Trump's world....

[DBP66]

Trump Loses Latest Bid to Block Tax Returns From House Panel

 

Zoe Tillman

Thu, October 27, 2022 at 5:37 PM

 

 

(Bloomberg) -- A federal appeals court rejected former President Donald Trump’s request to reconsider a ruling that his tax returns must be disclosed to a congressional committee.

The order from the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit clears the way for the House Ways and Means Committee to get Trump’s financial documents, although the former president could still try to petition the US Supreme Court to intervene.

- ADVERTISEMENT

The court denied Trump’s request for the full DC Circuit to reconsider a ruling in August from a three-judge panel. No judge noted a dissent in the order.

The committee separately had asked the court to expedite issuing the “mandate,” a formal conclusion to the case that would allow lawmakers to get the documents faster.

The court denied that request on Thursday, as well as a request by Trump to delay issuing the mandate until he had a chance to go to the Supreme Court. It wasn’t immediately clear when the court would issue the mandate.

Trump’s attorneys did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

“The law has always been on our side,” Richard Neal, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, said in an emailed statement. “We’ve waited long enough -- we must begin our oversight of the IRS’s mandatory presidential audit program as soon as possible.”

Neal, a Democrat, requested six years’ worth of Trump’s returns from the Internal Revenue Service in 2019, citing a 1924 law that allows the leaders of three tax committees in Congress to ask the US Treasury secretary for the returns of any taxpayer.

The Treasury Department under Trump refused to comply, so the committee filed suit. Last year, under the Biden administration, the Justice Department directed Treasury to hand over the tax returns to Congress. Trump sued to block the release.

A district court in December rejected that effort, saying Supreme Court precedents require “great deference” to valid congressional inquiries.

The Supreme Court ruled last year that Trump’s taxes could be turned over to a prosecutor in Manhattan. In a separate case , the justices asked that lower courts review whether a House request for the returns was “no broader than reasonably necessary.”

Though presidents and candidates for the White House aren’t required by law to show voters their tax returns, it has been common practice for decades. Trump is a rare exception. During his campaign and while serving as president he declined to make public his tax documents.

[Warrior]

5 minutes ago, DBP66 said:

Trump Loses Latest Bid to Block Tax Returns From House Panel

 

Zoe Tillman

Thu, October 27, 2022 at 5:37 PM

 

 

(Bloomberg) -- A federal appeals court rejected former President Donald Trump’s request to reconsider a ruling that his tax returns must be disclosed to a congressional committee.

The order from the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit clears the way for the House Ways and Means Committee to get Trump’s financial documents, although the former president could still try to petition the US Supreme Court to intervene.

- ADVERTISEMENT

The court denied Trump’s request for the full DC Circuit to reconsider a ruling in August from a three-judge panel. No judge noted a dissent in the order.

The committee separately had asked the court to expedite issuing the “mandate,” a formal conclusion to the case that would allow lawmakers to get the documents faster.

The court denied that request on Thursday, as well as a request by Trump to delay issuing the mandate until he had a chance to go to the Supreme Court. It wasn’t immediately clear when the court would issue the mandate.

Trump’s attorneys did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

“The law has always been on our side,” Richard Neal, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, said in an emailed statement. “We’ve waited long enough -- we must begin our oversight of the IRS’s mandatory presidential audit program as soon as possible.”

Neal, a Democrat, requested six years’ worth of Trump’s returns from the Internal Revenue Service in 2019, citing a 1924 law that allows the leaders of three tax committees in Congress to ask the US Treasury secretary for the returns of any taxpayer.

The Treasury Department under Trump refused to comply, so the committee filed suit. Last year, under the Biden administration, the Justice Department directed Treasury to hand over the tax returns to Congress. Trump sued to block the release.

A district court in December rejected that effort, saying Supreme Court precedents require “great deference” to valid congressional inquiries.

The Supreme Court ruled last year that Trump’s taxes could be turned over to a prosecutor in Manhattan. In a separate case , the justices asked that lower courts review whether a House request for the returns was “no broader than reasonably necessary.”

