Category Archives: Donald Trump

To the Editor:

Re Barring Trump From the Ballot Would Be a Mistake, by Samuel Moyn (Opinion guest essay, Dec. 24):

Despite the vast difference in our academic credentials (me: B.A. from Miami University, Professor Moyn: J.D. from Harvard), I dispute the authors conclusion that American democracy will suffer if the U.S. Supreme Court upholds the decision of the Colorado Supreme Court to bar Donald Trump from the primary ballot in that state.

Professor Moyn cites the fact that many Americans dispute Mr. Trumps culpability in inciting the riot of Jan. 6, and states that barring him from the ballot will incite more violence. But Mr. Trumps rhetoric urging followers to fight like hell that day is construed by all but the most rabid MAGA supporters as clear incitement and should disqualify him. If Mr. Trump is not punished, how can we expect any disgruntled election loser to graciously accept defeat?

The court, Professor Moyn asserts, should pay attention to public opinion when crafting a decision. The court did not, however, pay the slightest bit of attention to public opinion when it overturned Roe v. Wade or when it struck down the New York State law enacting strict gun control measures.

I believe the court will overturn the Colorado decision, not because it is the proper legal action, but because the court has devolved into a partisan political body fraught with corruption, a majority of whose members would like to see Mr. Trump back in office. Most Americans, according to some opinion polls, agree with me.

Bill Gottdenker Mountainside, N.J.

To the Editor:

The proponents and ratifiers of the post-Civil War 14th Amendment knew all too well from their experience the ever-present need to protect the nation from those who seek to undermine and supplant the legitimate constitutional order. They included Section 3 to prevent such tyranny to the extent any parchment barrier could. Thankfully, over time we have not had much need to invoke its provisions. We do now.

The Supreme Court need not wait for the consensual narrative about Donald Trump that Prof. Samuel Moyn believes is lacking. That would make the court superfluous. In his majority opinion in the Dobbs case, overruling Roe v. Wade, Justice Samuel Alito emphatically rejected the idea that the court should be affected by social and political pressures or the publics reaction to our work. The same applies to adjudicating Section 3.

Laurence H. Winer Marblehead, Mass. The writer is emeritus professor of law at Sandra Day OConnor College of Law at Arizona State University.

To the Editor:

Prof. Samuel Moyn is correct that the facts as to what took place on Jan. 6 are widely disputed. Donald Trump has a personality cult with millions of armed and angry members who would dispute that the sun rises in the east if he said it rises in the west. The theory of evolution is widely disputed too, by tens of millions of religious fundamentalists. But in neither case does opinion outweigh facts and even the Colorado district court ruling that Mr. Trump could not be removed from that states ballot conceded that the facts showed he had engaged in insurrection.

Its certainly possible, perhaps even likely, that a U.S. Supreme Court decision affirming Colorados ruling would incite some of Mr. Trumps followers to violence. But were he to remain on the ballot everywhere and lose next November, theyd be just as likely to explode maybe egged on by Mr. Trump himself resulting in a bigger, more heavily armed rebellion.

Perhaps the best solution is not for the justices to protect Donald Trump but for the court to refuse to hear the case, as I believe it should have done with Bush v. Gore. The Constitution gives the states power to choose their presidential electors; surely that extends to rejecting a candidate its own courts have ruled is ineligible.

Eric B. Lipps Staten Island

To the Editor:

It is important to note that a Supreme Court ruling against Donald Trumps qualification would not remove the issue from political remedy. Congress could simply vote to allow Mr. Trump back onto the ballot, as provided for in the 14th Amendment. Voters could make their voices heard on the matter by writing to their representatives. The 14th Amendment is a very reasonable and moderate part of the system of checks and balances.

Steve Bellantoni Toronto

To the Editor:

Re Dont Give In to Political Despair. Trump Is Too Great a Threat (column, Dec. 20):

I always appreciate Michelle Goldbergs clearsighted commentary on our world, but today I felt as if she were talking directly to me and to my friends, who are all doing exactly what we shouldnt giving in to political despair.

I knocked on doors for years, talking with voters who agreed with me and voters who didnt, and those who just didnt want to be bothered (but could still sometimes be reached with an emotional appeal). But Im getting older, and more tired.

