Legal experts: Trump's unhinged attack on judge in court shows he "realizes he's going to lose"
Legal experts: Trump's unhinged attack on judge in court shows he "realizes he's going to lose"
Trump's attacks threaten to "tank his ability to prevail at all in this legal proceeding," ex-Bush official warns.
You're viewing a single thread.
What are the chances of jail time? White collar crime like this effects way more people than petty theft, but I'm thinking at most it'll be a hefty fine. Again, like on most topics, I'm pretty ignorant of the reality of the situation.
It's a civil case, which means no jail time should he be convicted. It will just be a fine.
That said, it's possible the verbal attacks against those involved lead to...something. I wouldn't hold your breath though.
It is also possible to plead the fifth as a defendant in a civil trial, however, a jury (or the judge, in this case) can make "adverse inferences" from that in civil court.
In a criminal case, a defendant who takes the stand has waived their fifth amendment rights. That's why you don't hear defendants on the stand in court saying "Fifth, fifth, fifth." A defendant retains their fifth amendment rights in a criminal trial by refusing to take the stand - as is their right.
What I'm not sure of is whether that also applies in a civil case. Unlike in a criminal trial, in civil court, the plaintiff can call the defendant to the stand. I don't know if that obliges the defendant to take the stand or not. Also, in civil court, a defendant can only plead the fifth if answering the question could implicate them in criminal matters. The civil matter at hand, all by itself, cannot be "fifthed out of;" if a defendant is on the stand, they must answer questions in relation to the case, again, so long as the answers could not implicate them in crimes.
We know that Trump is on the plaintiff's witness list. If plaintiff calls Trump to the stand in his civil case, is he obliged to go on the stand? I think he is, because fifth amendment protections do not extend to civil litigation. Then he could plead the fifth if the answer to the specific question posed implicates him in a crime. If that happens, there would surely be a motion from plaintiff's attorneys for the court to rule on whether fifth amendment protections extend to that question.
But this is a bench trial, where the judge is going to decide the outcome of the case. It would be completely reasonable for the defense to want a different judge to make that fifth amendment call; having the current bench learn about the potential answers to the question of fifth amendment protection would obviously tend to influence the very same bench who is responsible for deciding the case.
I have no idea what's going to come of all this.
I would always prefer holding other people’s breath over my own.
Unfortunately, this case, in a legal sense, is against his corporation, not him.
It's ruling will likely result in the dissolution of said corporation and the barring of Trump doing business in NYC, just like a similar case did with his charities, from which he stole.
That's the annoying thing with how corporations are handled in the US.
What Trump did in the charity and this case is criminal fraud. But because it was all nicely wrapped in the form of some corporate entity, it's a civil case. That shit is fucked up.
At this point I think I'd be okay with house arrest. Just confining his remaining years on Earth to Mar-a-lago would do wonders for the health of the world.
Gotta cut off his internet access, too.
Give him fake social media with AI that trolls and insults him.
AI is too expensive. Just a bot that says "beep boop, you're a loser".
Give him a cell phone that only gets 1 bar in a single room... if he stands on a dresser and reaches out at a weird angle.
He may also lose properties, to be sold to pay for the fines.
It's a civil trial. The court won't forcibly take anything from him.
I was defrauded by someone who lied on a house condition report, and the house needed $20k in work to not be condemned. I had paperwork the previous owner left in a closet that showed they were aware of the extent of the damage years before selling the house, but it was not disclosed.
Our attorney said "you can win this case. But you'll win a $20k judgement. If they don't pay, you have to sue again for failure to pay. If they die (they were elderly) legally the estate has to post in the local paper a notice. If you catch that notice within a couple of weeks, you will be able to claim $20k from the estate. If you miss this window, you're SOL."
maybe, also possible that the sheer expansive scope of what he’s done and to whom may qualify him for something more extreme. I really don’t know, but it will be fun to find out 🍿
The court has already ruled that Trump committed fraud, that Trump Org should be dissolved, and that properties should be seized. We'll get more details as to just what that means (likely receivership and then sold), but Trump will lose a lot from this civil case and he won't have that much recourse. (He can appeal, of course, but there's no guarantee that would help him.)