You said he will appeal his $450 million civil fraud trial and win, but most of what you said here does even have to do with that case.
1. We have Fani Willis2. We have this little prck filing lawsuits* 4. Kevin O'Leary condemns the ruling
You realize these people have nothing to do with this case right?
What do you think of the actual evidence of inflating values by 10x to 20x and that there were multiple findings - "Trump and his co-defendants committed fraud with his financial statements, found Trump liable on five of the six remaining claims in James’ lawsuit: falsifying business records, issuing false financial statements, conspiracy to commit insurance fraud and conspiracy to falsify business records."
You seem to write with talking points that just repeat the same claims over and over, but there was a real trial with real evidence that you are ignoring.
On a related note, look at the kinds of people who are going after Trump:
1. We have Fani Willis and her little boyfriend in Georgia using cash she pulled out of her campaign to evade accountability (that's a felony).
2. We have this little pr*ck filing lawsuits in every state to have Trump removed from their ballots, being arrested and charged with filing 17 sets of false tax documents to the IRS. [https://twitter.com/rickydoggin/status/1759623388509929853]
3. We have Letitia James whose sole campaign promise was to "get Trump at any cost" -- seems like they're willing to make up anything for a political win, even if it's a complete lie. Can't trust someone whose mission is clearly a witch hunt. Integrity doesn't matter to them.
...and they want to insinuate that Trump is corrupt? Talk about hypocrisy.
These are the people who are entrusted with "getting Trump", seriously? This should ruin your trust in anyone going after Trump and increase your scrutiny towards those who (apparently) have no integrity or basis for going after this guy. This is why conservatives rightly have a strong argument against this witch hunt, any why they feel justified in continuing to support Trump.
Find us someone whose record is clean, and then we can talk.
Many cases did end up in the lower courts and Trump lost. Guliani even said in court that this is not a fraud case even though on TV he says its fraud.
Even Trump appointed Supreme court judges rejected the case because there is nothing there.
Right, that was a case that didn't even state a claim that could be addressed. If your case lacks standing then there is literally no evidence for it that could work.
What they were doing there, of course, was trying to use SCOTUS to relitigate claims that had already been shot down in state courts.
That all of the fraud stuff is bullshit should have been obvious from soon after the beginning. The claim of fraud was made, but the evidence to justify the claims was a constantly revolving circus of nonsense. It shows they reached the position that fraud must have occurred not because they had evidence of fraud, but because they didn't like the result.
I like how the courts have treated Trump so brutally. His thing is complete disregard of facts or reason. The courts are the polar opposite of that, so of course he failed utterly there. His normal modus operandi of dishonesty is something judges are there to destroy.
First, the thing you linked calling a judgement is not a judgement. It's a filing by Trump's team.
The affidavits are smoke and mirrors. There is no reason to believe what is in them is true - the point of the case is that the plaintiff has to demonstrate they are true, and this was not done. In fact, so many of the Trump lawsuits were ridiculous, that Trump and co dropped them right as they were about to reach trial.
The particular case you list has all filed documents here [1]. The entire court hearing is archived on C-SPAN here [2].
>This is in direct contradiction to the affidavits that were provided
Affidavits are not fact. Repeat that to yourself until you get it. Affidavits are not fact. Stop believing them simply because they sound good to you.
If you honestly listened to the court case, you'd recall, as is clear on the C-SPAN recordings I linked, that this affidavit was hearsay, and inadmissible as evidence for this type of action. This is law 101. This is precisely why affidavits are not fact - they must be demonstrated. It's trivial in a nation of 320 million people to find a person willing to sign an affidavit for anything. However that does not make unicorns real nor does it overturn an election.
Hearsay has no bearing on a case requesting this outcome. The judge was even very, very lenient on asking over and over why this was not simply hearsay, and the lawyers kept trying to avoid answering, and they wobbled all over the place. It's actually embarrassing to have to watch them get caught with their pants down.
This is also why so many reputable lawyers dropped out of this on Trump's side - his requests are nonsense, and will eventually get lawyers disbarred for such a joke. Those firms know they want business in the future and cannot professionally afford to blow up their firms for this nonsense.
From a scan of the testimony, the judge in MI ruled well - Trump demonstrated zero fraud. If he wants to disenfranchise voters he needs to demonstrate actual fraud, not cry and tout conspiracies.
Now, if there was large scale fraud, Trump could easily prove it (I'll explain how researchers can check there is no widespread fraud in a moment). Trump also knows this, but his followers apparently are too dumb to do so.
Every state has a list of who voted; some states make the list public. All states provide the lists for researchers and groups like Trump's team.
If you claim there is, say, 5% fraud somewhere, get that list, sample say 500 people randomly on the list, send pollsters out to make those people voted. If 5% of votes are not real people, then you'd expect 25 people on your list to not exist, or similarly.
Trump has already tried this - you can tell because his team keeps releasing names of people they claim are dead but voted, and so far in each case the media has located the actual person and shown Trump wrong. So out of the tens millions of votes they have looked into, just like researchers do, they have found at most a few cases they questioned.