I needed the push to make a substantial donation to an organization that recruits, trains and organizes door-knockers if I am not going to do it myself, and I am grateful to Ms. Goldberg for giving me that shove.

Susanna Lang Chicago

To the Editor:

Paul Krugmans column The Biggest Threat to Americas Universities(Dec. 15) offers welcome perspective. Mr. Krugman acknowledges the real danger of the latest outbreak of antisemitism within the Ivy League, but also draws attention to the war on truth waged by conservative politicians at public schools and universities.

I was educated at and have taught at public universities, including U.C.L.A. and Berkeley. When I teach courses on immigration and the politics of gender and race at the University of Nevada, Reno, most of my students are shocked to discover how little they learned about these topics in high school. And they come from the relatively liberal West. Imagine how much less students will learn in places like Florida in the coming years.

Defending against the conservative effort to gut public education must become our priority. Preoccupation with what happens in the Ivy League distracts from the real battle for American education.

State universities have the potential to educate generations of historically literate citizens, but were not on a path to realizing that potential. Students at nonelite colleges and universities are ignored because they are underestimated and undervalued.

Our lack of commitment to this important goal and funding to support it is the result of American elitism. Meanwhile, the recent behavior of students at the Ivies shows us that attendance at elite institutions is no guarantee of wisdom.

Jennifer Ring Berkeley, Calif. The writer is professor emerita of political science at the University of Nevada, Reno, and a co-author of Saving Public Higher Education: Voices From the Wasteland.

To the Editor:

Re Never Underestimate the Power of the Dinner Table, by Alex Prudhomme (Opinion guest essay, Dec. 27):

In response to your informative essay, I refer readers to the excellent book Dinner With Churchill, by Cita Stelzer. Throughout his long life, Sir Winston was a master at bringing all sorts of people with disparate views to dine with him at various places and times of the day. Champagne, food, wine, brandy, his wit and, yes, cigars, were tools he used to break down barriers to policies he espoused.

Joel Barad New Rochelle, N.Y.

Go here to read the rest:

Opinion | The Supreme Court and Donald Trump - The New York Times

A new wrinkle has emerged in former President Donald Trump's immunity battle in his federal election interference case, with a watchdog group filing a brief on Friday calling for his appeal effort to be dismissed and for his trial allowed to resume.

Trump is currently contending with four criminal indictments at the state and federal levels, totaling 91 criminal charges in all. Among these cases is the federal one brought by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and special counsel Jack Smith pertaining to Trump's alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, which ultimately led to the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot. Trump, the frontrunner in the 2024 GOP presidential primary, has maintained his innocence in the case.

Trump's current tactic in the case has been to claim that he has complete immunity from criminal prosecution for anything that he did while he was president. This claim was previously shot down by the judge overseeing the case, Tanya Chutkan, and is now set to go before the D.C. Circuit appeals court. Meanwhile, an effort by Smith to try and accelerate the appeals process straight to the U.S. Supreme Court was recently dismissed. As the process winds on, the trial has been put on hold, leading some observers to accuse Trump of trying to delay it as long as possible.

American Oversight, a nonprofit legal watchdog group, filed an amicus brief on Friday that said the D.C. Circuit appeals court lacks the jurisdiction to take up Trump's appeal, and should therefore send the matter back to Chutkan and allow the trial to resume.

"As the American Oversight amicus brief argues, Supreme Court precedent [from 1989] prohibits a criminal defendant from immediately appealing an order denying immunity unless the claimed immunity is based on 'an explicit statutory or constitutional guarantee that trial will not occur,'" the group's official statement explained. "Trump's claims of immunity rests on no such explicit guarantee. Therefore, given that Trump has not been convicted or sentenced, his appeal is premature. The D.C. Circuit lacks appellate jurisdiction and should dismiss the appeal and return the case to district court for trial promptly."

Newsweek reached out to Trump's team via email for comment.

In response to the filing, various legal experts and analysts chimed in on social media, with some calling the move "an interesting wrinkle."

