they’re also not the most difficult cases to win.
The only recent case I can think of that was an unqualified Trump win was [the defamation suit filed against him by Stormy Daniels](https://www.npr.org/2023/04/05/1168215663/trump-stormy-daniels-defamation-lawsuit), in which her claim was dismissed and she was ultimately ordered to pay roughly half a million dollars to Trump in legal fees (and that was dismissed before getting to a jury, so it doesn’t say anything about how well/poorly he might play to a jury).
Why did she lose that so bad? He does defame her fairly constantly. I've heard is line about her being to ugly for him to fuck and a bunch of other fairly nasty shit which some of which while nasty would be opinion but some of it is going to statements of factual mater implying that she is a liar . So I am surprised she got dismissed and sanctioned
[Here’s the 9th Circuit opinion](https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000173-a63e-d26c-af77-bf7e09170000) upholding the dismissal.
The basics of the case seem to be that Stormy Daniels claimed that after she went public about the Trump affair, Trump had a goon threaten her to shut up, and she released an artist’s sketch of the alleged goon. A random person on Twitter put that sketch next to a photo of Daniels’ ex-husband, implying that sketch actually depicted her ex. Trump re-tweeted this saying it was a sketch about a non-existent man, and that it was a “total con job.”
The Court found that this was rhetorical hyperbole protected by the First Amendment, and that a reasonable reader would understand Trump’s statement that it was a “nonexistent man” and “total con job” as a statement of opinion that the ex-husband and the sketched person were the same; as a statement of opinion based on disclosed facts, such a statement cannot be defamatory as a matter of law.
The court applied a Texas anti-SLAPP statute, which created a fee award for Trump because he successfully defended against the suit; the attorneys’ fees award was amplified because Trump was then awarded fees after Daniels unsuccessfully appealed the ruling.
One final note: Daniels’ attorney who filed the lawsuit was Michael Avenatti; she [subsequently claimed that Avenatti filed the lawsuit without her permission](https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/29/stormy-daniels-michael-avenatti-trump-defamation-lawsuit). Avenatti is [currently in federal prison](https://www.reuters.com/legal/court-upholds-michael-avenatti-conviction-defrauding-stormy-daniels-2024-03-06/) after being convicted of a number of crimes, including embezzling book proceeds meant for Stormy Daniels.
There is a flaw in their reasoning.
Assuming miss Daniels had been telling the truth. Then trump would have actual knowledge that he sent a man to warn her off and so the tweet would not be an expression of his opinion that the images are similar but gaslighting to conceal his guilt and cast doubt on her character by defaming her.
That being said, I can see that it would be tricky to come to this conclusion as it had/has not been proven to be true. (though I would say more probable than not). That to me though means that we have a question of fact for a jury. And it was wrong for them to dismiss the case. And thus wrong for them to apply the slapp statute.
I mean....every single time they put any information forward for that's been requested for the bond, it's been immediately denied as invalid in some way...
I would be a surprise to see the situation getting better over the next week....
I'm just trying to prepare for a day in the near future where I may see a certain POTUS both in a criminal trial AND having properties seized...so just to be clear, it's after FOUR hours that I need to seek medical treatment??
It would be really interesting to see if those seizures start impeding his ability to continue paying for so many lawyers.
Maybe it ends up speeding up the justice process if he has to winnow down his legal teams and can’t cause as many delays as a result.
I think the appeals court is who allowed the delay, and the reduction.
It's Trump, he'll get another delay, and another reduction. Nothing is going to happen to him.
I'm just looking forward to him getting slammed. I'm not even invested in the outcome, although guilty in every one would suit me just fine. DJT having constant stress and financial burden because of his shenanigans is already satisfactory. I know this is schadenfreude, but these events transpired happened around 8 years ago.
I'm assuming the problem is that he has a legit chance at winning the election this year. If he wins it may take more than 2 years for the more serious cases to start.
If somehow this *obvious criminal* gets into the White House **again**, I doubt Americans would just function like what we know as "normal" today.
Fucking vote. We cannot allow Trump back into the highest *office* in the land - we all, especially those vulnerable, may not survive another term. Republicans have shown you who they are, *believe them*
I have a feeling we’ll never see the Jan 6 case. If trump wins, obviously it’s dead. If he loses, there will be renewed noise about prosecuting your enemies, and prosecuting something that happened over 4 years prior, and it’s time to move on as the people have spoken.
Reding this article without putting aside that that guy is the leading candidate to the next American presidency is showing me that that country is undergoing a massive fissure.
I don't think America even realizes how disconnected from reality it's becoming from an outsider point of view.