How do you think they get those names? They do exactly this, see there is no demonstrable fraud, then launch this 3rd rate legal circus, which is solely designed to grift money from gullible rubes.
So far that has worked to the tune of about $200M, enough to help Trump with his legal problems once out of the Whitehouse.
So - stop posting this goofy crap - it has no bearing on reality, and that has been demonstrated over 50 times around the US so far.
Trump's lawyers knew this, but brought it anyways for the theatre of it all.
This is not the action of a man who wants to win and has evidence. This is a con man running up support to raise money from his rubes WITH ALL CAPS PLEAS FOR HELP, only to take their donations and pocketing them.
The article linked by OP is an indictment not a verdict.
The punishment for the crimes he's accused of has so far been none. If he's found guilty then a verdict will be issued with a punishment and sure that should depend on what he was convicted of.
But to claim that Trump's punishment for falsifying business records is not proportional to the amount of damage done is premature.
In general, courts would rather you do 34 claims rather than 34 lawsuits.
My position, is that Trump has indeed failed to prove fraud.
But I do think that Trump has collected a preponderance of evidence that election laws were broken. Many affidavits have been provided that substantiate this.
> Hearsay has no bearing on a case requesting this outcome. The judge was even very, very lenient on asking over and over why this was not simply hearsay, and the lawyers kept trying to avoid answering, and they wobbled all over the place.
I can't speak to why Trump's legal team hasn't deposed more witnesses and gotten more sworn testimony. On this I am in complete agreement, it seems negligent. I can only speak to the evidence I have heard, and my reaction to it as a person, and not as a lawyer.
From a legal perspective, Trump's case may indeed have no basis. I'm not a lawyer and I don't know.
But I do know that there are hundreds of affidavits alleging that elections laws were broken, and very few people seem to be taking that seriously. Whether Trump wins or loses, I honestly & genuinely do not care (he lost; that horse has left the barn long ago). But I am disturbed by the ease to which people dismiss these claims, given that there is a substantial number of people providing the testimony, they seem to be genuine of character, and for most of them - their claims do seem to have merit (ethical merit, if not legal).
Even if their claims don't have legal merit, they should at least have ethical merit. Regardless of what a person thinks about Trump, there are honest people who are providing honest testimony about wrongdoing - and their claims and the people who give them voice, are dismissed with outright hostility & vitriol.
Yeah; the existence of a court case does not imply even -evidence- that the event occurred, let alone the fact. Trump has filed 1900 lawsuits over the past 3 decades; that's over 63 a year. It's obvious that's his response to any perceived slight, including "not enough people voted for me".
Seems like I was unclear - I'm saying that Trumps lawsuit is frivolous, and is evidence that he is meddling in the election, not that there is actually something suspect being done by the counters.
>>Thrown out due to Laches and lack of standing or lack of injury.
I don't know what "Laches" is? Besides,
>> Evidence was never actually heard in any courtroom
Well, that is a lie, many of his cases were thrown out due to lack of evidence and lack of witnesses willing to actually testify to anything. Guess where does that happen? In a courtroom. Where a judge looks at the case and decides whether to proceed with it or not. So all of these cases had their time in court, to say otherwise is just a lie. You, like many other people, seem to operate under the assumption that you first start a case, everyone gathers and then you present evidence. That's not true, at least not in the US it isn't. Evidence has to be presented when you file to open the case, and since there wasn't any, judges have dismissed the cases. Why would they continue? So they could gather in an empty room listening to...nothing? Evidence can be admitted to the case later, with the permission of a judge, but you can't just start a case with nothing in the first place, which is what Trump and his team were doing.
Well, thanks but I won't, I think people trying to steal an election should be in jail, so my wish for 2021 is that we see trump and his cronies where they need to be - in prison. Either because of the election, or because of his many other crimes, I'm really not going to be fussy about it, he's done enought to spend rest of his life behind bars, attorneys everywhere will have enough to bring him to justice.
>>Trump was just Hindenburg
Hindenburg represented the complete collapse and end of the entire airship industry, it has crashed and burnt and with it the entire trust and reputation these ships had. And it crashed and burnt because people in charge of building them wilfully ignored the dangers of building flying ships filled with explosive gas.
So yeah, I think this is a very apt comparison to trump - just probably not in the way you intend.
> The general point being that they did make and did not withdraw fraud allegations in other cases.
So, here’s a challenge. Find one case where:
(1) Trump or his campaign alleges electoral fraud, and
(2) The case (or specifically the fraud claim, if these are separate) was dismissed other than voluntarily by the plaintiff, and the grounds for that dismissal do not include any that require an evaluation of the merits of the case based on the allegations and proferred evidence. Notably, this means that you can’t include any case/claim dismissed for failure to state a claim, or that was dismissed voluntarily by Trump or his campaign.
Its being a civil case is entirely irrelevant to his financial situation.
The appeal's likely failure is part of why getting to the end of the Truth Social lockup period is so critical to Trump. Anything he can do to delay until then, he will.
Plenty of Trump's properties are within NY; the AG was ready and poised to start seizing. Hard to move Trump Tower out of NYC without someone noticing.