"Interesting wrinkle in the battle over Trump's claims of presidential immunity: American Oversight, in an amicus brief, says the issue did not merit immediate appeal and the DC Circuit should simply kick the case back to Judge Chutkan for trial," New York Times legal reporter Alan Feuer wrote on X, the platform previously known as Twitter.

"Interesting argument in new amicus brief by conservative lawyers that Trump's immunity appeal is subject to final judgment rule and must wait until after trial," former U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade, who previously served the Eastern District of Michigan from 2010 to 2017 and appointed by former President Barack Obama, wrote. "Brief uses textual reading of Constitution to argue stay should be lifted immediately."

American Oversight describes itself as a nonpartisan group, not conservative.

Ben Meiselas, co-founder of the MeidasTouch media outlet, laid out the brief's argument in-depth, noting that the 1989 ruling cited by it was written by the notably conservative Supreme Court justice, Antonin Scalia.

"Oh, I am liking this amicus brief just filed by a group called American Oversight in Trump's DC absolute immunity appeal," Meiselas wrote on X on Friday. "The brief points out that a 1989 Supreme Court case called Midland Asphalt holds that the DC Circuit doesn't even have jurisdiction to hear Trump's appeal and must dismiss since an interlocutory appeal (appeal mid-case) can only occur when there is strict textual support for the appeal in a statute or in the Constitution like the Speech or Debate clause."

He continued: "There is not strict textual support for Trump's immunity claim anywhere at best it's based on a specious negative inference thus the argument goes that the Appeals Court must dismiss the appeal and send it back for trial immediately. Conservative Justice Scalia wrote the Midland Asphalt decision. No one has made this argument before. This can be a game changer."

Correction: 12/30/23, 2:42 p.m. ET: This article and headline has been updated to reflect American Oversight's nonpartisanship.

Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.

Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.

Read more:

Lawyers' Amicus Brief Adds New Wrinkle to Donald Trump's Immunity Appeal - Newsweek

Four years ago, on the threshold of a critical election year that would decide whether Donald Trump won another term in the White House, I asked a German friend, Constanze Stelzenmller, of the Brookings Institution, to come up with one of those long Teutonic words for the state of constant, gnawing anxiety that Trumps disruptive tenure inspired. She came back with a true mouthful, a thirty-three-letter concoction that pretty much summed it up: Trumpregierungsschlamasselschmerz. Helpfully, she suggested that it would be fine to shorten this to Trumpschmerz. It means something like Trump-worry, but on steroids. At the time, I defined it as the continuous pain or ache of the soul that comes from the excessive contemplation of the slow-motion Trump car crash. Well, here we go again. Headed into 2024, America is stuck with another bad case of Trumpschmerz.

At the start of this year, it was still possible to look at the facts and avoid falling back into this dark place. There were reasonable expectations that something, somehow could prevent the looming rematch between Trump and Joe Biden, who succeeded Trump but has never been acknowledged by the ex-President and millions of his followers as Americas legitimate leader. Perhaps Trump would finally face consequences for his unprecedented efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. Perhaps a strong Republican challenger would emerge against him. Perhaps Biden, who spent the first year of his tenure more unpopular than any other President in the history of modern pollingaside from Trumpand is already the oldest leader in U.S. history, would step aside in favor of a younger Democrat, rather than seek a second term. But none of that happened.

The most extraordinary development in American politics this year was, without a doubt, the indictment of Trump in four separate criminal cases, totalling ninety-one alleged felonies. He is not only the first former President charged with a crime; he ends 2023 accused by the federal government of essentially mounting a coup against that government. And yet the charges against Trumpwhich were hardly a foregone conclusion a year agoserved not to clarify but to further confuse our muddled politics. Will the trials overshadow the 2024 race or shape its outcome? Will they even take place before the voting? What happens if hes convicted and wins anyway? All we can say definitively, so far, is that the indictments proved to be a political boon for him with his Republican Party. With just a few weeks until the beginning of the 2024 primaries, Trump now has what looks to be an insurmountable lead in the G.O.P. race, a lead that has only risen with each new case filed against him. When 2023 started, he was at about forty-six per cent among Republicans in the FiveThirtyEight average of national polls. Today, he is drawing more than sixty-one per cent.