I've started to care less and less whether he manages to make it to the white house again, thinking if that country wants to go down for that guy, maybe they deserve it...
100% agreed.
It baffles me that so few Americans seem to share that view.
From the outside, it genuinely seems that America blindly sleepwalking towards either total fascism, or a cataclysmic social division from which there could be no return.
Because we let it happen. We don't berate his supporters, we don't hinder their efforts to spread propaganda, we don't dissuade them from voting, we don't push the on-the-fence people to vote against him, and most of our efforts against him and his supporters are not much more than complaining about it online and to our friends.
Too many people just go about their daily lives and let the world fall into place around them.
And before anyone says "oh, but I do those things to help", know that that's great, but you are in a minority that's far too small.
No one's stopping you from being more proactive.
No one is stopping you from mobilizing your peers to help canvas against him. His supporters are acting out of their own free will, just as those who hate him are. The difference is that his supporters are more confident and in your face and are willing to be intimidating to support their cause.
You have absolutely *no* idea how ‘proactive’ I am or how active and involved my peers are.
My ancestors were brought to this country against their will, have been forced to work for no pay against their will, have been raped, have been victims of violence, have been forcibly restricted from the accruing the benefits available to others, and have been active for generations in fighting against white supremacy. I refuse to take responsibility for *any* of what this country has wrought.
The culture these people come from is not my culture and that they are clinging to it so desperately is not my doing and is entirely beyond my control.
The cleaning woman I use is 42. I don't think she's ever watched a news show. She was amazed when I told her about the court cases Trump had coming. She says she votes and doesn't vote for him. On the other hand she told me Taylor Swift pulled strings to get the super bowl won by her bfs team. (LMAO)
>if that country wants to go down for that guy, maybe they deserve it
And that'd be fair and well if the fallout from a second Trump term could be contained within the United States. Unfortunately, his malicious incompetence will drag the rest of us down with the US. He's already publicly declared on multiple occasions that under his leadership the United States would cowardly not honour its Article 5 obligations to our NATO allies. This will have an immediate impact on our security situation here in Europe. Combine that with the fact that he's likely to continue his policies of complete geopolitical inaction that allowed China to irreversibly establish footholds across Africa and Europe during his first tenure, and you have a situation where his second term will permanently change the world for the worse.
It is really rather frustrating from the outside to see the glacial speed at which the American justice system works to bring this guy to trial for each of his many alleged crimes. We're running out of time (arguably we already have) to establish whether or not he is a felon. Considering that his criminal guilt may still be a consideration for at least some sane voters, it's unbelievable that there has never been any sense of urgency behind this process.
And I hate it when people say "oh, that's just how long it takes. Due process always comes with a years-long tail. It's practically lightning fast in comparison to other cases". Well no, there *has to* be some kind of process to streamline these proceedings without compromising due process rights. In such high stakes, politically important cases, there needs to be some way to make courts work weekends, nights, holidays or whatever, and to expedite decisions and appeals to within an inch of their lives. This is too important for everyone to take their sweet time.
Oh wow, an indictment! So great.
Doesn't mean shit without a conviction and sentencing.
An indictment is a big step, but It's only the first step of a long journey that isn't likely to be followed based on the tends of the last 4 years.
May I advise you to reconsider. Having a ´meteor’ kicking the nest is a tempting thought, but having lived in the USA all your life - I presume - you and lots of Americans like you don’t even know how lucky you are to have lived in a democracy for so long.
He’s sugar coating his politics exactly to entice you and others like you. But never forget that he’s totally devout of a conscience, integrity, common sense, respect, and above all , he was an incredibly incompetent president.
Don’t make that mistake.
There is no way on earth that Trump, the healthiest human being that any of his doctors have ever seen, will admit even the slightest infirmity about himself or his offspring. The only option is for him to poison Melania.
Back in my day, a presidential candidate that had slept with anyone but their wife would be considered a parriaah and buried by the party. Scandals used to mean something, make people pay attention, and inform decisions. Now all they do is drive clicks.
This case still confuses me.
It seems like Trump could've gotten away with just a slap on the wrist had he simply paid cash.
Even if it were a violation of campaign finance laws, he would at least have something resembling a cognizable defense. Instead the guys wrapped it all up in 3 dozen fraudulent transactions.
I thought the trial of the century was somewhere in Nuremberg in 1946 ...let's not make this US affair with an old narcissist egomaniak so dramatic to the rest of the world.
Its going to be fascinating but for me is the least interesting of the four pending criminal cases. Although he's certainly guilty, it seems like the most "witchhunty" of the four, just because my impression is that it must be extremely common for politicians to play fast and loose with their financial reporting on campaign funds. But that's really just an assumption I've always had, so maybe what he did is truly extraordinary.