Though presidents and candidates for the White House aren’t required by law to show voters their tax returns, it has been common practice for decades. Trump is a rare exception. During his campaign and while serving as president he declined to make public his tax documents.

Any day now DP I’m sure, like Billy Joel said Keep the Faith.

[Nolebull813]

15 minutes ago, Warrior said:

Any day now DP I’m sure, like Billy Joel said Keep the Faith.

The only silver lining is 66 has to live with the demons of Trump haunting his every waking moment 

[DBP66]

Watch: Trump Instructs Senate Candidate How to Lie About Election

 

 

Nikki McCann Ramirez

Wed, October 26, 2022 at 11:38 AM

 

 

 

trump-blake-masters.jpg - Credit: Mario Tama/Getty Images

Arizona Senate candidate Blake Masters paces around his home, cell phone in hand, the call set to speaker for the benefit of the camera. “If you want to get across the line, you need to be stronger on that one thing,” instructs former President Donald Trump, “look at Kari [Lake],” he continues. “If they say, ‘How is your family?’ She says, ‘The election was rigged & stolen.’”

“I don’t think I went soft on the election,” Masters says when he hangs up the call.

- ADVERTISEMENT -

The footage is from a Fox Nation documentary produced by Tucker Carlson. The clip depicts a phone call between Masters, who is facing off against Democratic incumbent Mark Kelly for a seat in the Senate, and Trump, in the aftermath of a debate held earlier this month between the candidates.

During the debate, Masters stated that he hadn’t seen any evidence of irregularities in vote counts and election results indicating the election had been “stolen” or “rigged,” instead blaming Big Tech and agencies like the FBI for Trump’s election loss.

Arizona remains a sore spot for the former president, who lost the state by a narrow margin in 2020, and whose allies worked to embroil the state in speculation and conspiracy regarding unproven allegations of voter fraud and election theft.

Trump has already indicated he plans to challenge the results of the 2022 November midterms. Sources familiar with a series of meetings hosted by Trump tell Rolling Stone that the former president and his allies are gearing up to level challenges to election results, using Trump’s 2020 election night victory declaration as a blueprint.

Masters is currently trialing Kelly by about four points in polling averages. Masters has previously stated his belief that there were “irregularities” in the 2020 election, and has expressed his support for Sens. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) and Ted Cruz’s (R-Tex.) objection to the certification of Electoral College votes in Jan. 2021.

[concha]

 

We have a mission for Willie the Dumbass.  There is a negro in Connecticut who is off the plantation and putting a Democratic House seat at risk.  Fire up the Pinto and get up there Willie. Time to regulate.

 

Republican George Logan Now Leading House Race In Blue Connecticut

[Wildcat Will]

9 hours ago, concha said:

 

We have a mission for Willie the Dumbass.  There is a negro in Connecticut who is off the plantation and putting a Democratic House seat at risk.  Fire up the Pinto and get up there Willie. Time to regulate.

 

Republican George Logan Now Leading House Race In Blue Connecticut

You're getting closer.

If I did anything, I would rid outside 285 on the northside, top end,  of prejudice white people from Ohio.

[DBP66]

The Trump Organization tax-fraud trial jury has been chosen, and it's mostly minority and mostly male

 

 

Laura Italiano

Thu, October 27, 2022 at 9:01 PM

 

 

 

Former President Donald Trump, left, and the exterior of Trump Tower, where the Trump Organization is headquartered.Justin Sullivan/Getty Images, left. Nicolas Economou/Getty Images, right.

• It took three days to seat the jury for the Trump Organization criminal tax fraud trial in Manhattan.

• The mostly male, mostly minority jury has 2 men the defense tried to boot for their views on Trump.

• In all, 3 jurors dislike Trump, whose namesake company faces some $2 million in fines if convicted.

Donald Trump's company is about to be tried on tax-fraud charges before a jury that is mostly minority, mostly male, and that includes two men who the defense tried — and failed — to challenge due to their stated qualms about the former president.