A year ago, the governor of Florida, Ron DeSantis, coming off a nineteen-point relection victory in a formerly competitive state, and boasting a hundred-million-dollar-plus war chest, looked to be a real prospect to knock off Trump. But he fared just about as well as Jeb Bush, another Florida governor with a hundred million dollars to spend against Trump. Which is to say: his candidacy has been a total dud. Trump never even had to stoop to appearing on a stage with his rivals, who proved to be so afraid of the Trump-loving Republican electorate that they rarely so much as criticized the man they were theoretically running against. The defining moment for this field of craven also-rans came during their first debate, in August, when the Fox News moderators asked for a show of hands as to who would support the indicted ex-Presidentthe elephant not in the room, as Foxs Bret Baier called himwere he to receive the nomination. Virtually all of them indicated they would. Needless to say, the two dissenters, Chris Christie and Asa Hutchinson, have no chance.

As of years end, the one non-Trump candidate to see her fortunes rise in the G.O.P. race has been the former South Carolina governor Nikki Haley. Despite having served in Trumps Cabinet, she is often described as the closest thing the Party has left to its pre-Trump establishmenta hawkish, Chamber of Commerce type who is neither a culture warrior nor a MAGA acolyte. Talk about defining deviancy down. Haley is no avatar of the status quo ante but proof of how debased the party of Abraham Lincoln has become in its thrall to Trump. Just this week, Haley, when asked what caused the Civil War, told a voter in New Hampshire that it was about government freedoms and what people could and couldnt do. When the voter expressed astonishment that her answer had not included mention of slavery, she replied, What do you want me to say about slavery?

Trump, of course, could not resist the chance to dunk on Haley. Not ready for prime time, he crowed in response to her Civil War flub. (On Thursday morning, Haley said, Of course the Civil War was about slavery.) Trump has ended the year, meanwhile, striking his usual statesmanlike note. In a Christmas Day social-media post, his message to his opponents was MAY THEY ROT IN HELL, followed by the incongruous but nonetheless perfectly Trumpy conclusion, AGAIN, MERRY CHRISTMAS.

The only surprise is that anyone is surprised by this. In the first week of March, months before he was indicted by the Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith, Trump gave a speech to CPAC in which he promised a run centered on the theme of retribution for all the grievances nursed by him and his followers. Despite the current conventional wisdom that the spate of indictments against Trump over the spring and summer allowed him to reinvent his campaign around a narrative of his own persecution, revenge was his mission well in advance of the court cases; 2024 was always going to be about seeking payback. The list of wrongs never mattered as much as the fact that he would have a litany of them to recite. The rigged election. The martyrdom of his supporters who stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021, and were sent to jail for it. His own undermining by the deep state.

His message then, as later in the year, was simple and messianic: This is the final battle. The audience cheered and hooted and clapped. They were, like the bulk of the Republican Party, not Never Trumpers but Always Trumpers. The story of 2023 turned out to be not the G.O.P.s search for another Trump but the persistent preference of a large majority of Republicans for the one they already have.

But if Trumpschmerz is our destiny again in 2024, the ex-President has also benefitted from his foes in 2023. DeSantis, despite the early hype from Fox News and the hopes of the Republican donor class, proved that negative charisma and terrible political judgment are not enough to run for President. He thought he was going to ride attacks on Mickey Mouse to the White House. Seriously?

Bidens miscalculation was not about Trumpthe President has always been dead serious about the threat posed by his predecessor and by the party that embraces himbut about himself. Having aspired, for the better part of four decades, to the office he improbably won on his third try, Biden has been reluctant to relinquish it in favor of a younger Democrat. His theory of the case seems to be rooted in his belief that he, and he alone, can insure Trumps defeat. But that rationale has become harder to sustain as his polling has grown worse and worse. As of the end of the year, Biden is, at best, tied with Trump; the Real Clear Politics average has him down 2.3 points.

Trumps victory is by no means assured. It may well be that predictions of him winning in 2024 will turn out to be just as wrong as the forecasts of a recession were at the start of 2023. But the past few years of Trump, Trump, Trump have taught me, if nothing else, that hoping for the best is not necessarily a winning strategy. With American democracy on the line, Im taking the only defensible position toward the New Year: full-scale dread. I plan to pull up the covers and hide under my pillow as long as possible come January. Its going to be a long twelve months.

