Trump: Set to declare 2024 presidential bid tonight; will indictments follow soon?

[Bob Armstrong]

Trump's Legal Problems

New York Civil Court Case # 2 (Of 2)



1. Trial

Alleged: Civil Fraud (Falsifying Corporate Documents # 2) - in order to get "ill-gotten gains," Trump issued false financial statements and false business records to inflate the value of his assets.Trump had fraudulently done this to obtain favourable loans and other benefits.

Prosecutor: New York attorney general, Letitia James

Criminal Court Conviction: Judge Arthur F. Engoron - convicted Trump personally of civil fraud: levied a financial penalty and other punishments - Trump personally to pay $ 454 million in disgorgement for "ill-gotten gains." Interest on the penalty is running.

2. The Appeal

- filed Monday, March 18,2024


A. The Posting of a Bond to Appeal

Appeal Court Ruling: Trump must show financial viability - stay will be granted on collection on the paying of the $464 million judgment IF Trump posts a security bond

Appeals Court Preliminary Ruling (Mon., 24/3/25): On Trump request: Bond amount is lowered from $ 554 million to $175 million.

Bond Filed (24/4/1)

$175 million bond - surety company, Knight Specialty Insurance Company (KSIC) - posted on Trump's behalf - allowed Trump to fend off a possible seizure of his properties or other assets following the $464 million judgment (including interest)

Update (24/4/22)

Bond Additional Terms (By Parties' Settlement)

The defense agreed to the conditions proposed by the attorney general, granting Knight Insurance Group exclusive control of the $175 million, while submitting to the jurisdiction of the New York state court and promising not to move the money into mutual funds or engage in any other financial maneuverings.

So the bond is now considered solid and sufficient; the appeal can move forward.

B. Appeal Briefs

- to be submitted in early July.

C. Appeal Hearing

- the appeal itself is expected to take several months.

Bob A

[Bob Armstrong]

Trump

Legal Cases Summary




Civil Court

# 1 – Defamation of Ms. Carroll

# 2 – Falsifying Corporate Documents # 2 (For Personal Gain)


Criminal Court

# 1 – Insurrection

# 2 – Georgia Election Count Interference

# 3 – Falsifying Corporate Documents # 1 (To Hide Hush Money payments)

# 4 – Mishandling Presidential Government Documents

Bob A

[Bob Armstrong]

Legal Problems - Criminal Case # 3 (Of 4) – Falsifying Corp. Docs # 1 (Hush Money)

24/4/23



Prosecutor: Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, under New York Attorney General, Letitia James. Senior Counsel to the DA is Matthew Colangelo.

Manhattan Criminal Court Charge: Falsifying corporate documents # 1

34 counts of falsification of New York business records in an attempt to cover up hush-money payments to Stephanie A. Gregory Clifford, known professionally as Stormy Daniels, an American pornographic film actress, director and former stripper. Stephanie claims she had an extramarital affair with Trump, which he vehemently denies.
Mr. Bragg further accuses Mr. Trump of trying to hide “damaging information and unlawful activity from American voters before and after the 2016 election". Public disclosure of this could have derailed Trump's stunning victory in the 2016 presidential election.

Note: Mr. Bragg seeks a "felony" conviction for what would normally be a "misdemeanor". He argues that the intent to commit or conceal another crime (By making the illegal hush money payment), including breaking “state and federal election laws,” raises the charge to a felony, punishable by up to four years in prison, under New York law.

Interim Motions & Decisions (prior to trial): See Post # 231 (24/4/12)

Start of Trial (Mon. 24/4/15) - Trial Judge Juan Manuel Marchan

Expected Unfolding of Trial

Among the witnesses expected to testify are Michael Cohen, Trump’s longtime fixer turned major accuser, whose credibility will be a big issue; Hope Hicks, Trump’s former press secretary, who could help corroborate Cohen’s testimony; Stephanie Clifford (Stormy Daniels), the porn star who received $130,000 in payments Trump is charged with laundering through Cohen; Karen McDougal, a former Playboy playmate of the year who also received hush money; and David Pecker, the National Enquirer chief testifying for the prosecution, whose catch-and-kill scheme to bury dirt on Trump will open a window on how tabloid journalism, well, changed world history.