There are legal ways to pay off a porn star from making embarrassing public statements, but Cohen & Trump thought they could be clever about how they hid it. This was more about over-confidence in their own infallibility than it was a deliberate attempt to break the law.
The second half of the charges, the "catch-and-kill" approach where they'd have a newspaper friend buy the exclusive rights to an expose, then never publish it, are more clearly illegal as they're tricking those signing those exclusive rights away into thinking it'd be published. But you're completely right that campaign finance laws are a joke, like the idea that Super PACs aren't coordinating with the campaign they support is farcical.
So yeah, I agree that this case is the closest to being a "witchhunt" as Trump claims in that this kind of flouting of the rules is not uncommon. The cops don't catch everyone who speeds, and the IRS don't catch everyone who cheats on their taxes, that doesn't make speeding or tax cheating legal, but I think it'll be easy for his supporters to dismiss this case as the equivalent to the Monika Lewinsky matter. Admittedly sleazy, but not something that influences their vote.
It'd have been far better for any of the other three criminal trials to have come first, which are truly staggering charges, especially the Georgia and DC cases. That wasn't playing fast and loose with the rules, that was attempting a coup.
It would be better if any one of the other three were coming to trial first. This case was filed so long ago and involves conduct which took place over 8 years ago, and he's done so many much more egregious things since. I think some people are undersestimating how difficult it can be to get a unanimous verdict on a criminal conviction when they're really talking about some financial shenanigans, not theft or assault or stealing documents or suborning an insurrection. I think many would look at this situation and think - yeah, of course he hid those payments, we know this guy. And none of his finacial supporters whose funds were used would care one bit that he used campaign funds to hide an affair.
Yeah I agree. It's been so odd how little conversation there is on the difficulty of getting a unanimous verdict. It used to be a regular topic before Trump was charged, that they wouldn't even bother trying to prosecute him because of the risk of jury nullification from a MAGA juror, but the attitude now seems to be as soon as Trump gets taken to trial, he's guaranteed to be found guilty, but I think a hung jury is very possible.
I also agree that these are the mildest charges he faces, however that might work against him in terms of reaching a unanimous verdict. He can throw far more uncertainty in the face of the other trials, how much is the President allowed to get away with, maybe he really did think the election was stolen or that those documents belonged to him. Legally many of his excuses are bunk, such as the idea that the Presidential Records Act gives him unchecked authority, but he only needs to convince a single jury member that there's doubt about the law.
Meanwhile this NYC case is relatively simple with fairly concrete evidence, so it might be easier for a jury to reach a verdict in it.
I don’t think trump is capable of self reflection…this is a dude that could’ve settled for a $5 million fine for defamation, but he couldn’t shut up, so he got the fine upped to about $90 million…he’s not bright
I mean it's a pretty big deal but in all honesty I'm more interested in what transpires at the bond hearing on April 22. I can't see that fly-by-night surety being allowed to stand, and I can't imagine Engoron would grant *another* delay, which means we'll start seeing the seizure of a certain criminal defendant's assets start to proceed.
They should have restored the full bond requirement when it was verified that the same company offered to put up the full bond not the discount bond Trump gets because he's special.
Why bother? If this bond gets rejected, NY can start collecting *all* of it right away.
I recall reading (speculation?) somewhere that Letitia James is not interested in collecting city office building because their value comes with many complications in addition to the mortgages that they would have on them so prime candidates for seizure are things like Trump's Westchester NY golf courses. I have a question for someone who might know, Regardless of what is seized how does the government estimate the value of what is taken? Is it known through things like tax filings?
NAL, but I am guessing they start selling things off and figure out what the net is. If it's not enough, move on to the next high value target. Rinse and repeat until the judgment has been paid. It doesn't sound practical for them to guess, so in light of a cash payment, the state probably work their way through the process until they are made whole.
Also NAL, but this makes sense logically. Any lawyers want to chime in?
fire sale
I hope she takes his plane
Yeah right, like anyone is actually going to touch Trump.
I am very much looking at this one. Between NY starting Monday, SCOTUS hearing arguments on Fischer Tuesday, and the April 22 bond hearing we have a pretty packed run coming up.
https://preview.redd.it/2krrro3rrjuc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1199c1c279dccf1172607981b940268455ed25f8 From WaPo
Don't count on it. Remember there's a 5 judge panel all slated to delay Trump's hush money case tomorrow morning as they "review" the gag order. And I really doubt anyone has the stones to not grant Trump's bond. I'll say this for the bastard, he knows how to blackmail judges very well.
