Indecision 2024

[monkey]

"I am not an insurrectionist, congress said so." is still an obvious defence for Trump and one that any judge can just point to, if they need an excuse to let him on the ballot.

Except Congress (House and Senate) voted by a simple majority that he was an insurrectionist. But the Senate didn't vote by a large enough margin to remove him from office.

Yes, as lpm has already pointed out, and I have responded to. It remains an obvious argument for Trump's lawyers to make.

I'm not saying it is a good argument, just Trump's best argument (as far as non-lawyer me can tell), and one that seems to me that a biased judicial system can quite easily use to let him on the ballot.

Basically, I can see this happening -

"Hello, I'm a Trump appointed supreme court judge, Me and my judgy buddies have just invented a legal threshold to decide whether someone's actions can be judged as insurrection or not, where if someone is acquitted by congress they don't meet it. Here's a some pages of boring legal argument to justify it. Trump can go on the ballot"

To argue against that you need to make the case that the impeachment vote does not matter (and probably have it ignored).

The 14th amendment places a reverse criterion on the vote to general impeachment. It requires a 2/3rd majority vote of Congress to allow a former insurrectionist to take up office.

Yes, I know. But this point (after a couple of steps of thinking) has made me realise that being on the ballot and actually taking office seem to be separated. The Democratic Socialist Victor Berger was not allowed into congress but was allowed to be a candidate in subsequent elections (he kept winning them and wasn't allowed to sit until the supreme court overturned his Espionage Act conviction).

[Woodchopper]

On Trump’s legal liability for the insurrection one other issue is the extent to which the President has some immunity from prosecution or being sued for actions taken while he or she is President.

You can read a lengthy summary here: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ ... t-00112124

[dyqik]

On Trump’s legal liability for the insurrection one other issue is the extent to which the President has some immunity from prosecution or being sued for actions taken while he or she is President.

Since the insurrection was aimed at a legislative branch function, which he has no constitutional role in, there isn't any immunity that applies. The president has no official role in overseeing elections or the electoral count, and so his actions were not taken under color of Federal office.

The vice president, on the other hand, does have a role in the legislative branch, as president of the Senate.

[dyqik]

The Georgia grand jury recommended that Lindsey Graham be charged as part of the RICO plot there.

I wonder if there's a test case for the 14th Amendment Sec 3 there.

[dyqik]

On Trump’s legal liability for the insurrection one other issue is the extent to which the President has some immunity from prosecution or being sued for actions taken while he or she is President.

Since the insurrection was aimed at a legislative branch function, which he has no constitutional role in, there isn't any immunity that applies. The president has no official role in overseeing elections or the electoral count, and so his actions were not taken under color of Federal office.

The vice president, on the other hand, does have a role in the legislative branch, as president of the Senate.

And judge ruled that this is the law for Trump's chief of staff today.

[dyqik]

Trump found liable for fraud, all Trump family businesses in New York ordered wound up, ahead of a trial next week on the fines.

Judge Finds Trump Inflated Property Values, a Victory for New York A.G.

https://twitter.com/AndrewFeinberg/stat ... l_USA&s=19

[lpm]

Must be 7 years since I pointed out how easy this was going to be. Simply line up Trump's false statements to banks alongside false statements to the tax man.

And so it proved. Ridiculously easy - which pretty much proves Trump has enjoyed orchestrated immunity for decades thanks to his kompromat and powerful puppet masters.

[Grumble]

Must be 7 years since I pointed out how easy this was going to be. Simply line up Trump's false statements to banks alongside false statements to the tax man.

And so it proved. Ridiculously easy - which pretty much proves Trump has enjoyed orchestrated immunity for decades thanks to his kompromat and powerful puppet masters.

Is this going to lead to a big tax bill for him?

[IvanV]

"I am not an insurrectionist, congress said so." is still an obvious defence for Trump and one that any judge can just point to, if they need an excuse to let him on the ballot.

Except Congress (House and Senate) voted by a simple majority that he was an insurrectionist. But the Senate didn't vote by a large enough margin to remove him from office.

Yes, as lpm has already pointed out, and I have responded to. It remains an obvious argument for Trump's lawyers to make.

I'm not saying it is a good argument, just Trump's best argument (as far as non-lawyer me can tell), and one that seems to me that a biased judicial system can quite easily use to let him on the ballot.

Basically, I can see this happening -

"Hello, I'm a Trump appointed supreme court judge, Me and my judgy buddies have just invented a legal threshold to decide whether someone's actions can be judged as insurrection or not, where if someone is acquitted by congress they don't meet it. Here's a some pages of boring legal argument to justify it. Trump can go on the ballot"

To argue against that you need to make the case that the impeachment vote does not matter (and probably have it ignored).

The 14th amendment places a reverse criterion on the vote to general impeachment. It requires a 2/3rd majority vote of Congress to allow a former insurrectionist to take up office.