The trial overall is estimated to take about 8 weeks.

Live Trial Updates : https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/04...d396a4debfd6ce

This is the first criminal prosecution of a former American president. It may be the only one of the 4 current criminal cases against Trump where the trial gets started in 2024.

Trial Opening Statement - Prosecutor

“This is a case about a criminal conspiracy,” Mr. Colangelo told the jury. “The defendant, Donald Trump, orchestrated a criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 presidential election.”

Mr. Colangelo then began to unfold, step by step, how Mr. Trump and Mr. David Pecker, [National Enquirer former CEO, then good friend of Trump] using the Enquirer, conceived a scheme “to influence the presidential election by concealing negative information” about Mr. Trump with the help of his former personal lawyer [and now current nemesis], Michael Cohen. The prosecutor called him Mr. Trump’s “former fixer.”

The three men met in August 2015 at Trump Tower and cooked up a three-point plan to help Mr. Trump win the 2016 election, the prosecution alleged. The Enquirer would run “headline after headline that extolled the defendant’s virtues,” Mr. Colangelo argued.

Update (24/4/23)

First Prosecution Witness: Mr. David Pecker, former National Enquirer publisher.

2^nd day on the stand (Tues., 24/4/22): testified that he suppressed Trump stories.At a 2015 meeting at the Trump Tower, he agreed to be the “eyes and ears” of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign by buying up scandalous stories about the real estate mogul and suppressing them.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/worl...mhAW4S4QM2hoOG


Bob A

[Peter McKillop]

[Bob Armstrong]

Legal Problems - Criminal # 1 (Of 4) – Insurrection

24/4/25

Charge: “Criminal Enterprise” to overturn the results of the 2020 election (Interference in Georgia Presidential Election Count)

Procedural Issue – now in Georgia Court of Appeals:

Fani Willis, Georgia District Attorney - overseeing case against Trump; hired lead "Prosecutor", Nathan Wade - DA "Official" impropriety alleged by Trump lawyers since she was alleged to be in a relationship with Nathan when she hired him. She cannot continue as DA.

Substantive Issue # 1 - The Sarbanes-Oxley Law

Relevant Current Case Before the USA Supreme Court: USA vs Fischer

Special Prosecutor, Jack Smith, decided to charge more than 350 January 6 defendants with violations of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which was signed into law in 2002 in the wake of the implosions of Enron and WorldCom. The law is intended to punish crooks for “corruptly obstructing, influencing, or impeding an official proceeding.”

The Nine [members of the USASC] mulled whether a law that punishes anyone who “alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record” is applicable to those who rioted at the Capitol, like Joseph Fischer, a police officer by trade. He pleaded guilty to multiple felonies, but contends that the Sarbanes-Oxley charges are instances of unlawful prosecutorial overreach. As his lawyer, Frederick William Ulrich, put it, that statute is “Enron-driven.”

The high court appeared open to that argument. Justice Clarence Thomas telegraphed that the government could be acting selectively, observing that “there have been many violent protests that have interfered with proceedings. Has the government applied this provision to other protests?” To that, Solicitor General Prelogar claimed that there has never been anything like January 6.

Justice Samuel Alito allowed that “what happened on Jan. 6 was very, very serious” but told General Prelogar that “we need to find out what are the outer reaches of this statute under your interpretation.” The solicitor general called one of the words at issue, “otherwise,” a “classic catchall.” Fischer’s counsel, though, finds it to be more of a “dragnet.” "

Relevance to Trump Case

USA S.C. Argument by Jack Smith, Special Prosecutor, against Trump

"Even if the Nine dismiss the Sarbanes-Oxley charges against the January 6 defendants, Mr. Smith is likely to argue that they should stick against Mr. Trump, who did not himself set foot at the Capitol on January 6, 2021. Instead, the special counsel argues, he engaged in the kind of obstruction contemplated by the statute. Two of the four charges Mr. Trump faces are based on Sarbanes-Oxley.