Opening statements are set for Monday in the criminal trial, for which the defendant is not Trump himself, but his $3 billion real-estate and golf-resort empire, charged with a 15-year scheme to dodge payroll taxes by giving executives such untaxed, off-the-books compensation as rent-free apartments and luxury cars.

- ADVERTISEMENT -

Sitting in judgment of the Trump Organization, of which all of the leadership is white and male, will be four women — just one of them white. Of the eight men chosen, just two are white; another is a native of Honduras.

Just one or two, at best. could be described as white collar.

In a brisk jury selection held Monday, Tuesday and Thursday in state Supreme Court in Manhattan, nearly all of those chosen said they have some opinion about the former president.

They include a trio who openly dislike the former president, but who were seated anyway after repeatedly promising to be fair and impartial.

The defense simply did not have enough challenges to chase off the large number of Manhattan residents in the jury pool — well over half — who, when asked, expressed negative opinions of Trump.

And while Trump is not on trial and won't be in court, his presence was likened by one prosecutor to "the elephant not in the room."

Any trial about the guilt or innocence of the Trump Organization will hinge on proving the actions, or inactions, of the man at the top of the company — and on whether his immediate underlings took 15 years of luxury cars and free apartments all on their own or without his say so.

Six alternate jurors remain to be chosen.

Here is the jury:

Juror 1: The forewoman is a grandmother from Inwood who works for the city's public hospital system. "I like to meditate," she said of her hobbies. She does not read the news, and said she had no strong opinion about Trump.

Juror 2: Unemployed, he lives with his mother in the Washington Heights neighborhood. He watches Spanish news stations, and had no strong opinion of the former president, though he did say, "Donald Trump is just a very small part of a very large problem."

Juror 3: An East Harlem retiree, she is married, has adult children, and likes to crochet. "Of course, President Trump was the president of the United States," she said in court. "And of course, when something happened in this country … I would be upset about things. But I don't see how that applies to this particular case. I've had feelings in the past. But I will do my best. I will follow the instructions."

Juror 4: A Washington Heights resident, native of Honduras, and married dad of two adult children, he is a paraprofessional. He said he has no opinion about Trump or his company.

Juror 5: A Hell's Kitchen resident, she is a self-employed book editor for 25 years, including for medical texts. She joked that as hobbies, she reads and writes fiction "that no one will ever, ever read." On Trump, she said, "I didn't vote for him. And I would have gone for some different Supreme Court justices" than the three he picked.

Juror 6: A retired employee of the city Human Resources Administration, he lives in Washington Heights, and is interested in "civil justice" and "environmental advocacy. For news, "I go to the internet and find the news that broadcast and cable companies won't show you," including stories about "income disparity."

Juror 7: A retiree from Harlem, his hobbies are music and "anything outdoors." Asked if he had any issues with the idea of paying taxes, he said. "I've been paying taxes for 65 years." Of Trump, he said, "I really don't have any feelings about him. Not like that."

Juror 8: A Murray Hill resident with a "retail" job at a discount chain store. Of Trump, he said, "Honestly, I used to think he was funny before he was president. Then he started acting a little crazy and narcissistic … That's really it. That's the only reason I didn't like him as a president, not so much policy."

Juror 9: He spends his spare time reading, gaming, and enjoying music. He only watches the news for the weather and traffic reports. Of Trump, he said, "Yes, I have opinions, but yes I can be impartial." He did not detail his opinions.

Juror 10: A custodian for Macy's, he said he had strong opinions concerning Trump, but could be fair. "I'm neutral with him," he said. "I understand he was president. He had issues, whatever. But … I'm not going to cloud my judgment. I just try to treat it fair at all levels. I struggled with that last night," he added. "Then I said, 'let me see the evidence before I have an opinion.'"

Juror 11: A Midtown father of three, he said, "I do porter work" for a real estate management company. He said he has no strong opinion about Trump or his company. "I mean, I believe everybody has an opinion about him, but I don't really follow."