Visit link:

The Year We Stopped Being Able to Pretend About Trump - The New Yorker

Geoff Bennett:

Rick Hasen joins us now. He's an election law expert and director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA's Law School.

Rick, thank you for being with us.

So, Maine joins Colorado now in barring Donald Trump from the ballot under the 14th Amendment. The process in Maine, where the secretary of state determines eligibility, is very different from the process in Colorado, where that was decided by that state Supreme Court.

But through what reasoning and on what judgment do both decisions rest?

Rick Hasen, UCLA School of Law: Well, you're right that the decision in Maine started administratively, but it's clear it's going to go to the courts and will ultimately be resolved by state courts and maybe the U.S. Supreme Court.

The issue in both cases is the same. It's whether Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which bars from future office those officeholders who had pledged an oath to support the Constitution, but then engaged in insurrection or supported the U.S.' enemies, they would be disqualified from serving.

And so there's a bunch of legal questions. Does this apply to the president, the office of the president? There's also the question of whether Trump engaged in insurrection. That's more of a factual question. The secretary of state in Maine pretty much followed the reasoning of the Colorado Supreme Court in the earlier decision in finding that Trump is disqualified from serving in office.

It's something that involves complex, novel questions from a part of the Constitution that really was put in place after the Civil War and hasn't been used in recent times.

The rest is here:

Election law expert on legal and political questions as states block Trump from ballot - PBS NewsHour

Republican longshot Vivek Ramaswamy vowed to drop out of the Maine GOP primary if the state successfully boots Donald Trump from its ballot, and challenged his rivals to do the samedoubling down on a commitment he made in Colorado amid an escalating legal controversy.

The former pusher of failed Alzheimer's treatments took to X to lash Secretary of State Shenna Bellows' determination earlier this week that Trump had disqualified himself from re-election by illegally seeking to overturn his defeat at the hands of President Joe Biden.

Ramaswamy challenged Nikki Haley, Ron DeSantis and Chris Christie to follow his lead and takem themselves off the Maine ballot.

Ramaswamy made a similar dive for the spotlight after Colorado's Supreme Court ruled Trump's actions leading up to his supporters' bloody rampage through the Capitol on January 6 had rendered him ineligible for the presidency under the 14th Amendment. Ramaswamy's electoral self-immolation is currently on hold, since the vanquished president got back on the Rocky Mountain state's ballot pending a final determination by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, on Wednesday, the Michigan Supreme Court rejected a bid to remove Trump from the swing state's ballot.

Maine and Colorado are both blue-leaning states with large red stretches, but the New England state awards its electoral votes by congressional district, which put a single elector in Trump's column in 2020.

Follow this link:

Vivek Ramaswamay Hits Maine After Secretary of State Shenna Bellows Boots Donald Trump From Its Ballot - The Daily Beast

Former President Donald Trump was noticeably absent from Forbes list of the nations richest 400 people, released Tuesday.

Standing trial in downtown Manhattan for inflating his net worth by billions in prior years to secure loans and financing, Trump is now worth $300 million less than the $2.9 billion required to make this years list, Forbes said Tuesday. Its the second time in three years that Trump has tumbled out of the club whose membership he covets.

His net worth dropped 19% from the previous year to $2.6 billion. Trump snagged a spot on the 2022 list with a reported net worth of $3.2 billion.

Truth Social, the indicted ex-presidents social media platform, contributed the most to the $600 million dip in his net worth from a year ago. While 6.5 million users have signed up, the value of his 90% stake in the platform has dropped from $730 million to less than $100 million, Forbes reported. His office buildings have dropped in value by $170 million.

His fellow billionaires, meanwhile, recouped the $500 billion they had collectively lost in 2022 to reach $4.5 trillion in assets. Forbes credited the bounce-back to rebounding stock markets and a tech boom driven by artificial intelligence (AI). Tellingly, tech bros saw the lions share of gains, with a collective net-worth bump of $300 billion over 2022.

