New York Judge Sets Trump’s ‘Hush Money’ Trial to Start on April 15
The judge also gave Trump’s team a chance “to file a motion seeking to delay the trial based on pre-trial publicity concerns.”
New York Judge Juan M. Merchan announced that former President Donald Trump’s hush money trial will start on April 15. It had been delayed due to the defense receiving thousands of documents containing new evidence.
But Merchan also gave Trump’s team a chance “to file a motion seeking to delay the trial based on pre-trial publicity concerns.”
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has one week to respond.
“This was a case that could have been brought three-and-a-half years ago and they decided to wait now, just during the election, so that I won’t be able to campaign,” Trump said after the ruling.
PRESIDENT TRUMP:
"This is a pure case of VOTER INTIMIDATION and ELECTION INTERFERENCE — and it shouldn't be allowed to happen." pic.twitter.com/uSH3Eic4ku
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) March 25, 2024
A Manhattan grand jury indicted Trump on 34 counts of falsifying business records.
DA Alvin Bragg inherited the case when he came into office in 2022 but suspended it. Then, he brought it back when Trump announced his 2024 presidential campaign.
It sure sounds like Trump might have a point about it being political.
Supposedly, Trump paid Stormy Daniels $130,000 to keep quiet about an alleged affair. His former lawyer, Michael Cohen, said he set it up and paid it out of his pocket, and the Trump Organization paid him back as “legal expenses.”
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
NY is a sh!thole state
It’s doubtful that President Trump could receive a fair trial in NYC, Washington, DC, or Atlanta. The jury pools in those cities are more than likely influenced by animosity and are probably full-metal jacket, Trump-hating Democrats whose minds have been affected by 24/7 negative pre-trial publicity.
Heated, yet boring, accounting debates ahead on this one.
It would be fun to systematically undermine New York, but had to do a better job than they are doing.
As we can look back at the Declaration of Independence, NY abstained claiming waiting for “instructions”. While their delegates waited, the British moved into New York. At least they didn’t vote “no” which would probably happen today with “instructions” from BHO and WEF. The other hold out till the end was Maryland. Nothing has changed there.
Two liberal shitholes, to be sure.
The only “hush” here is the Democrats’ effort to silence Trump and take him out of the election.
I am sure Stormy cleared her mouth of obstruction so she could speak more clearly.
So that would be Trump’s stumpy little shriveled penis?
We all figured you would know.
The article is about Trump, not the size of your inadequate equipment, dingus.
Madoff bond was like 10 M and he screwed people. Trump current bond is 14 times that. It is sure messed up.
Madoff’s bond was for release from jail BEFORE trial.
Trump’s bond is for hundreds of millions in disgorgement AFTER (bench) trial.
Comparing the two makes you look foolish.
There was no trial.
There was a summary judgement.
“this Court granted plaintiff summary judgment ONLY ON LIABILITY AND ONLY ON THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION.” (emphasis added)
“The ELEVEN-WEEK TRIAL of this action addressed whether defendants are liable pursuant to the SECOND THROUGH SEVENTH causes of action” (emphasis added)
You simply have no clue what you’re talking about.
You need to look into the particulars that you might understand how that worked.
Please enlighten me about these “particulars”.
What Democrats actually detest here is that two ADULTS had CONSENSUAL sex. If it doesn’t involve a child or forcing it on a vulnerable woman then Democrat ain’t interested 😂
Hey is that you judge Engonon?
Are you sure about that? Even “if” he was guilty, the fines are in direct conflict of the 14th Amendment and entitles proper due process in support of the 8th. I think that is based on the Magna Carta!
So pretend all u want that the disgorgement is just, we will see who is being foolish here.
“Excessive fines” and bonds are called out for a reason in the 8th and Trump is obviously being abused by lawfare.
Time for the Constitution to be used correctly.
This comment was meant for GravityOpera
You caught me.
Just between the two of us I messed up when calculating the disgorgement. As you know from actually reading my decision (instead of listening to those full of false knowledge) Deutsche Bank relied on Trump’s fraudulent SOFCs and offered terms at LIBOR + 8% for a collateral only loan or LIBOR + 4% with a personal guarantee. I calculated the disgorgement by using the 4 percentage points difference. This begs the question “Would Deutsche Bank have offered LIBOR + 8% for a collateral only loan if they knew the SOFCs were false?” Of course not; they would jack up the interest rate. This error means Trump’s illicit profit was hundreds of millions more than I calculated.
There has been due process and in order to state the disgorgements are excessive you’d have to have an argument against the calculations used in order to prove that. You don’t get to just assert excessiveness.
Due process has not been executed here. Anyone that has been in a protracted law suit knows how much of a bs case this is. It is a bright spot light on how bad our legal system is and its abuses are. Pretend all u want that it is fair. Long term it will not be good.
Due process clearly has and is present here. It clearly isn’t a bs case given the publicly available facts which you seem to be distinctly unaware of.
“There has been due process”
Summary judgement is not ‘due process’
You caught me.