Juror 12: A native of France, he works as a portfolio manager and has lived in New York for 11 years. He said he has no strong opinions about Trump or his company.

[concha]

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/10/27/democrats-debate-why-do-we-suck-00063718

Democrats Debate Themselves: Why Do We Suck?

[Wildcat Will]

3 minutes ago, concha said:

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/10/27/democrats-debate-why-do-we-suck-00063718

Democrats Debate Themselves: Why Do We Suck?

Out of material?

Using any opinion to speak for you?

[Warrior]

Above is what DP and Will think Americans care about, below is what they truly care about and wins or loses elections.

[Warrior]

[DBP66]

[DBP66]

Trump asks U.S. Supreme Court to block lawmakers from obtaining tax returns

Andrew Chung

Mon, October 31, 2022 at 1:01 PM

 

 

By Andrew Chung

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -Former President Donald Trump on Monday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene in his fight to prevent a U.S. House of Representatives committee from gaining access to his tax returns for reasons he claims are politically motivated.

Trump filed an emergency request to put on hold a lower court ruling against the Republican former president that upheld the Democratic-led House Ways and Means Committee's request for the tax materials as a justified part of its legislative work while his attorneys prepare an appeal.

"If allowed to stand, it will undermine the separation of powers and render the office of the Presidency vulnerable to invasive information demands from political opponents in the legislative branch," Trump's lawyers wrote, referring to the division of authority among the three branches of the U.S. government.

The fight has lingered since 2019 when the committee sued Trump to force disclosure of the tax returns. Trump was the first president in four decades years not to release his tax returns as he aimed to keep secret the details of his wealth and the activities of his company, the Trump Organization.

The committee in its request invoked a federal law that empowers the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee to request any person's tax returns from the IRS.

House Democrats have said they need Trump's tax returns to see if the IRS is properly auditing presidential returns and to assess whether new legislation is needed. Trump's lawyers have called that explanation "pretextual" and "disingenuous," saying the real aim is to unearth politically damaging information about Trump, who is considering another run for the presidency in 2024.

U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden, a Trump appointee, sided with Congress in December 2021 and threw out the case, finding that the committee holds broad authority over a former president's tax returns.

In August, the District of Columbia U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals also ruled against Trump, concluding that "every president takes office knowing that he will be subject to the same laws as all other citizens upon leaving office." The appeals court refused a rehearing on Oct. 27.

[DBP66]

‘Greed and cheating’: Prosecutor outlines tax fraud allegations against Trump Organization

Dareh Gregorian and Adam Reiss

Mon, October 31, 2022 at 5:38 PM

 

 

Opening arguments began Monday in the high-profile criminal tax fraud case against the Trump Organization, the former president's family-run company that helped make him a household name.

“This case is about greed and cheating,” prosecutor Susan Hoffinger told jurors in her opening statement about what she alleged was a "clever scheme."

Two corporations that are a part of the company, Trump Corp. and Trump Payroll Corp., "paid their already highly paid executives even more by cheating on their taxes," Hoffinger said.

Donald Trump is listed as a possible witness in the trial in New York, where prosecutors will argue that the company he ran for decades engaged in a 15-year scheme to compensate top executives “off the books” to help them — and the company — avoid paying taxes.

Trump, who hasn’t been charged with any wrongdoing, has blasted the investigation as a politically motivated “witch hunt.”

Presiding over the case, acting New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan told potential jurors last week that in addition to the former president, his three oldest children — Donald Trump Jr., Ivanka Trump and Eric Trump — could be called as witnesses. All three have held key positions at the company.

Supreme Court is the name of New York’s highest trial court.

The star witness for prosecutors will be Allen Weisselberg, the company’s longtime chief financial officer, who is on paid leave from the Trump Organization. He was indicted alongside the Trump Organization last year after years of investigation into the company’s financial practices by the Manhattan district attorney’s office. Weisselberg, 75, pleaded guilty to 15 felony charges in August.