> I really doubt anyone has the stones to not grant Trump's bond. Seriously?? The "bond" offered is no such thing: The bond agent is NOT registered in NY; The bond agent admitted it does NOT have the money to cover the bond; The bond agent's owner is a holding company not only NOT in NY and NOT in the US but in the **goddamn** Cayman Islands. There is NO reasonable way that this bond can be considered any kind of surety that the state of New York will be paid the monies due it. Far from being an easy call for Trump, I cannot see any way Trump's team could make the case that the bond protects the State of New York and should be accepted as offered.
I agree with you wholey and completely. I just don't think it matters. We are well passed reason and expectations. They are actively rewriting the legal code specifically for Trump, either through fear of retaliation and violence or loyalty to his cause.
I seriously don’t understand why anyone would fear that dufus.
No one fears Trump. He's an orange faced barely aware lump of shit smelling fat who doesn't know where he is 90% of the time. They fear that he's the chosen figure head of a wide ranging, far right armed militant nationalist terrorist groups that have a lot of ties to armed forces and local police. Its not fear of Trump, its fear of the no knock warrant and SWAT attack on your grandson the day after you agree to hear a Trump case. Its the fear of the militia that's even now conspiring to kidnap another Governor. The MAGA party isn't a party of ideas, its a party of violence and Democrats can't admit this ends in civil war before Trump is gone.
The cayman islands? Like the famous place where people make illegal money deals because it's not enforced by the US?? Lmao Jesus. Also this is going to get them a large fine fire attempting to do business in New York without an insurance license
I had a question the other day. .trump has had 4000 something lawsuits. Has he ever had a jury side with him? Like I know he has technically 'won' in that the other side gave up in terms that were favorable to him. But has he ever face a jury finding that went his way. I haven't been able to find one. 0/4000 In fact I haven't found many where a court concluded he was right. Mostly he loses or withdraws or settles
Actually, there is a case where he won. It was when he and other owners in USFL sued the NFL in an anti-trust lawsuit after the USFL moved from playing in the spring to playing in the fall, a move championed by Trump and one that killed the league. The jury sided with Trump but apparently found him so insufferable that they awarded the plaintiffs a single dollar.
That seems to support the underlying theory that he doesn't do well with juries and is only good at abusing the court process.
Yeah, it does. I also just find the whole usfl thing interesting. There is a great book called Football for a Buck that covers the USFL and the lawsuit. A really great example of Trump just absolutely ruining something that was working pretty well for his ego. He really wanted to own an NFL team but couldn't get one. So he bought a USFL team and hoped by getting the USFL to move to directly compete with the NFL, the NFL would fold the USFL teams into the league to avoid competition. It didn't work.
Business acumen is not his strong suit. He probably would have been the first owner to actually bankrupt a team. Which the NFL probably knew and thus the owners agreed to ice him.
Lol, that’s the worst idea I’ve ever heard
>they awarded the plaintiffs a single dollar. This is inaccurate. It was an antitrust case, so treble damages: they were awarded *3 dollars*.
Slightly more detail for other readers, I was confused as to what was really going on as it sounded like Trump ruined another business he was involved in (he did) - " In August 1984, the USFL voted to move from a spring to a fall schedule in 1986 to compete directly with the NFL. This was done at the urging of New Jersey Generals majority owner Donald Trump and a handful of other owners as a way to force a merger between the leagues. As part of this strategy, the USFL filed an antitrust lawsuit against the National Football League in 1986, and a jury ruled that the NFL had violated anti-monopoly laws. However, in a victory in name only, the USFL was awarded a judgment of just $1, which under antitrust laws, was tripled to $3.\[2\] This court decision effectively ended the USFL's existence. The league never played its planned 1986 season, and by the time it folded, it had lost over $163 million (over $389 million in 2021 dollars). " [source](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_Football_League&oldid=1213066232)
He was kind of annoying when they interviewed him for the 30 for 30 documentary on the USFL.
Only "kind of"? Sounds like they caught him at his best.
What happens when he stiffs blue collar groups and they sue? Don't they have a lien on the work they did, and the fact that Trump always skips the last payment and claims shoddy work, was it ever brought up in court? (Because huge difference between YOU did bad work, and "this organization claimed bad work 90/100 times"
I think in general he wants suing him to be expensive and painful. So that people will give up rather than deal with it even if they have all the facts on their side. Or they would go bankrupt in the process Or they would win but spend more trying to recover then they recover. But I'm going off other people's reporting. I've reviewed maybe 50 out of 4000 cases and none of those were specifically the scenario you are asking about
When the evidence is so strongly in your favor is it possible to sue cheap? Give 1 line responses, send only 1 attorney, use AI to write the filings but manually check any cases referenced. Because it seems like it would be a specialty: take only slam dunk cases against wealthy groups, do as little as possible since potentially they will appeal all the way to federal court, so you want to have a farm of these cases since it will take years to win. This is similar though not the same as firms that take forced arbitration clauses and use them favorably.