Yes, I know. But this point (after a couple of steps of thinking) has made me realise that being on the ballot and actually taking office seem to be separated. The Democratic Socialist Victor Berger was not allowed into congress but was allowed to be a candidate in subsequent elections (he kept winning them and wasn't allowed to sit until the supreme court overturned his Espionage Act conviction).

A little while ago I watched an analysis by YouTube's favourite US lawyer, Legal Eagle. He suggests that a quite strong legal argument Trump has is that being president did not make him an "officer of the United States" for the purposes of this particular law. Such very limited precedent as there is would suggest that, for these purposes, "officer" means someone appointed to an office, not someone elected. Clearly there are broader uses of the term "officer" in other situations. Any person who has an "office", such as the president, can clearly be described as an "officer". But those broader uses may not be relevant, the legal question is what does it mean in this specific context. The people the amendment was originally aimed at generally had appointed roles, ie in the Confederate army, and the amendment was about preventing such people later standing for office.

I agree the contrast between being on the ballot vs allowed to take up office is clearly an important one.

And I very much agree that the ""Hello, I'm a Trump appointed supreme court judge..." is probably the largest practical issue for the case.

[dyqik]

Must be 7 years since I pointed out how easy this was going to be. Simply line up Trump's false statements to banks alongside false statements to the tax man.

And so it proved. Ridiculously easy - which pretty much proves Trump has enjoyed orchestrated immunity for decades thanks to his kompromat and powerful puppet masters.

Is this going to lead to a big tax bill for him?

$250 million in damages is what the state is after.

[lpm]

It's interesting that nobody seems to know how the unwinding of the Trump corporations will work in practice. They cease to exist in NY but some of the properties they own are in other states (Mar a Lago being the most intriguing).

I assume there's a legal restructuring, with new non NY companies being formed and acquiring the assets. This will surely trigger change of control clauses in all debt issues, requiring refinancing. It's murky whether true asset values cover the debts, particularly if $250 million and a percentage gets taken as fines. The tax consequences are a whole other world of pain, if restructuring crystallises taxable gains.

[dyqik]

A little while ago I watched an analysis by YouTube's favourite US lawyer, Legal Eagle. He suggests that a quite strong legal argument Trump has is that being president did not make him an "officer of the United States" for the purposes of this particular law. Such very limited precedent as there is would suggest that, for these purposes, "officer" means someone appointed to an office, not someone elected. Clearly there are broader uses of the term "officer" in other situations. Any person who has an "office", such as the president, can clearly be described as an "officer". But those broader uses may not be relevant, the legal question is what does it mean in this specific context. The people the amendment was originally aimed at generally had appointed roles, ie in the Confederate army, and the amendment was about preventing such people later standing for office.

I agree the contrast between being on the ballot vs allowed to take up office is clearly an important one.

And I very much agree that the ""Hello, I'm a Trump appointed supreme court judge..." is probably the largest practical issue for the case.

Trump is arguing in court in Georgia that his actions on Jan 6th were under color of office, which means he's protected from state actions. So this argument fails immediately there. Also, precedent here is quite clear: the president is an officer of government.

[dyqik]

It's interesting that nobody seems to know how the unwinding of the Trump corporations will work in practice. They cease to exist in NY but some of the properties they own are in other states (Mar a Lago being the most intriguing).

I assume there's a legal restructuring, with new non NY companies being formed and acquiring the assets. This will surely trigger change of control clauses in all debt issues, requiring refinancing. It's murky whether true asset values cover the debts, particularly if $250 million and a percentage gets taken as fines. The tax consequences are a whole other world of pain, if restructuring crystallises taxable gains.

The court ordered receivers to be appointed (with agreement from both Trump and the state) within 10 days to wind up the organizations. That'll presumably be along the same lines as a state level bankruptcy, and would have a duty to dispel debts first - e.g. by taking the highest bidder for Mar-A-Lago (if it's owned by a NY corp).

[lpm]

But in bankruptcy it would be the banks seizing control, for a property company where there's loads of secured loans. Company can't pay the mortgage and the documentation lays out a clear path of what then happens.

And if it was a drug cartel boss, all assets would be forfeit and the state would assume control.

This seems different. Every one of Trump's assets will have a secured loan attached, from plane to golf course to apartment. Perhaps it depends on each separate loan document, but the best way for banks to protect their interests would be for them to keep Trump ownership - like it or not, Trump is a valuable brand that rakes in money from influencer seekers and gullible fans.

I'm not clear whether Trump's branding arrangements can continue. He gets a nice stream of licence fees.

[dyqik]

Some details are here: https://themessenger.com/politics/new-y ... itia-james

The main top-level holding organizations are being closed down, and are already enjoined from transferring assets to other Trump owned organizations. That would likely include branding deals.

[IvanV]

Some details are here: https://themessenger.com/politics/new-y ... itia-james

The main top-level holding organizations are being closed down, and are already enjoined from transferring assets to other Trump owned organizations. That would likely include branding deals.

But not quite immediately. It says he has got 10 days during which he could potentially get an appellate court to order a suspension of the closures, presumably pending a fuller trial of an appeal against the judgement. They are already in court today making pre-trial arrangements to see if a court will grant that.