No one else has been charged.

Referring to Weisselberg, Hoffinger told the jury that "for 35 years he reported directly to Donald Trump." He had "signatory authority for bank accounts," she said.

As part of his plea deal, Weisselberg agreed to pay nearly $2 million in taxes, interest and penalties, in addition to testifying “truthfully at the upcoming trial of the Trump Organization.” If he does not do so, prosecutors said, he could face a sentence closer to what he originally faced had he been convicted at trial — five to 15 years in prison.

Weisselberg is expected to take the stand next week.

Susan Necheles, an attorney for the Trump company, told jurors Weisselberg was the bad guy in the case, not the Trump Organization.

The “evidence will show it was all about Allen Weisselberg,” Necheles said.

Weisselberg “had a beautiful life at a prestigious company,” which came crashing down when he was arrested, Necheles said.

“Allen Weisselberg had everything a man could want, and he realized he could lose all of it, so he made a deal. He would plead guilty and cooperate” against the Trump companies, Necheles said. “The only way to get this great deal, he must testify. Think about the extreme pressure he is under,” she said, telling jurors Weisselberg was the one who benefited from the scheme — not the Trump Organization.

Necheles also asked that jurors "not consider this case to be a referendum on President Trump."

"The evidence will be clear that Donald Trump did not know that Allen Weisselberg was cheating on his personal taxes," she said.

Trump Payroll Corp. lawyer Michael van der Veen also pointed the finger at Weisselberg, saying "greed made him cheat on his taxes and betray a trust of over 50 years" that was first placed in him by Trump's father, Fred Trump.

"He was trusted to protect the company and given an enormous amount of independent autonomy to conduct his job," he said.

Van der Veen also said Weisselberg has been forgiven by the company, comparing his situation to that of the biblical story of the prodigal son. He told jurors that Weisselberg, 75, is no longer the CFO but is still on the company's payroll.

The first witness called by prosecutors was the Trump Organization's controller, Jeffrey McConney, who was asked about the company's business and accounting practices.

The judge told potential jurors last week that the case involves allegations that the company “devised and operated a long-term scheme to fail to report income on tax forms.”

The indictment alleges that the company committed conspiracy, scheming to defraud, criminal tax fraud, falsification of business records and other felonies.

The indictment says the “scheme was intended to allow certain employees to substantially understate their compensation from the Trump Organization so that they could and did pay federal, state and local taxes in amounts that were significantly less than the amounts that should have been paid.”

The alleged scheme also allowed the company “to evade the payment of payroll taxes that the Trump Organization was required to pay in connection with employee compensation,” the indictment said.

According to prosecutors’ court filings, the biggest beneficiary was Weisselberg, who received $1.76 million in “indirect employee compensation” from the company, including a rent-free apartment, expensive cars, private school tuition for his grandchildren and new furniture.

Jury selection wrapped up Friday. Four women and eight men make up the panel, with five alternates for what’s expected to be a monthlong trial.

The Trump Organization faces up to about $1.6 million in penalties if it is convicted on all counts. A conviction could also hamper the company’s ability to obtain future financing, experts have said.

The company faces other legal problems. Jury selection starts Monday in the Bronx — about 10 miles north of Merchan’s Manhattan courtroom — in a civil case brought against Trump, the Trump Organization and his 2016 campaign by a group of protesters who say Trump’s security guards roughed them up outside Trump Tower when he was a candidate.

They're seeking unspecified money damages in the trial, which will feature videotaped testimony Trump gave in the case last year. Trump has denied having known about his guards' actions ahead of time, but he testified that he believed they acted appropriately, according to parts of his testimony that were included in a court filing in April.

The New York attorney general’s office also sued the company, Trump and his oldest children last month, alleging they had overstated the company’s financial assets by billions of dollars.

The suit, which Trump has also dismissed as a politically motivated "witch hunt," seeks to impose about $250 million in penalties and to permanently bar Trump and his three oldest children from serving as officers of any New York-based companies.