Topping the list again was Elon Musk, who maintained his $251 billion net worth despite his shredding of Twitter and other financial and internet shenanigans. The Tesla founder and Twitter/X owner was still $90 billion ahead of Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, who is No. 2 at $161 billion, closely followed by No. 3, Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison, who weighed in at $158 billion.

Several new faces debuted on this years Forbes 400 list, including basketball great Michael Jordan, the first pro athlete on the list, Forbes said. Josh Kushner is another notable name to join the ranking. The younger brother of Ivanka Trumps husband, Jared Kushner, arrived with $3.6 billion in assets thanks to his venture capital firm Thrive Capital, which backed Instagram, Spotify and Slack, among other startups. WWE founder Vince McMahon returned to the list after falling off in 2020.

Despite being awash in assets and cash, the nations richest billionaires have given away less than 6% of that combined net worth, Forbes said. Out of a score of 1 (less than 1% of wealth donated to charity) to 5 (more than 20% given to charity), just 11 of the tycoons earned a 5. They included Melinda French Gates, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, MacKenzie Scott and George Soros.

The rest is here:

Donald Trump falls off Forbes 400 richest Americans list amid fraud trial over inflated net worth - New York Daily News

Donald Trump 's campaign is calling on the Republican National Committee to cancel all remaining presidential primary debates, saying the RNC must instead refocus its manpower on defeating Joe Biden next year.

In a statement late Monday, top Trump advisers also repeated debunked falsehoods about election fraud, claiming without evidence that Democrats are working to steal the 2024 election. Trump has maintained that the 2020 election was stolen, despite multiple legal cases, investigations and his own attorney general finding no fraud.

In their statement, senior campaign advisers Susie Wiles and Chris LaCivita say the November debate in Miami and all future debates should be canceled.

Anything less, along with other reasons not to cancel, are an admission to the grassroots that their concerns about voter integrity are not taken seriously and national Republicans are more concerned about helping Joe Biden than ensuring a safe and secure election, they said.

The former president and front-runner for the GOP nomination has skipped the first two debates as several of his rivals attacked him for not attending and said he wouldnt participate in the future.

He is in court this week in New York for a civil fraud trial accusing him of inflating the value of his businesses, a case that he has argued is politically motivated.

The RNC did not respond to requests for comment Monday or Tuesday.

A spokesman for Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis rejected the Trump campaign statement about canceling debates, saying the country needs a president who will fight for them anywhere, in any forum. DeSantis in the second debate accused Trump of not wanting to defend his record on the national debt.

Donald Trump should defend his record to the American people and debate Ron DeSantis on their vision and specific plans to stop American decline and restore our country," said Bryan Griffin, the spokesman. But Trump knows he cant defend his record, and he isnt the fighter he was in 2016.

RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel declined to answer a question last week about Trumps call to end the debates during a call with reporters on the launch of the committees Bank Your Vote initiative in New York. The program, which the GOP is implementing in states across the U.S., encourages Republicans to participate in early and mail-in voting a practice that Democrats have embraced but some Republicans, including Trump, have criticized.

McDaniel also brushed off Trumps continued skepticism of early voting, even after he recorded a video to promote the Bank Your Vote initiative.

I think we have to take those fights on, but also understand that once it gets to game day, the rules that are on the field are what we need to play by and President Trump is all in on that, she said.

___

Burnett reported from Chicago. Associated Press reporters Jill Colvin and Michelle L. Price contributed from New York.

Go here to read the rest:

Donald Trump wants future Republican debates to be canceled after refusing to participate in them - Yahoo News

The Trump Organization is on trial in New York this week, bringing to a head the fraud case thats been on the docket since 2022, when state Attorney GeneralLetitia Jamesfiled suit against the former presidents real estate company, alleging it had shown a pattern of vastly overinflating the value of its portfolio.

JudgeArthur Engorondeclaredlast week thatDonald Trumpandhis two biggest boys,Eric and Donald Jr.,as well as the Trump Organization committed fraud. Per the ruling, they frothed up their businesses assets and Trumps net worth for the purpose of getting better loan and insurance terms. Engoron found, among other things, that Trump continually overvalued Mar-a-Lago, once by more than 2,300%. One appraisal valued the club, located in Palm Beach, at between $18 and $28 million, while the Trump Organizationcalledit as much as $612 million. Trump also claimed his triplex at Trump Tower was 30,000 square feet. In reality? 11,000 square feet.