The relevant subsection mandates that someone is criminally culpable if “he alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding.” The special counsel argues that the certification of the results of the 2020 election were such a proceeding.

Mr. Smith’s accusation that Mr. Trump pursued a “conspiracy to corruptly obstruct and impede the January 6 congressional proceeding at which the collected results of the presidential election are counted and certified” could insulate the special counsel’s case from any Supreme Court ruling in the Fischer, or other, case, that upends the Department of Justice’s prosecution of the other defendants similarly charged."

The 45th president could ...be sent to jail for as much as 20 years under this draconian law known as Sarbanes-Oxley.

https://www.nysun.com/article/suprem...0%202024-04-16

Update (Today, Thursday, 24/4/25)

Substantive Issue # 2 – Presidential Immunity

USA Supreme Court Hearing – Today (24/4/25)

The Supreme Court is hearing arguments over whether Donald Trump is immune from prosecution in a case charging him with plotting to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

It’s a historic day for the court, with the justices having an opportunity to decide once and for all whether former presidents can be prosecuted for official acts they take while in the White House.

But between a decades-old court case about Richard Nixon, and an obscure constitutional provision about presidential impeachments, there are likely to be some unfamiliar concepts and terms thrown about.

Central to Trump’s immunity argument is the claim that only a former president who was impeached and convicted by the Senate can be criminally prosecuted. Trump was impeached over his efforts to undo the election in the run-up to the violent riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. But he was acquitted, not convicted, by the Senate in 2021.

Listen live on apnews.com/live/trump-supreme-court-arguments-updates or the court’s website at supremecourt.gov.or https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/04...d396a4debfd6ce

https://apnews.com/article/trump-sup...%20Subscribers

Bob A

[Bob Armstrong]

Trump's Legal Problems - Civil Court # 1 (Of 2) – Defamation

24/4/25

Court: New York Federal District Court

Plaintiff: E. Jean Carroll

Defendant: Donald Trump

Trial Judge - Judge Lewis Kaplan

Civil Judgment – defamation found; compensation of $ 83.3 million in favour of writer E. Jean Carroll

Post Judgment Application by Trump: to immediately suspend the verdict and to delay payment.

Kaplan Ruling: Motion denied.

Update (24/4/25)

Application by Trump for New Trial:Judge denies request; upholds $ 83.3 Million Judgment.

https://www.nysun.com/article/judge-denies-trumps-request-for-new-trial-in-e-jean-carroll-sex-assault-and-defamation-case-upholds-83-3-million-judgment?lctg=1508233562&recognized_email=bobarm111%40gmail.com&utm_source=MG&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Evening%20Sun%20%202024-04-25

Bob A

[Bob Armstrong]

Legal Problems - Criminal # 1 (Of 4) – Insurrection

24/4/26

Charge: “Criminal Enterprise” to overturn the results of the 2020 election (Interference in Georgia Presidential Election Count)

Issues

1. Procedural – now in Georgia Court of Appeals:

Fani Willis, Georgia District Attorney - overseeing case against Trump; hired lead "Prosecutor", Nathan Wade - DA "Official" impropriety alleged by Trump lawyers since she was alleged to be in a relationship with Nathan when she hired him. She cannot continue as DA.

2. Substantive

Issue # 1 - The Sarbanes-Oxley Law

Relevant Current Case Before the USA Supreme Court: USA vs Fischer

Special Prosecutor, Jack Smith, decided to charge more than 350 January 6 defendants with violations of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which was signed into law in 2002 in the wake of the implosions of Enron and WorldCom. The law is intended to punish crooks for “corruptly obstructing, influencing, or impeding an official proceeding.”