One of Trump’s children perjured themselves to lie about the purposes of a meeting with a Russian lawyer (later proven to be for Clinton dirt), his campaign manager was convicted for laundering money with Russia connected people, an advisor was convicted for coordinating with WikiLeaks, and some lower level campaign staffers were convicted for more improper connections with Russians. There wasn’t enough proof to say whether Trump personally knew about these things, but the alternative where he is clueless isn’t exactly a good look, either.
All of those things were proven in court. Not one of Trump’s barrage of election lawsuits has gained any traction at all. They are very much not the same.
How did you watch the trial when it wasn't televised?
"Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree" is a misdemeanour, a small fine. Which at this point (2016) expired and could not be charged.
The main reason this was resurrected and elevated to a Felony is because of politics. The prosecutor is a Democrat that literally got elected on an "I'll get Trump platform". Which under the American system is fine. But suppose he doesn't get Trump in the end. Should he be charged for defrauding voters? Clearly he raised money off the promise to get Trump.
As far as the judge:
The standard for a judge to recuse themselves is public "perception of bias"
How could the judge not be biased, when he donated to a "Stop Trump" campaign in the past. Which is also contrary to NY ethical guidelines for judges.
His daughter was and is fund raising millions off the trail.
How can the judge's claim no to be biased be taken seriously when his family has a financial interest in the outcome of the trial?
>"INTENT means conscious objective or purpose. Thus, a person acts with intent > to defraud when his or her conscious objective or purpose is to do so"
How could this trial have proved what it charged .. the intent for classifying the NDA as a legal expense was fraudulent (that it was really a campaign contribution). When there's a gap of a year between the time Trump got elected, and the classification happened. Trump got elected in 2016. Accountant classified it as a legal expense in 2017. How could the act of misclassifying be the campaign contribution (the fraudulent act), when it happened post election?
Without mind reading, how exactly did they manage to prove that NDA was a camping contribution and not simply to spare his spouse embarrassment from an affair from being publicly alleged ?
How can this be a fair trial when the judged allowed the prosecution to state that it is a fact that the payments constituted an unlawful financial contribution, yet simultaneously denied Trump the opportunity to present his expert campaign finance witness, that would have countered those claims. The jury makes decisions based on the evidence they get to hear. Yet the judge allowed only one side to be presented.
Finally, A conflicted judge will jail a former President based on a convoluted crime that requires two parts, with the second part ambiguous intent to commit X crime, and some aspect of mind reading and time travel.
Doesn't seem like most Americans are on board with this. This is bouncing Trump's poll numbers.
The people that want to get "Trump" are not stupid, so this just must be part A of a bigger plan ...so what is the next phase of their plan to prevent the public from electing Trump in a Democracy? I'm waiting to see.
Incorrect, read some of the cases. Quite a few were dismissed on the merits. Literally your own link says “YES” in the Decided on Merits column! Did you not read your link?
Some of the later cases were not decided on merits because they were filed so late (e.g., suing over a change suggested by Republicans used in the 2016 Wisconsin election to fill in missing zip codes and then used again in 2020, or a change passed by Republican legislators in 2019 and promoted by them to the public in 2020 in Pennsylvania, and only complained about after Biden won).
However, some courts did reach the merits and found the claims of Trump campaign and his allies to be completely meritless. Note that Giuliani and his associates, when under oath in court, stated their cases were not fraud cases but then went to press conferences and claimed they were.
> Judge Matthew Brann of the US District Court in the Middle District of Pennsylvania called the Trump campaign's case "Frankenstein's monster" for its poorly stitched together legal theories.
>
> On Friday, a federal appeals court dealt the Trump campaign's effort another blow, with a Trump-appointed judge writing in a scathing opinion that the campaign's lawsuit lacked proof and that its allegations in Pennsylvania "have no merit."
> You can dispute whatever you want, but by every legal process, your "dispute" has been settled. When does it end?
The Constitution sets no statute of limitation under the First Amendment to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
> That's of course ignoring the fact that Republicans actually gained seats in the house,...
How often do you think this happens? That a president will gain seats in Congress and still lose re-election?
> Fact is, at some point (now) your claims of "dispute" are no longer worth entertaining.
Are you not entertained?
> Literally have not had a single victory in court (but over 60 losses). These cases are being thrown out by Republican judges, judges appointed by Trump even. What is your standard of evidence?
Almost all of these court cases were dismissed for procedure, jurisdiction or standing reasons and not for the merits of the case. Is that your evidence? [0]
But since you asked, here's an exhaustive compilation. [1]
1. We have Fani Willis 2. We have this little prck filing lawsuits* 4. Kevin O'Leary condemns the ruling
You realize these people have nothing to do with this case right?
What do you think of the actual evidence of inflating values by 10x to 20x and that there were multiple findings - "Trump and his co-defendants committed fraud with his financial statements, found Trump liable on five of the six remaining claims in James’ lawsuit: falsifying business records, issuing false financial statements, conspiracy to commit insurance fraud and conspiracy to falsify business records."
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/inside-donald-trumps-355...
You seem to write with talking points that just repeat the same claims over and over, but there was a real trial with real evidence that you are ignoring.
reply