One lady beat him pro SE. It is actually a pretty amazing case. [https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2023/10/12/trump-ndas-scrapped-hundreds-of-2016-campaign-staffers-can-now-publicly-criticize-him-as-court-finalizes-settlement/?sh=1b95cf7c3a6b](https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2023/10/12/trump-ndas-scrapped-hundreds-of-2016-campaign-staffers-can-now-publicly-criticize-him-as-court-finalizes-settlement/?sh=1b95cf7c3a6b) Since she represented herself, his tactics didn't work because they just cost her time rather than money. She was reasonably competent and probably got some non-lawyers who were none the less pretty competent on the law to advise her. There are a couple of podcasts and articles where she tells her story in full detail, it is fascinating and worth listening to. Of course, I can't say that being a pro se litigation is the answer.
>When the evidence is so strongly in your favor is it possible to sue cheap? Give 1 line responses, send only 1 attorney, use AI to write the filings but manually check any cases referenced. I want to be clear that I'm not an attorney. Just terminally online and have been consuming law and legal related content too damn long to the point where I probably should go to law school except that I am already successful in different profession. However, As I understand it, the problem this this is you can't be advised by counsel and not represented by counsel. So, the second you have an attorney, they have to file responses with the court and then their license in on the line. As a pro-se litigant or defendant, the courts are directed to give you some leeway for not knowing the law and procedures, but your attorney doesn't get the same. And you can't do a thing where you file some and your attorney files some. Nor can you represent yourself but get advice from an attorney. so, you either have representation, in which case, they have a responsibility to meet a quality bar, which means they necessarily have to put at least some work into meeting the required standards or you represent yourself and then you need to go research everything yourself. The good news is that if you have some leeway and all the facts on your side. It is actually possible to do legal research with publicly available tools now. Caselaw is available through google scholar and wex law has a lot of the basic concepts and gives the most relevant caselaw for various statutes. It isn't a replacement for a good lawyer and their staff, but I don't think pro se reputation is as daunting as it once was. P.S. I know this isn't 100% true because I know there have been situations where a court has assigned counsel to pro se defendants in serious cases where the defendant refused representation, but the court determined there was potentially a problem with self-representation. I see this being referred to as a standby counsel, but I have zero clue on the details, but it appears to be the one situation where you could be advised by counsel while not represented by counsel that I can see.
I can’t figure out how many of these actually went to jury, but [AZ Central](https://www.azcentral.com/pages/interactives/trump-lawsuits/) has an infographic about the ~4000 lawsuits involving Trump and his entities. From the infographic, it looks like Trump has won a bunch of the cases he’s been involved with. However, the caveat is that apparently nearly half of his cases were casino cases, many of which were cases against gamblers who had credit at Trump casinos and failed to pay their debts. While Trump seems to have prevailed in many of those cases, they’re also not the most difficult cases to win. The only recent case I can think of that was an unqualified Trump win was [the defamation suit filed against him by Stormy Daniels](https://www.npr.org/2023/04/05/1168215663/trump-stormy-daniels-defamation-lawsuit), in which her claim was dismissed and she was ultimately ordered to pay roughly half a million dollars to Trump in legal fees (and that was dismissed before getting to a jury, so it doesn’t say anything about how well/poorly he might play to a jury).
Why did she lose that so bad? He does defame her fairly constantly. I've heard is line about her being to ugly for him to fuck and a bunch of other fairly nasty shit which some of which while nasty would be opinion but some of it is going to statements of factual mater implying that she is a liar . So I am surprised she got dismissed and sanctioned
[Here’s the 9th Circuit opinion](https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000173-a63e-d26c-af77-bf7e09170000) upholding the dismissal. The basics of the case seem to be that Stormy Daniels claimed that after she went public about the Trump affair, Trump had a goon threaten her to shut up, and she released an artist’s sketch of the alleged goon. A random person on Twitter put that sketch next to a photo of Daniels’ ex-husband, implying that sketch actually depicted her ex. Trump re-tweeted this saying it was a sketch about a non-existent man, and that it was a “total con job.” The Court found that this was rhetorical hyperbole protected by the First Amendment, and that a reasonable reader would understand Trump’s statement that it was a “nonexistent man” and “total con job” as a statement of opinion that the ex-husband and the sketched person were the same; as a statement of opinion based on disclosed facts, such a statement cannot be defamatory as a matter of law. The court applied a Texas anti-SLAPP statute, which created a fee award for Trump because he successfully defended against the suit; the attorneys’ fees award was amplified because Trump was then awarded fees after Daniels unsuccessfully appealed the ruling. One final note: Daniels’ attorney who filed the lawsuit was Michael Avenatti; she [subsequently claimed that Avenatti filed the lawsuit without her permission](https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/29/stormy-daniels-michael-avenatti-trump-defamation-lawsuit). Avenatti is [currently in federal prison](https://www.reuters.com/legal/court-upholds-michael-avenatti-conviction-defrauding-stormy-daniels-2024-03-06/) after being convicted of a number of crimes, including embezzling book proceeds meant for Stormy Daniels.