[concha]

Libertarian Candidate Marc Victor Drops from Arizona Senate Race and Endorses Republican Blake Masters – Was Polling at 6% in Race!

[DBP66]

3 minutes ago, concha said:

Libertarian Candidate Marc Victor Drops from Arizona Senate Race and Endorses Republican Blake Masters – Was Polling at 6% in Race!

LOL..good luck Don!

[DBP66]

Mark Meadows loses federal case in fight over House Jan. 6 committee subpoena

Bart Jansen, USA TODAY

Tue, November 1, 2022 at 11:05 AM

 

 

WASHINGTON – A federal judge has thrown out former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows’ challenge to a subpoena from the House committee investigating the Capitol attack on Jan. 6, 2021.

Meadows initially cooperated with the committee by providing 1,000 emails and 2,300 text messages about the attack. But he later decided not to testify and fought the subpoena for a variety of reasons, including executive privilege and whether a senior presidential aide can be compelled to testify before Congress.

But U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols ruled Monday that the committee was justified in subpoenaing Meadows.

“Without a doubt, the Select Committee’s investigation of the January 6th attack is legitimately tied to Congress’s legislative function,” wrote Nichols, who was appointed by Meadows’ boss, former President Donald Trump. “The record makes clear that the challenged subpoenas are protected legislative acts under this test.”

 

President Donald Trump walks with Chief of Staff Mark Meadows after returning to the White House from an event at the WWII memorial in Washington, DC on May 8, 2020.

The lawsuit was one of two dozen that challenged the committee's validity and authority. But judges at the district and appeals levels have upheld the panel's legitimacy and the Supreme Court refused to hear a challenge from Trump to a subpoena for documents from the National Archives and Records Administration.

Meadows could appeal the decision. His lawyer didn't reply immediately to a request for comment.

A Jan. 6 committee subpoena to Trump awaits his response, with deadlines Friday for documents and Nov. 14 for testimony.

The panel subpoenaed Meadows – along with his phone provider, Verizon – for documents and testimony on Sept. 23, 2021. The chairman, Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said Meadows could provide “critical information” about what Trump was doing Jan. 6, 2021 and leading up to the riot.

The committee wants to ask Meadows about Trump’s efforts to create slates of fake electors in states Trump lost, pressure Vice President Mike Pence to recognize the fake electors and remove Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen from office. Meadows personally contacted state election officials in several states including Georgia, according to committee testimony.

Trump invoked executive privilege Oct. 6, 2021, to block Meadows’ testimony, under the doctrine to keep communications between a president and his aides confidential. But President Joe Biden declined to assert executive privilege or any immunity for Meadows.

Meadows filed his federal lawsuit Dec. 8, 2021. He challenged the committee as invalid because it has fewer members than the House authorized and because none were nominated by Republicans. He also argued the committee has no “valid legislative purpose,” as required for subpoenas.

The House voted to hold Meadows in contempt. But the Justice Department decided not to charge him criminally for his defiance, like political strategist Steve Bannon and former trade adviser Peter Navarro.

Nichols called Meadows' arguments “irrelevant” challenges to House rules.

Nichols ruled Meadows couldn’t block the subpoena because of a provision in the Constitution called the “speech and debate clause.” The provision typically protects the speech of lawmakers when acting in their official capacity.

Nichols cited appeals court decisions that found the provision also protected all legislative acts including conduct in committees and issuing subpoenas. House lawyers insisted lawmakers had an “ironclad argument” in favor of the speech and debate clause protecting their subpoena. Nichols found Meadows provided “no clear argument that the immunity is inapplicable.”

[DBP66]

Supreme Court clears way for Graham to testify in Georgia election probe

 

 

Christopher Wilson

·Senior Writer

Tue, November 1, 2022 at 3:21 PM

 

 

 

Sen. Lindsey Graham. (Evelyn Hockstein/Reuters)

The Supreme Court rejected an effort by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., to block a subpoena for him to testify in front of a Georgia grand jury investigating attempts to overturn the 2020 election.

