More judges like this please.
So, golfers, hotel customers, diners… you can personally sue Donald. Do it. He’s got a lot of money.
The days of doing whatever he wants are coming to an end.
"Trump’s attorneys have insisted that he was acting in his “individual capacity” when he appeared at campaign events carrying foundation checks, and therefore was not violating a ban on charities engaging in political activity.
But to make that legal argument, Trump would have had to avoid making “partisan statements” at these public appearances. Instead, he appeared at a MAGA-festooned podium, boasted about how the events could boost his political performance, and mocked his Republican primary opponents.
As Scarpulla wrote, Trump’s quotes from the fundraiser and subsequent rallies “show that Mr. Trump was acting in both of his capacities as campaign candidate and president of the Foundation.”
Not sure who is worse here a client who cannot keep his mouth shut or his attorneys for thinking no would notice their client can’t keep his mouth shut. Then again it warms the cockles of my heart to think Donny is about to smacked and smacked hard.
The GOP is going to rue the day they decided going after Bill Clinton was a good idea. They set all kinds of precedents that will likely hurt Trump but did not hurt Clinton. They paved the way for this lawsuit bless their hearts. Judge ain’t fucking around either.
Thank you Judge Scapula and thank you Allegra for a great article.
I don’t think Trump has to worry about Eric Schneiderman. He really, really has to worry about Barbara Underwood. She is a NY version of Mueller.
Pretty much. They don’t get what a double edged sword is
One of the things that drives me crazy about some MSM types is their instance that because Clinton thrived after his scandal and impeachment, PP will too. They claim that since Clinton and even Reagan were stronger after the opposing party went after them PP will probably be stronger as well. They don’t get it. Those guys were normal, likable, respected presidents who enjoyed high approval ratings when things were going well. Has PP cracked 50% since his first week? Plus, the thing with PP is that his scandals are personal, political, and potentially treasonous. A man in the mid-90’s lying about sexual favors just isn’t the same as obstruction of justice or working with our country’s enemies in order to get elected. This is different on numerous levels, and yet so many act like it’s all the same.
Karma.
I’m no lawyer, but the arguments put forth by Trump’s attorneys
read like the sort of logic a fifth-grader uses to avoid being grounded by his parents. It feels like the judge didn’t have to work up a sweat responding.
I wonder if she chuckled over their arguments.
Crooked is as crooked does…
Hope the Grifter in Chief gets fined $75 million or so…
That is realistically all that we can expect…
If the facts alleged are bulletproof enough (and most of these are directly supported by video), then the only thing left is to argue that they don’t constitute a violation, or that the court doesn’t have jurisdiction.
I wonder what the financial benefit number is. Probably just the amount that the foundation effectively gave to the campaign. Because breaking the law to become president has ultimately reduced trump’s net worth.
Actually Regan was never that popular. He crossed 50 at times but was largely a myth. He escaped his due to to political cover while Clinton received political trouncing. The big difference in Clinton vs Trump is Trump has committed serious wrongs. He deserves to be looked at and probably prosecuted. Clinton did not. Nor did his wife.
There are 2 major questions presented here. (1) Can a sitting US president be sued for a civil matter unrelated to his public duties? and (2) can a state court of general jurisdiction exercise jurisdiction over a sitting president in a civil matter? The former question was clearly answered in the Clinton v. Jones case: yes. The second question is much more problematic.
There are major federalism concerns implicated by the second question. Can the president of the United States, the chief executive of the federal government, be haled into a state court to answer a lawsuit for money damages? On the one hand, federalism cautions that the federal government should not employ too heavy of a hand preventing a state court from vindicating the rights of its citizens. On the other hand, a state should not have the power to influence the actions of the federal executive by holding the prospects of a crippling civil judgment over his head. There is a delicate balance to be struck here. The judge here, in addressing only the question of the state court’s competence to decide NY state trust law issues, misses the point. Of course the NY trial court would be perfectly capable of applying NY trust law. But that’s not the issue.
If the NY appellate courts find the exercise of state jurisdiction improper, I do not know what the remedy for the state would be. The lawsuit raises questions of only state law, so 28 USC 1331 would not act to provide jurisdiction. Donald Trump is a citizen of New York, so 28 USC 1332 would not apply to grant jurisdiction. Clinton v. Jones says a federal court can hear a civil suit against a president (Jones sued under a federal civil rights statute - 42 USC 1983), but Jones had a federal statute to get her into federal court. I don’t know what the state’s route here would be to get into the SDNY.
Bear in mind that she leaves office in five weeks.
Trump will be offering a followup book called “The Art of the Plea Deal” for a contribution to his GoFundMe defense fund.
The true irony in all this is it was Kellyanne Conway’ husband George who was Paula Jones’ attorney.
Imagine for a moment that it isn’t The President of the United States we’re talking about, but just a sleazy, two-bit grifter who was gifted a few hundred million dollars by daddy to kickoff his own ‘empire’.
This huckster starts a “charity” which he then uses to pay off his own debts, get expensive portraits of himself painted, and further his personal PR campaigns (to further enrich himself).
The state law in question has a penalty of “twice the amount involved”, but no actual criminal liability?
Why wouldn’t the above individual also be subject to criminal liability? Is that the part that needs to be “federal”, and which Trump is shielded from?
Could criminal charges be brought, say, 6 years from now after he finishes his potential second term?
Will Trump be arrested (and rot in jail for the rest of his life) the moment he steps out of the White House as a regular citizen once again? Or will he be somehow shielded now for all the grifting he’s been doing the past few decades?