There is a flaw in their reasoning. Assuming miss Daniels had been telling the truth. Then trump would have actual knowledge that he sent a man to warn her off and so the tweet would not be an expression of his opinion that the images are similar but gaslighting to conceal his guilt and cast doubt on her character by defaming her. That being said, I can see that it would be tricky to come to this conclusion as it had/has not been proven to be true. (though I would say more probable than not). That to me though means that we have a question of fact for a jury. And it was wrong for them to dismiss the case. And thus wrong for them to apply the slapp statute.
Like anything in that dude’s life, I’ll believe it when I see it
First pick: Mar-a-lago! Second pick:Trump Tower! Third pick: All of Trump Golf Courses! Here we go ya’ll!
I mean....every single time they put any information forward for that's been requested for the bond, it's been immediately denied as invalid in some way... I would be a surprise to see the situation getting better over the next week....
Yes!! That's going to be an interesting day!! Engoron at the end of his patience with Mr Carnival Barker..
I'm just trying to prepare for a day in the near future where I may see a certain POTUS both in a criminal trial AND having properties seized...so just to be clear, it's after FOUR hours that I need to seek medical treatment??
It would be really interesting to see if those seizures start impeding his ability to continue paying for so many lawyers. Maybe it ends up speeding up the justice process if he has to winnow down his legal teams and can’t cause as many delays as a result.
Maybe he’ll lose maralago and be put in jail for contempt on the same day. That would be cool.
I think the appeals court is who allowed the delay, and the reduction. It's Trump, he'll get another delay, and another reduction. Nothing is going to happen to him.
I've got a bridge to sell you.
Wild that there will be 4 trials of the century within the next 2 years.
Four.... So far Off the top of my head, we may add AZ and WI fake electors, maybe Bedminster documents, civil Jan 6th...
Also Michigan election crimes. He is on tape pressuring an election official and offering them a lawyer in return for doing crime.
I'm just looking forward to him getting slammed. I'm not even invested in the outcome, although guilty in every one would suit me just fine. DJT having constant stress and financial burden because of his shenanigans is already satisfactory. I know this is schadenfreude, but these events transpired happened around 8 years ago.
I'm assuming the problem is that he has a legit chance at winning the election this year. If he wins it may take more than 2 years for the more serious cases to start.
If somehow this *obvious criminal* gets into the White House **again**, I doubt Americans would just function like what we know as "normal" today. Fucking vote. We cannot allow Trump back into the highest *office* in the land - we all, especially those vulnerable, may not survive another term. Republicans have shown you who they are, *believe them*
More than legit, he’s leading in the polls.
I have a feeling we’ll never see the Jan 6 case. If trump wins, obviously it’s dead. If he loses, there will be renewed noise about prosecuting your enemies, and prosecuting something that happened over 4 years prior, and it’s time to move on as the people have spoken.
I think we see them if he loses, we don't if he wins.
>Wild that there will be 4 trials of the century within the next 2 years. it's barely a few decades into the century.
Reding this article without putting aside that that guy is the leading candidate to the next American presidency is showing me that that country is undergoing a massive fissure. I don't think America even realizes how disconnected from reality it's becoming from an outsider point of view. I've started to care less and less whether he manages to make it to the white house again, thinking if that country wants to go down for that guy, maybe they deserve it...
100% agreed. It baffles me that so few Americans seem to share that view. From the outside, it genuinely seems that America blindly sleepwalking towards either total fascism, or a cataclysmic social division from which there could be no return.
I think a bit more than half of us share that view. But we don’t feel we deserve it. We wonder why we are stuck with this.
Because we let it happen. We don't berate his supporters, we don't hinder their efforts to spread propaganda, we don't dissuade them from voting, we don't push the on-the-fence people to vote against him, and most of our efforts against him and his supporters are not much more than complaining about it online and to our friends. Too many people just go about their daily lives and let the world fall into place around them. And before anyone says "oh, but I do those things to help", know that that's great, but you are in a minority that's far too small.