In an unsigned order released Tuesday afternoon, the Supreme Court said that Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis could continue her investigation into efforts to overturn the election in Georgia. The state was the focus of former President Donald Trump and his allies in their attempt to subvert the election results, with President Biden winning the state by about 12,000 votes.

The grand jury is scheduled for Nov. 17 and is set to expire in April. Willis had written in her filing to the court that “the delay resulting from a stay would be unavoidably harmful to the administration of its investigation.”

 

The order removed a temporary stay by Justice Clarence Thomas on Oct. 24 that had blocked the subpoena while waiting on a response from Georgia investigators. Shortly after the 2020 election, Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a Republican, told the Washington Post that Graham had tried to pressure him over the phone into throwing out legal ballots.

 

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, right. (Ben Gray/AP)

While a lower court had ruled that Graham did not have to testify about anything tied to legislative activity — citing the Constitution’s speech or debate clause — the grand jury would be able to ask him questions about any coordination with Trump before he made the alleged calls pressuring officials. Graham could still plead the Fifth and the Supreme Court did not block further litigation into what was and was not protected from questioning.

“Without a stay, Senator Lindsey Graham will soon be questioned by a local Georgia prosecutor and her ad hoc investigative body about his protected ‘Speech or Debate’ related to the 2020 election,” Graham’s lawyers wrote in their initial Oct. 21 filing.

They added that the questioning itself would cause “irreparable harm” to the senator and that the Constitution immunized him from testimony.

[concha]

[DBP66]

3 hours ago, concha said:

FYI...This did make me laugh ^!.......I see the thought of spineless Lindsey testifying excites you?

[DBP66]

Jury shown Weisselberg lease signed by Trump himself

 

Julia Shapero

Tue, November 1, 2022 at 6:01 PM

 

 

Former President Trump signed the lease of an Upper West Side apartment used by former Trump Organization Chief Financial Officer Allen Weisselberg, prosecutors showed the jury at the company’s criminal tax fraud trial on Tuesday, Bloomberg reported.

The lease represents part of the prosecution’s efforts to show that the Trump Organization and its executives engaged in a years-long scheme to avoid taxes — one that was sanctioned by the highest echelons of the company, according to Bloomberg.

Weisselberg, the prosecution’s central witness, reportedly received a $6,500-a-month apartment on the Upper West Side of Manhattan and $10,000 for moving fees from the Trump Organization.

The lease shown to jurors on Tuesday noted that the apartment was meant to be leased by Weisselberg or other company employees and was signed by Trump himself, Bloomberg reported.

The Trump Organization has been indicted on accusations of providing company executives with perks to evade taxes. The former president himself is not charged in the case, although the presiding judge said last week that Trump and his three adult children may be called to testify.

However, the trial was brought to a halt later on Tuesday after Trump Organization controller Jeffrey McConney, the prosecution’s first witness, tested positive for COVID-19.

[DBP66]

Trump Org Suddenly Settles With Protesters Beat Up by Its Security Guards

 

 

Jose Pagliery

Wed, November 2, 2022 at 12:46 PM

 

 

 

Leonardo Munoz/Getty

Inundated with lawsuits and ongoing trials, the Trump Organization on Wednesday chose to settle with anti-MAGA protesters who were beaten up by corporate security guards outside Trump Tower in 2015 rather than trying to convince a Bronx jury.

After three days of struggling to find jurors who didn’t already have strong feelings about former President Donald Trump and his eponymous company—a difficult undertaking in liberal New York City—defense lawyers at the last minute chose to settle.

Minutes after Justice Andrew Cohen sent potential jurors out to lunch at midday, Trump Organization lawyers approached the protesters who filed the suit and presented them with a stack of papers that they quietly signed.

 

A lawyer representing the Trump Organization, Jeffrey Goldman, was overheard telling the judge that everything was golden—and that nearly everyone had finished signing “the agreement.”