Just between the two of us I messed up when calculating the disgorgement. As you know from actually reading my decision (instead of listening to those full of false knowledge) Deutsche Bank relied on Trump’s fraudulent SOFCs and offered terms at LIBOR + 8% for a collateral only loan or LIBOR + 4% with a personal guarantee. I calculated the disgorgement by using the 4 percentage points difference. This begs the question “Would Deutsche Bank have offered LIBOR + 8% for a collateral only loan if they knew the SOFCs were false?” Of course not; they would jack up the interest rate. This error means Trump’s illicit profit was hundreds of millions more than I calculated.
Both this case, the so-called defamation case, and the business loan case, all came out of alterations in New York law to allow these cases to be brought, when otherwise they could not have been brought.
All were aimed precisely at Mr. Trump.
At a federal level these would be clearly ‘bills of attainder’, strictly prohibited by the Constitution (and for good reason). I don’t know if New York as a prohibition; if it does it hasn’t been invoked.
So my question for the lawyers at LI: is it time for the Constitutional prohibition against a bill of attainder to be incorporated (via the 14A, Section 1) against the states? One could fairly claim that Mr. Trump is not being afforded the equal protection of the law.
Milhouse will be here shortly to tell us how these decisions are right and proper, and that there is nothing that prevents the prosecution from doing this.
BarkE will be here to regale us with his knowledge of how Trump broke every law in the books and will spend the rest of his days in jail.
JR will quickly come on board and tell us that because Bragg, James, and the trollop in Georgia are black, any discussion about the facts are RAY-CISSSSSSS!
Bruh, spoiler alerts.
Backed up by his intellectual Midget midwits JR and Barte 😂
The Constitution forbids bills of attainder to the states as well as the federal government.
Section 10: Powers Denied to the States
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
The case you incorrectly call the “business loan case” is based on Executive law 63(12) which has been on the books for decades.
How many people have been prosecuted under the “business loan case,” ever?
None.
Tell me you’re a political hack without telling me you’re a political hack.
NY Executive Law § 63(12) has been used in many high-profile prosecutions, but none that were anything like this one. Its use in this case is innovative and disgraceful. However, even if this were the very first time it had ever been used, that would not make it a bill of attainder. It was passed when Trump was ten, so it can’t possibly have been intended for use against him.
Like clockwork–
“AF_Chief_Master_Sgt in reply to stevewhitemd. | March 25, 2024 at 2:35 pm
Milhouse will be here shortly to tell us how these decisions are right and proper, and that there is nothing that prevents the prosecution from doing this.”
Like clockwork from Hell, the demonic liar spews forth. Doesn’t even bother defending the lies, because he doesn’t even recognize the concept of truth and falsehood. All that matters is whose ox is gored.
Go back to Hell, Azathoth. Now.
Be nice to the judge.
Thank you.
Somebody’s gotta be first.
That is just not true. There was no change of law regarding this case or the business loan case, nor regarding the defamation case. There was a change of law which allowed Carroll to sue him not just for defamation but also for the alleged sexual attack, but even that change was absolutely not aimed at Trump, and does not even remotely fit any definition of a bill of attainder.
Like clockwork–
“AF_Chief_Master_Sgt in reply to stevewhitemd. | March 25, 2024 at 2:35 pm
Milhouse will be here shortly to tell us how these decisions are right and proper, and that there is nothing that prevents the prosecution from doing this.”
And like clockwork the demon is here to defend another outright falsehood. It doesn’t even bother denying that it is a falsehood, it merely attacks me for daring to point this out. Because falsehoods that help Trump should not be pointed out; fair is foul and foul is fair.
What, Democrat, does ‘novel interpretation’ mean to you?
It means “not legislation”, and therefore not a bill of attainder.
Your claim that these are bills of attainder is baseless, the laws haven’t been brought in post event to fit the crime, they are existing laws that Trump broke and pretty clearly so
A judge from Bogota Colombia will preside over a criminal trial to determine if money legally paid to a stripper should have been categorized as campaign spending. As each day passes, the charades become increasingly unbelievable.
What the **** difference does it make where he was born? He’s every bit as American as you, or as Trump, and there’s no reason at all why he should not preside over such a trial. If there is a non-racist interpretation of your comment I’m not seeing it.
Chutkan was born in Jamaica so there seems to be a pattern emerging
What pattern? A lot of Americans were born abroad, so it stands to reason that a lot of judges were too. There’s no reason being born abroad would prevent someone from becoming a lawyer, and then a judge. There’s nothing wrong with being born abroad, it’s not a disability to any position except president or vice president.
Tanya Chutkan is a documented racist who blames all her problems in life on white people.
Maybe so. But even if true, what’s that got to do with her having been born abroad, let alone with Marchan having been born abroad, in a completely different country? What non-racist explanation can you give for E. Howard Hunt’s comment?