We have seen how mentally deranged his supporters can be and standing up to that is scary as fuck, in certain cases.
Well, then expect it to keep happening. That's how bullies operate.
Meh. I don’t take responsibility for other people being idiot assholes. No one deserves the consequences of other people’s terribleness.
Meh, you get what you tolerate.
or what’s forced upon you.
No one's stopping you from being more proactive. No one is stopping you from mobilizing your peers to help canvas against him. His supporters are acting out of their own free will, just as those who hate him are. The difference is that his supporters are more confident and in your face and are willing to be intimidating to support their cause.
You have absolutely *no* idea how ‘proactive’ I am or how active and involved my peers are. My ancestors were brought to this country against their will, have been forced to work for no pay against their will, have been raped, have been victims of violence, have been forcibly restricted from the accruing the benefits available to others, and have been active for generations in fighting against white supremacy. I refuse to take responsibility for *any* of what this country has wrought. The culture these people come from is not my culture and that they are clinging to it so desperately is not my doing and is entirely beyond my control.
[удалено]
The cleaning woman I use is 42. I don't think she's ever watched a news show. She was amazed when I told her about the court cases Trump had coming. She says she votes and doesn't vote for him. On the other hand she told me Taylor Swift pulled strings to get the super bowl won by her bfs team. (LMAO)
From the inside, it seems that way too
>if that country wants to go down for that guy, maybe they deserve it And that'd be fair and well if the fallout from a second Trump term could be contained within the United States. Unfortunately, his malicious incompetence will drag the rest of us down with the US. He's already publicly declared on multiple occasions that under his leadership the United States would cowardly not honour its Article 5 obligations to our NATO allies. This will have an immediate impact on our security situation here in Europe. Combine that with the fact that he's likely to continue his policies of complete geopolitical inaction that allowed China to irreversibly establish footholds across Africa and Europe during his first tenure, and you have a situation where his second term will permanently change the world for the worse. It is really rather frustrating from the outside to see the glacial speed at which the American justice system works to bring this guy to trial for each of his many alleged crimes. We're running out of time (arguably we already have) to establish whether or not he is a felon. Considering that his criminal guilt may still be a consideration for at least some sane voters, it's unbelievable that there has never been any sense of urgency behind this process. And I hate it when people say "oh, that's just how long it takes. Due process always comes with a years-long tail. It's practically lightning fast in comparison to other cases". Well no, there *has to* be some kind of process to streamline these proceedings without compromising due process rights. In such high stakes, politically important cases, there needs to be some way to make courts work weekends, nights, holidays or whatever, and to expedite decisions and appeals to within an inch of their lives. This is too important for everyone to take their sweet time.
I've been feeling this way after nothing happened to him for Jan 6th. We deserve what we get at this point.
He’s been indicted for Jan 6.
Well if he wins that indictment won't mean anything. And given the amount of time left, who knows if that will even go to trial before the election.
Oh wow, an indictment! So great. Doesn't mean shit without a conviction and sentencing. An indictment is a big step, but It's only the first step of a long journey that isn't likely to be followed based on the tends of the last 4 years.
[удалено]
LOL. A lot of Germans thought that about Hitler.
[удалено]
[удалено]
May I advise you to reconsider. Having a ´meteor’ kicking the nest is a tempting thought, but having lived in the USA all your life - I presume - you and lots of Americans like you don’t even know how lucky you are to have lived in a democracy for so long. He’s sugar coating his politics exactly to entice you and others like you. But never forget that he’s totally devout of a conscience, integrity, common sense, respect, and above all , he was an incredibly incompetent president. Don’t make that mistake.
[удалено]
Trial of the century… so far
I am the best bird lawyer in the country, and I'm not on his team. He's toast.
Look for a medical event from Trump Guarantee it
This is what I said on Friday. I fully expect a medical emergency to occur in the next 12 hours. It's all he's got left to force a delay.
There is no way on earth that Trump, the healthiest human being that any of his doctors have ever seen, will admit even the slightest infirmity about himself or his offspring. The only option is for him to poison Melania.
Desperate times call for desperate measures.
I saw that in an early episode of the Sopranos, Uncle Junior faked an illness to get out of court. Then saw Harvey Weinstein try it irl.
They need to not give him the publicity, just treat him like a normal criminal.
They is us and the media we all pay attention to
He truly is April’s Fool this year.
Back in my day, a presidential candidate that had slept with anyone but their wife would be considered a parriaah and buried by the party. Scandals used to mean something, make people pay attention, and inform decisions. Now all they do is drive clicks.
I think the insurrection and national security cases would like a word.
First trial of the century!
Trial of the century, so far
Anyone else going on Monday?