Efrain Galicia, the lead plaintiff, signed the paperwork along with Florencia Tejeda Perez, Miguel Villalobos, and Norberto Garcia.

“The parties all agree that the plaintiffs in the action, and all people, have a right to engage in peaceful protest on public sidewalks,” read a joint statement, which was also signed by Trump Organization defense lawyer Alina Habba.

In court, Habba declined to discuss the terms of the settlement. She signed the agreement at 12:32 p.m. Benjamin Dictor, who represents the protesters, said, “The matter has been resolved to the satisfaction of all parties.”

In a later statement, Habba added: “Although we were eager to proceed to trial to demonstrate the frivolousness of this case, the parties were ultimately able to come to an amicable resolution. We are very pleased with this outcome and are happy to finally put this matter to rest once and for all.”

The Bronx—a diverse, blue-collar borough known for its no-nonsense street smarts—is famous for the way juries there often reward plaintiffs with outsized awards, especially when punishing corporations and the rich.

As legal writer Victoria Bekiempis recently explained on Twitter, civil rights lawyers have described Bronx jurors’ “Robinhood-ism,” and the way “they take from the rich and give to the rest of us.”

Galicia and fellow protesters showed up outside Trump Tower weeks after Trump announced his presidential run in the summer of 2015. They were angry about his racist comments in which he berated Mexican migrants seeking refuge in the United States as “rapists.” They also sought to draw attention to the potential dangers of Trump’s statements and presidential ambitions, given that he had just been endorsed by former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke.

When they showed up on Fifth Avenue outside Trump Tower in KKK hoods and large signs–remaining on the public street–Trump corporate security guards attacked them, tackled Galicia, and ripped a sign from his hand.

Although the protesters soon sued the company, the lawsuit was held up while Trump remained in the White House. It wasn’t until this year that damning details came out from a surprise witness in the office upstairs: Michael Cohen, Trump’s then right-hand lawyer, who revealed that the executive had personally ordered his security chief to get rid of the protesters–and later reveled in their abuse.

“Justice was done,” Galicia said walking down the courthouse steps after the agreement was signed.

“And remember, the sidewalk belongs to the people–no matter whose name is on the building,” Dictor added.

[DBP66]

Looks like the D.O.J. is ready to Cash-in on Trump.....

Former Trump aide Kash Patel set to testify in Mar-a-Lago docs probe: report

 

Julia Shapero

Wed, November 2, 2022 at 9:02 PM

 

 

Former Trump aide Kash Patel is set to testify before a federal grand jury about the classified documents recovered from former President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home after being granted immunity for any information, The Wall Street Journal reported.

Patel — who has claimed that Trump had declassified the documents found at Mar-a-Lago — previously refused to provide information to the grand jury, instead invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) reportedly has agreed to grant Patel immunity in order to force his testimony, after a federal judge ruled that the former Trump aide could not be compelled to testify without such a grant, according to The Wall Street Journal.

The FBI recovered about 100 classified documents when it searched Mar-a-Lago in August. Coupled with the documents recovered by the National Archives and Records Administration in January and several more returned by Trump’s lawyers in June, the government has retrieved more than 300 classified documents from the Florida residence.

- ADVERTISEMENT -

Patel told The Wall Street Journal in August that he witnessed Trump issue verbal declassification orders, particularly related to the FBI’s investigation of links between the Trump campaign and Russia, near the end of his administration. The former Trump aide also said lack of evidence was not an issue, given that the president is the “ultimate classification authority.”

Patel’s claims echo Trump’s own assertions that he had declassified the materials. The former president told Fox News’s Sean Hannity in September that he could declassify documents “even by thinking about it,” a claim that many have contested.

Trump’s lawyers have faced pushback in court over the former president’s claims, with an appeals court noting that “the record contains no evidence that any of these records were declassified.”

The DOJ did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

[I AM IRONMAN]

TDS is strong with this one.

[concha]

1 hour ago, I AM IRONMAN said:

TDS is strong with this one.

 

Patient Zero?