If Trump’s lawyers had any pit bull in them, the would call Stormy as a witness and have her read her statement denying the affair ever happened:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/porn-star-stormy-daniels-says-affair-with-trump-never-happened/2018/01/30/d8d5fcea-0633-11e8-b48c-b07fea957bd5_story.html
“The fact of the matter is that each party to this alleged affair denied its existence in 2006, 2011, 2016, 2017 and now again in 2018,” the signed statement reads. “I am not denying this affair because I was paid ‘hush money’ as has been reported in overseas owned tabloids. I am denying it because it never happened.”
Stormy daniels issues statements after stating that this statement was fake so if she goes on the stand this wont be much of a point.
Huh? How can anyone be this stupid? She made that statement. Now she’s saying the opposite. All that shows is that she can’t be trusted. Making her read that statement on the stand demolishes her as a witness.
No she explicitly claimed that she did not make that statement, and corrected the record afterwards. That hardly demolishes her as a witness. Especially in context of Trump who is frankly someone of nil credibility on the stand.
No, she has never denied making that statement. She later recanted it. So what? What makes her recantation more credible than the original statement? All it means is that her testimony is worthless and the jury should be instructed not to take it into account.
NYC,next time you get hit like 9-11
lose the rest of the country’s phone number
in other words, FOAD
Oops, I misclicked and meant to hit thumbs up. NYC should FOAD for inflicting Trump on the country.
You must be from Delaware.
Trump obviously can’t get a fair trial in Manhattan. The absolute best he could hope for is a hung jury. But, the more likely outcome is a conviction if the trial is allowed to move forward…and right now, it looks like it will be allowed to move forward. I have no idea exactly how a conviction on this case will impact the polls…and I suspect no one else does either. If it’s not successful in turning Biden’s fortunes around, I can’t even begin to imagine what they’ll do next. But, I definitely know they’ll do something next.
A State charging a Federal law without a concomitant statute. That does not fly. Period.
If it did, then AZ would have won its illegal alien case a number of years ago.
It’s not a federal law. It’s a state law, but the case relies on a federal crime as a predicate. It could even be a foreign crime, it would still work. State courts are entitled to decide, purely as a matter of fact, whether someone has committed a federal crime, a crime in some other state, a foreign crime, or any other act that is relevant. Likewise a state court can decide whether someone is an illegal immigrant, if that is relevant to some matter of state law. That would not get the person deported.
This is ridiculous–
Like clockwork–
“AF_Chief_Master_Sgt in reply to stevewhitemd. | March 25, 2024 at 2:35 pm
Milhouse will be here shortly to tell us how these decisions are right and proper, and that there is nothing that prevents the prosecution from doing this.”
Like clockwork you show up to defend lies. Go back to Hell.
In worst case, if true, it is a misdemeanor, which it is not. The whole thing is an embaresment to our legal system.
No, it isn’t. It’s a felony.
It was twisted in to a Felony. It is pure BS. Barnes take on it is pretty good.
He is charged with a felony. Either he’s guilty of it, or he isn’t. I think he isn’t. But in neither case is it a misdemeanor. The law explicitly says it’s a felony.
And what is the felony charge?
Bragg’s case hinges on the allegation that the crime of falsifying business records — bookkeeping fraud — was done in the commission of another crime, a campaign finance violation, The New York Times reported in March. The Times reported the charge would amount to a “low level” felony.
The campaign charge failed with Smith. It is fed law not state law. Very weak and bending of the law to make a charge. Total bs.
Which doesn’t justify your claim that “In worst case, if true, it is a misdemeanor”. That is just an outright falsehood. If true then it is a felony. You are entitled to believe, as I do, that it is not true, and he is innocent. Or you are entitled to believe that it is true, and it’s therefore a felony. But you are not entitled to believe that if true it’s a misdemeanor, because the law says explicitly that its a felony.
Gods above.
Milhouse, in order for that ‘low level felony’ to exist it HAS to be connected to another crime. That’s when the action BECOMES a low level felony.
When asked to elaborate on what that other crime was, the one that this crime needs in order to Be a crime at all, Bragg said he was under no obligation to say.
He wasn’t under obligation to say at that time. He did say later. The “other crime” that makes this crime (if true) a felony is a federal crime that he alleges Trump committed. He’ll have to prove that at trial, as well as proving that Trump committed this crime to cover that one up.
None of that changes the fact that he’s not charged with the other crime, and this crime with which he is charged is a felony. He’s either guilty or not guilty, but either way it is not a misdemeanor.
It’s not a crime, Democrat.
The ‘crime’ Bragg is charging him with is having done something to cover up another crime that Trump was at least charged with.
But there is no federal crime that Trump could have been charged with that this action would be covering up.
This is another ‘novel interpretation’.
Another lie. There is no requirement that the defendant has been charged with the other crime, or even that he could be. The other crime can even be in another country. All that matters is that he committed that other crime, which is something the prosecution has to prove to the jury beyond reasonable doubt.
He is not guilty of a campaign felony and the state can’t charge him with it. At worst, it would be a booking keeping misdemeanor. Let’s keep the pretend game going.
I don’t think he’s guilty either, but the state can certainly charge him with it, and if he is guilty then it’s a felony. The statute explicitly says so.