I note that the judge fined Trump's lawyers for reintroducing arguments he had already ruled as frivolous. A power judges don't have in Britain. But doesn't sound like the lawyers had much of a solid defence if they were resorting to that. The amount of the fines are small sums for such lawyers.

[dyqik]

Some details are here: https://themessenger.com/politics/new-y ... itia-james

The main top-level holding organizations are being closed down, and are already enjoined from transferring assets to other Trump owned organizations. That would likely include branding deals.

But not quite immediately. It says he has got 10 days during which he could potentially get an appellate court to order a suspension of the closures, presumably pending a fuller trial of an appeal against the judgement. They are already in court today making pre-trial arrangements to see if a court will grant that.

I note that the judge fined Trump's lawyers for reintroducing arguments he had already ruled as frivolous. A power judges don't have in Britain. But doesn't sound like the lawyers had much of a solid defence if they were resorting to that. The amount of the fines are small sums for such lawyers.

The appeal court had already rejected those arguments that the attorneys brought back, which is why they were fined. I think we can expect any appeal to fail, because otherwise they'd already have made an argument that the appeals court hasn't rejected.

[lpm]

The appeal court only deals with law issues. It cannot change factual conclusions, i.e. that fraud was committed. There's very little room for disputes about the law.

[IvanV]

Engoron has extended the 10 days to 30 days to appoint receivers, I suppose in an attempt to cut off an application for delay that was surely coming. Engoron must still clarify what exactly the receivers will do - liquidate or continue the businesses. He says that detailed rulings on that will come in due course, but we don't have a date for it.

Today Trump's lawyers will be in the appeal court trying to the get the Oct 2 trial (mentioned above) delayed. The lawyers also say they will be attempting to appeal Engoron's judgment already made, and now have rather longer to try and achieve that. People above have said that's hopeless, but it seems they can still try, and I guess they will carry on trying until all opportunities are closed off.

These are amazing rulings. But the thing I know about the law is you can never be sure what exactly will happen until every potential for further litigation on every material point is over.

[Speculative waffle]It does rather remind me of the recent coincidence in timing between the £100m alimony case concerning Sir Frederick Barclay, which recently ended in London, and the lenders pulling the plug on the Barclay family businesses (Daily Telegraph, Yodel, Ritz, etc). FB's ex-wife was owed a £100m divorce settlement, on the grounds that FB is rich as Croesus. Even though she was willing to settle for a much smaller sum, like £10m, the Barclays seemed to be unable to raise even that, despite repeatedly in court saying it was coming later today. Maybe the lenders got the message from this that the businesses were in a mess, nothing there to support the original £100m award, and so pulled the plug. Maybe we'll now see Trump's lenders pulling the plug on similar grounds, and that might be even more spectacular than the direct consequences of the ruling itself.[/Speculative waffle]

[dyqik]

[Speculative waffle]It does rather remind me of the recent coincidence in timing between the £100m alimony case concerning Sir Frederick Barclay, which recently ended in London, and the lenders pulling the plug on the Barclay family businesses (Daily Telegraph, Yodel, Ritz, etc). FB's ex-wife was owed a £100m divorce settlement, on the grounds that FB is rich as Croesus. Even though she was willing to settle for a much smaller sum, like £10m, the Barclays seemed to be unable to raise even that, despite repeatedly in court saying it was coming later today. Maybe the lenders got the message from this that the businesses were in a mess, nothing there to support the original £100m award, and so pulled the plug. Maybe we'll now see Trump's lenders pulling the plug on similar grounds, and that might be even more spectacular than the direct consequences of the ruling itself.[/Speculative waffle]

A lot of Trump's own assessment of his business assets is based on the idea that people will pay to have his name on their business. That's a very open question when he's been found liable for fraud, and many of the lenders risk assessment will be based on Trump's name continuing to have value outside of selling supplements to radicalized MAGAs.

[dyqik]

The appeals court in NY says to go ahead with the rest of Trump's civil fraud trial next week:

https://x.com/KlasfeldReports/status/17 ... 53792?s=20

[lpm]

Terrible judge in the fraud case.

He's denied TV cameras in court. Bastard.

[lpm]

Trump's defense:

"My financial statements are phenomenal" - true enough

"When you take a look at the financial statement, don't believe anything you read" - also true.

And I thought he would lie throughout. That's me proved wrong.

[monkey]

Trump's defense:

"My financial statements are phenomenal" - true enough

"When you take a look at the financial statement, don't believe anything you read" - also true.

And I thought he would lie throughout. That's me proved wrong.

He also accused Letitia James, the NY Attorney General, of being CORRUBPT & RACIST.

I would like to see his lawyers try to use these arguments in court. I think it would be possible that they wouldn't be lawyers for very long after.

[Grumble]

Terrible judge in the fraud case.

He's denied TV cameras in court. Bastard.

Are we going to have to follow along with Adam Klasfeld for the whole thing?