Donald Trump news and discussions

[weatheriscool]

Expert witnesses for Trump's defense billed almost $900,000 each for testifying on his behalf at fraud trial


December 8, 2023 / 10:02 PM EST

New York City — Former President Donald Trump sat attentively in the courtroom of his New York civil fraud trial on Thursday, watching as the defense's final expert witness, Eli Bartov, proclaimed that there was "no evidence whatsoever of any accounting fraud."

On Friday, Bartov revealed that he has made approximately $877,500 for his expert testimony in this case — charging $1,350 per hour for about 650 hours of work. When questioned by lawyers for the state of New York about who was paying him, Bartov replied that his bank statements showed some of the money was paid by the Trump Organization and some came from Trump's Save America PAC.

The discussion of Bartov's compensation came shortly after one of Trump's attorneys, Alina Habba, expressed her frustration to Judge Engoron about objections made by the attorney general's team. "Why are we wasting our time if no one is listening to the words coming out of our experts' mouths?" Habba asked.

Another expert witness for the defense, Frederick Chin, who testified earlier in the week on real estate valuation, admitted that he billed $850 per hour for 1,000 hours of work, totaling $850,000. The state's only expert witness, Michael McCarty, acknowledged that he was paid a rate of $950 per hour, but worked far fewer hours, estimating that he made about $350,000 for his testimony. These rates provide a glimpse into the high costs of just one of Trump's many legal battles, a set of criminal and civil challenges for which the Save America PAC spent $40 million in the first half of this year alone.

Read more: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-expe ... york-city/

[weatheriscool]

[weatheriscool]

[weatheriscool]

[weatheriscool]

[firestar464]

31% of Republicans Won’t Vote for Trump If Convicted

https://politicalwire.com/2023/12/12/31 ... convicted/

This could actually be a big deal

[weatheriscool]

[caltrek]

Although strictly speaking the following is about Rudy Giuliani, it is very much tied to Trump’s Big Lie. No concrete evidence for the Big Lie, just more promises of forthcoming evidence that never materializes, more innuendo, etc. Even as Giuliani is being tried for the defamation involved.

Judge Rebukes Giuliani Over ‘Defamatory’ Comments He Made About Georgia Election Workers During Defamation Damages Trial
by Devan Cole

December 12, 2023
Introduction:

(CNN) The federal judge overseeing Rudy Giuliani’s defamation damages trial in Washington, DC, rebuked the former Donald Trump lawyer Tuesday over “quite defamatory” comments he made a day earlier to reporters about the two Georgia election workers at the center of the case.

US District Judge Beryl Howell said Giuliani’s comments outside the federal courthouse in DC “could support another defamation claim.”

The remarks about Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss were “negative, quite defamatory statements about them yet again.”

Speaking to reporters Monday evening following the first day of trial, Giuliani claimed that everything he said about the two women in the wake of the 2020 election was true. Giuliani also repeated the false claim that “they were engaged in changing votes.”

When a reporter responded there was no proof of such an allegation, Giuliani said: “Oh you’re damn right there is. Stay tuned.”

Read more here: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politic ... snnews11

[spryfusion]

[weatheriscool]

Loses bid for presidential immunity in E Jean Carroll defamation suit

8 minutes ago

Donald Trump cannot assert presidential immunity from a defamation lawsuit by writer E Jean Carroll, who accused him of rape, an appeals court ruled, dealing the former president another legal setback.

The ruling upholds a federal judge’s decision to reject his claim of immunity, finding Mr Trump had waited too long to raise it as a defence. The trial will now go ahead on 16 January 2024.

The former president has pursued a similar immunity defence in his federal criminal case in which he is accused of unlawfully trying to overturn his loss in the 2020 presidential election. The Supreme Court has agreed to a request from special counsel Jack Smith to hear the case on an expedited basis ...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 63111.html

[weatheriscool]

Supreme Court will hear a case that could undo Capitol riot charge against hundreds, including Trump


MARK SHERMAN
Wed, December 13, 2023 at 9:34 AM EST · 2 min read

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Wednesday said it will hear an appeal that could upend hundreds of charges stemming from the Capitol riot, including against former President Donald Trump. ... The justices will review an appellate ruling that revived a charge against three defendants accused of obstruction of an official proceeding. The charge refers to the disruption of Congress' certification of Joe Biden's 2020 presidential election victory over Trump.

That's among four counts brought against Trump in special counsel Jack Smith's case that accuses the 2024 Republican presidential primary front-runner of conspiring to overturn the results of his election loss. Trump is also charged with conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding.

The court's decision to weigh in on the obstruction charge could threaten the start of Trump's trial, currently scheduled for March 4. The justices separately are considering whether to rule quickly on Trump's claim that he can't be prosecuted for actions taken within his role as president. A federal judge already has rejected that argument. ... The Supreme Court will hear arguments in March or April, with a decision expected by early summer.

The obstruction charge has been brought against more than 300 defendants in the massive federal prosecution following the deadly insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021, when a mob of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol in a bid to keep Biden, a Democrat, from taking the White House.

{snip}

Read more: https://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-he ... 456759.htm

[weatheriscool]

[weatheriscool]

[weatheriscool]

[weatheriscool]

[weatheriscool]

[caltrek]

Why the Supreme Court 'Should Resoundingly Reject Trump’s Immunity Bid'
by Alex Henderson
December 18, 2023

Introduction:

(Alternet) Despite the fact that he is facing four criminal indictments, polls are showing that former President Donald Trump has a very good chance of returning to the White House in 2025. Poll after poll shows him way ahead of his rivals in the 2024 GOP presidential primary, and some polls are showing Trump with single-digit leads in a hypothetical Trump/President Joe Biden rematch.

Trump is hoping to eliminate one of the indictments — special counsel Jack Smith's election interference case — by claiming that he enjoys immunity from prosecution because he was still president in late 2020 and early 2021. Smith has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review Trump's immunity claim as soon as possible.

In an article published by the conservative website The Bulwark on December 18, University of Baltimore law professor and former federal prosecutor Kimberly Wehle lays out some reasons why the High Court "should resoundingly reject Trump's bid for immunity."

Wehle argues, "The more moderate conservatives on the Court —Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Kavanaugh, and to a lesser extent Justice Gorsuch — should think long and hard about the precedent their greenlighting of Trump's crimes in office would set not just for the presidency itself, but also, for the legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court…. While the justices should assess the Trump immunity argument on the basis of law and the Constitution, they will also unavoidably have in their mind the stakes for their institution and for the rule of law."

Read more here: https://www.alternet.org/jack-smith-2666619860/

[weatheriscool]

[weatheriscool]

[firestar464]

What about the fact that his associates pled guilty? And what about the large amounts of evidence?