As the trial continues this weekEngoron has a few more matters to rule on, as well as potential penaltiesthe Family Trump is circling the wagons. Over on Truth Social, the ex-presidenthascalledEngoron a Deranged, Trump Hating Judge. Ericclaimedon Twitter that the ruling is an attempt to destroy my father and that Mar-a-Lago is actually arguably the most valuable residential property in the country. And Juniorwrote,This is weaponized Blue State Marxist America, & another example of the sheer impossibility of a fairness & impartiality in these areas.

The proceedings have also given the Trump boys their ownon cameracostarring turns.In an old deposition that Letitia Jamess office released on Monday, both Eric and Donald could be seen not recalling certain aspects of the case or business practices. Similar answers to different questions. But like a couple of jazz guys putting their own stamp on ayears-old standard, each had his own specific texture to the tune.

Asked whatheknew about the acronym GAAP, which stands forGenerally Accepted Accounting Principles, Donald Trump Jr. offered the following:

Q: How did you become familiar with that acronym?

A: Probably in Accounting 101 at Wharton.

Q: Okay. What do they teach you about generally accepted accounting principles in Wharton?

A: Well, Im not an accountant, but that they are generally accepted.

Q: [Laughing] Anything else?

A: Thats pretty much what I remember from Accounting 101.

Q: Have you told me everything you know about GAAP? [Laughing]

A: Basically. You know, Im sure I could come up with some creative stuff to kill time, but Id be doing neither of us a favor in terms of educating ourselves.

Q: Thank you. So, fair to say youve never been employed in a position that required you to apply GAAP to your work?

A: No, not that Im aware of.

He smiled. He laughed. He somehow exuded smarm and ignorance simultaneously.

Eric, while similarly stubbled, cut a more halting and yet somehow more natural figure. Take a look.

Whether or not the Trump Org will face all $250 million of potential penalties is currently being decided in New York courtrooms. In the meantime, we can watch all the veneers do the talking.

Continue reading here:

The Trump Boys Can't Recall a Thing - Vanity Fair

Former President Donald Trump (center) appears in court Monday in New York. Brendan McDermid/AP hide caption

Former President Donald Trump (center) appears in court Monday in New York.

The first day of a civil business fraud trial against former President Donald Trump wrapped up Monday afternoon.

Although Trump did not have to be present for the start of the trial, he came for a full day of opening remarks and the first witness testimony given by Donald Bender, a Trump Organization consultant.

Trump and other defendants are accused of exaggerating the value of their real estate.

If found guilty, Trump, who said he's "going to court ... to fight for my name and reputation," would have to pay $250 million in damages and be banned from doing business in New York state.

"My message is simple: No matter how powerful you are. No matter how much money you think you may have, no one is above the law," said State Attorney General Letitia James outside the New York Supreme Court ahead of the trial.

This is one of four pending legal cases Trump is facing in New York alone while he is seeking to win another term as president in the 2024 presidential race.

Trump continued to call the allegations a politically motivated "witch hunt" and argued that he should also be protected because his contacts contained a so-called "buyer beware" clause.

He argued people have to do their own due diligence, but either way he doesn't believe anyone suffered over the financial documents.

"What we have is a scam," Trump told reporters ahead of opening statements. "The actual net worth is substantially more. No bank was affected. No bank was hurt."

Bender testified to the processes of the Trump Organization, particularly how the financial statements at the center of the trial, are produced. He said he produced statements based on financial information provided by Trump's executives.

The first big witness is likely to be Allan Weisselberg, former chief financial officer at the Trump Organization. He is a defendant in the case and fairly high up on the list to testify.

Earlier this year Weisselberg was sentenced to five months in prison for financial crimes he committed while working there. Last year he pleaded guilty to 15 counts including grand larceny tax fraud and falsifying business records.

Another recognizable name on the witness list is Michael Cohen, a former Trump lawyer. On Monday, prosecutors played part of a video deposition with Cohen in which he said he was involved with preparing several years' worth of financial documents. He was quoted saying that others in the organization, including Weisselberg, would inflate the numbers to land Trump higher on the Forbes list.