The Nine [members of the USASC] mulled whether a law that punishes anyone who “alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record” is applicable to those who rioted at the Capitol, like Joseph Fischer, a police officer by trade. He pleaded guilty to multiple felonies, but contends that the Sarbanes-Oxley charges are instances of unlawful prosecutorial overreach. As his lawyer, Frederick William Ulrich, put it, that statute is “Enron-driven.”

The high court appeared open to that argument. Justice Clarence Thomas telegraphed that the government could be acting selectively, observing that “there have been many violent protests that have interfered with proceedings. Has the government applied this provision to other protests?” To that, Solicitor General Prelogar claimed that there has never been anything like January 6.

Justice Samuel Alito allowed that “what happened on Jan. 6 was very, very serious” but told General Prelogar that “we need to find out what are the outer reaches of this statute under your interpretation.” The solicitor general called one of the words at issue, “otherwise,” a “classic catchall.” Fischer’s counsel, though, finds it to be more of a “dragnet.” "

Relevance to Trump Case

USA S.C. Argument by Jack Smith, Special Prosecutor, against Trump

"Even if the Nine dismiss the Sarbanes-Oxley charges against the January 6 defendants, Mr. Smith is likely to argue that they should stick against Mr. Trump, who did not himself set foot at the Capitol on January 6, 2021. Instead, the special counsel argues, he engaged in the kind of obstruction contemplated by the statute. Two of the four charges Mr. Trump faces are based on Sarbanes-Oxley.

The relevant subsection mandates that someone is criminally culpable if “he alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding.” The special counsel argues that the certification of the results of the 2020 election were such a proceeding.

Mr. Smith’s accusation that Mr. Trump pursued a “conspiracy to corruptly obstruct and impede the January 6 congressional proceeding at which the collected results of the presidential election are counted and certified” could insulate the special counsel’s case from any Supreme Court ruling in the Fischer, or other, case, that upends the Department of Justice’s prosecution of the other defendants similarly charged."

The 45th president could ...be sent to jail for as much as 20 years under this draconian law known as Sarbanes-Oxley.

https://www.nysun.com/article/suprem...0%202024-04-16

Issue # 2 – Presidential Immunity

USA Supreme Court Hearing

The Supreme Court is hearing arguments over whether Donald Trump is immune from prosecution in a case charging him with plotting to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

It’s a historic day for the court, with the justices having an opportunity to decide once and for all whether former presidents can be prosecuted for official acts they take while in the White House.

But between a decades-old court case about Richard Nixon, and an obscure constitutional provision about presidential impeachments, there are likely to be some unfamiliar concepts and terms thrown about.

Central to Trump’s immunity argument is the claim that only a former president who was impeached and convicted by the Senate can be criminally prosecuted. Trump was impeached over his efforts to undo the election in the run-up to the violent riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. But he was acquitted, not convicted, by the Senate in 2021.

Appeal Hearing Update (from Thursday, 24/4/25)

The justices appeared likely to reject Trump’s absolute immunity claim, but several justices did suggest the case may have to be sent back for more legal wrangling before it could go to trial. Such a ruling would be a victory for Trump as it would almost certainly delay the trial until after the election.

Live Hearing:

1. apnews.com/live/trump-supreme-court-arguments-updates, or

2. the court’s website at supremecourt.gov.,or

3. https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/04...d396a4debfd6ce

Bob A

[Bob Armstrong]

Trump - Some Financial Background

Bob Gillanders Post on Fb (24/4/29)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQM1m_In5n0

Bob A

[Frank Dixon]

The year 2024 may show whether Donald Trump will wind up holding the courage of his convictions!!

He was found guilty of contempt of court on Tuesday, April 30, and fined $9,000 by the trial judge, who warned him that a repeat offense on this front may lead to jail time.

[Bob Armstrong]

"Trump, Wooing Libertarian Voters, Agrees To Speak at Party’s Convention"

https://www.nysun.com/article/trump-...ht-over-rfk-jr

Bob A