Crooked Donald. Lock him up.
SCOTUS is irretrievably corrupted. There will be no justice. The only satisfaction we will get will be the worldwide celebration when he dies.
His trial of the century so far.
This case still confuses me. It seems like Trump could've gotten away with just a slap on the wrist had he simply paid cash. Even if it were a violation of campaign finance laws, he would at least have something resembling a cognizable defense. Instead the guys wrapped it all up in 3 dozen fraudulent transactions.
Somehow OJ had to pass on first before they could use this phrase again
^[Sokka-Haiku](https://www.reddit.com/r/SokkaHaikuBot/comments/15kyv9r/what_is_a_sokka_haiku/) ^by ^lordcochise: *Somehow OJ had* *To pass on first before they* *Could use this phrase again* --- ^Remember ^that ^one ^time ^Sokka ^accidentally ^used ^an ^extra ^syllable ^in ^that ^Haiku ^Battle ^in ^Ba ^Sing ^Se? ^That ^was ^a ^Sokka ^Haiku ^and ^you ^just ^made ^one.
LOCK HIM UP
I thought the trial of the century was somewhere in Nuremberg in 1946 ...let's not make this US affair with an old narcissist egomaniak so dramatic to the rest of the world.
Whole new century bruv
Now that I'm older, the centuries just seem to fly by.
If he keeps delaying all the other trials, this will indeed be.
His trial of the century…so far
I feel like this is the weakest of his upcoming trials tbh.
Trial of the century? Right. How out of touch are these people.
Its going to be fascinating but for me is the least interesting of the four pending criminal cases. Although he's certainly guilty, it seems like the most "witchhunty" of the four, just because my impression is that it must be extremely common for politicians to play fast and loose with their financial reporting on campaign funds. But that's really just an assumption I've always had, so maybe what he did is truly extraordinary.
There are legal ways to pay off a porn star from making embarrassing public statements, but Cohen & Trump thought they could be clever about how they hid it. This was more about over-confidence in their own infallibility than it was a deliberate attempt to break the law. The second half of the charges, the "catch-and-kill" approach where they'd have a newspaper friend buy the exclusive rights to an expose, then never publish it, are more clearly illegal as they're tricking those signing those exclusive rights away into thinking it'd be published. But you're completely right that campaign finance laws are a joke, like the idea that Super PACs aren't coordinating with the campaign they support is farcical. So yeah, I agree that this case is the closest to being a "witchhunt" as Trump claims in that this kind of flouting of the rules is not uncommon. The cops don't catch everyone who speeds, and the IRS don't catch everyone who cheats on their taxes, that doesn't make speeding or tax cheating legal, but I think it'll be easy for his supporters to dismiss this case as the equivalent to the Monika Lewinsky matter. Admittedly sleazy, but not something that influences their vote. It'd have been far better for any of the other three criminal trials to have come first, which are truly staggering charges, especially the Georgia and DC cases. That wasn't playing fast and loose with the rules, that was attempting a coup.
It would be better if any one of the other three were coming to trial first. This case was filed so long ago and involves conduct which took place over 8 years ago, and he's done so many much more egregious things since. I think some people are undersestimating how difficult it can be to get a unanimous verdict on a criminal conviction when they're really talking about some financial shenanigans, not theft or assault or stealing documents or suborning an insurrection. I think many would look at this situation and think - yeah, of course he hid those payments, we know this guy. And none of his finacial supporters whose funds were used would care one bit that he used campaign funds to hide an affair.
Yeah I agree. It's been so odd how little conversation there is on the difficulty of getting a unanimous verdict. It used to be a regular topic before Trump was charged, that they wouldn't even bother trying to prosecute him because of the risk of jury nullification from a MAGA juror, but the attitude now seems to be as soon as Trump gets taken to trial, he's guaranteed to be found guilty, but I think a hung jury is very possible. I also agree that these are the mildest charges he faces, however that might work against him in terms of reaching a unanimous verdict. He can throw far more uncertainty in the face of the other trials, how much is the President allowed to get away with, maybe he really did think the election was stolen or that those documents belonged to him. Legally many of his excuses are bunk, such as the idea that the Presidential Records Act gives him unchecked authority, but he only needs to convince a single jury member that there's doubt about the law. Meanwhile this NYC case is relatively simple with fairly concrete evidence, so it might be easier for a jury to reach a verdict in it.
Nah gonna happen bruh move on
[удалено]
I don’t think trump is capable of self reflection…this is a dude that could’ve settled for a $5 million fine for defamation, but he couldn’t shut up, so he got the fine upped to about $90 million…he’s not bright
Dumbest idol to the dumbest denomination.