After a three-year investigation, New York Attorney General Letitia James filed a lawsuit in September 2022 claiming Trump and his executive team engaged in fraudulent business practices. This includes allegations the value of Trump's business and the market value of his real estate holdings in New York state and in Florida were inflated in order to land deals, and negotiate with banks and insurers.

The former president tried to at least delay the trial by suing the judge that will be overseeing the trial. But a New York appeals court panel of judges rejected that move earlier last week, allowing the trial to continue as scheduled.

On Sept. 26, New York Judge Arthur Engoron, who is overseeing the trial, issued an order concluding that Trump and his associates including his sons Eric and Donald Jr. did inflate the value of their assets.

Though the judge ruled on some of the major elements of the lawsuit, there remain six other claims that will be argued during the trial. This includes allegations that Trump and his associates broke state law by falsifying documents, conspiring to falsify business records, issuing false business statements and financial statements and committing insurance fraud.

The attorney general of New York is also still seeking roughly $250 million in penalties.

Trump has called the fraud accusations ridiculous and untrue and has accused both the judge and New York attorney general, who are Democrats, of being politically motivated.

In a post on his social media site Truth, Trump said Sunday that the valuations of his property are "FRAUDULENT in pursuit of Election Interference, and worse. THIS WHOLE CASE IS A SHAM!!!"

Christopher Kise, a lawyer for Trump, called the initial ruling that confirmed the fraud allegations outrageous and a miscarriage of justice.

The trial was expected to run from October to December, but with the recent judge order, that could be shorter.

Both teams have a lengthy list of witnesses, though not all will get called. Still, appearing on both lists are the former president himself along with Eric and Donald Trump Jr. The attorney general's team also listed Ivanka Trump.

Read more from the original source:

Donald Trump business fraud trial began Monday in New York - NPR

The idea of Donald Trump becoming president again is one that no doubt makes millions of people across America, to say nothing of those living abroad, feel like theyre going to shit their pants. (If you only recently got dropped on planet Earth and are wondering why, see: all the alleged law-breaking, the attempted coup-ing, and the threats to rule like a full-on authoritarian, to say nothing of the other assorted crazy.) Indeed, the day the ex-president announced he was officially kicking off a third run for the White House, he likely gave rise to countless fantasies involving a time machine, 2015, and convincing him that only suckers and losers run for president. Or, one in which Vladimir Putin called him up, said something like, Donald, these swamp people dont deserve us, lets run away to Siberia together, and that was the end of that. Or, fuck, maybe one where Trump suddenly found a passion for macram and decided then and there to devote the rest of his life to it. Whatever!

Of course, most people didnt believe there was any actual scenario in which Trump could have been stopped from running for president again. Though, according to a forthcoming biography of FTX cofounder Sam Bankman-Fried, one billionaire in particular very much did!

In an essay by Michael Lewis adapted from his book Going Infinite: The Rise and Fall of a New Tycoon, published in The Washington Post on Sunday, we learn that in 2022, SBF had a sit-down with Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell, the subtext of which was protecting the world from Donald Trump, whom SBF viewed as an existential threat to humanity on par with another pandemic and climate change. And in order to stop said threat from destroying the world, SBF had a plan:

At that moment, Sam was planning to give $15 million to $30 million to McConnell to defeat the Trumpier candidates in the Senate races. On a separate front, he explained to me, as the plane descended into Washington, he was exploring the legality of paying Donald Trump himself not to run for president. His team had somehow created a back channel into the Trump operation and returned with the not terribly earth-shattering news that Donald Trump might indeed have his price: $5 billion. Or so Sam was told by his team.

Assuming this was, in fact, legala big assumption!it would have obviously been a brilliant plan, because it might have actually worked, given Trumps obsession with wealth. Hell, with another $5 billion to his name, he might have actually been able to stop lying about his net worth!

Of course, this did not happen in the end, which may or may not have had to do with a combination of Trump deciding he had to run for president in order to stay out of prison and SBF being charged with fraud and actually going to jail. But imagine how less stressful life would be if it had!

View post:

Sam Bankman-Fried Wanted to Pay Donald Trump Not to Run for ... - Vanity Fair