Ghislaine Maxwell: Lying Her Head Off For a Pardon

"Kristy Greenberg, former top prosecutor and host of Courtside with Kristy Greenberg, breaks down the transcript of the interview Todd Blanche had with Ghislaine Maxwell." 

Source:Talking Feds With Harry Litman with a look at Ghislaine Maxwell and her "friend" Donald J. Trump.

From Talking Heads With Harry Litman

"The Client List Cover-Up: Why Maxwell’s Story Doesn’t Add Up" 

Source:Nancy Grace with a look at Ghislaine Maxwell's story.

From Nancy Grace

From what I wrote about this story last week relating to the Epstein files: 

"The speculation (and I'm sure it's true) is that the reason why President Trump doesn't want his Attorney General Pam Bondi, to release the Epstein files, because he knows he's all over them and it would be very embarrassing for him. Even though there's probably nothing in them that could probably incriminate him of anything relating to Jeffrey Epstein. 

But my point is, for reasons that I've already laid out, is Donald Trump literally has nothing to lose here in releasing them. He's already the most unpopular 2nd term President, at least in the television and internet age. People who dislike and hate him now, won't dislike and hate him more after those files are released to the public... 

From The New Democrat

I'll tell you what I personally think of this story. (Even if you are completely not interested in what I have to say about this) But before I do that, there are 2 excellent points that David Axelrod and Kristy Greenberg have made about this story, that I want you to focus on, first. 

CNN political analyst David Axelrod, who is a longtime Democrat, including Democratic political strategist, is also perhaps the best Democratic analyst and political analyst in general, when it comes to tossing out the garbage (to put it mildly) and laying out "what's what and who's who" and just putting it out there. I think he had the best social media post about Ghislaine Maxwell and the word "inappropriate", when he said: 

"Two questions:

1) What does a convicted sex trafficker consider "inappropriate?"

2) If she WERE trying to win a parole or commutation--or a transfer to a minimum security, "Club Fed" prison camp--aren't these precisely the things she would say?" 

From David Axelrod

I think Kristy Greenberg hit a home rune (or, should I say "grand slam" since that word has something to do with both baseball and tennis and the US Open is going on right now) when she was talking about Ghislaine Maxwell and the word "inappropriate". Greenberg was talking about the interview that Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche (who still seems to think that he's Donald Trump's defense lawyer) and he asked Maxwell: 

"Did you ever hear Mr. Epstein ever say or do anything that President Trump did anything inappropriate with anybody in your world?" 

And Maxwell responded with: 

"Absolutely never in any context."

So Kristy Greenberg's point here is that you don't let the defendant (or in this case convict) get to decide for you what is "inappropriate" and what is "appropriate". She's been in prison for 5 years now because she was convicted of a lot of inappropriate actions. (And based on the evidence, did some really inappropriate things) And we're not talking about serial jaywalker, (if you are a serial jaywalker, stay out of Washington and Chicago right now) or a shoplifter, who only steals because they are addicted to gum. 

In Ghislaine Maxwell's case, we're talking about a sex trafficker, who was involved with Jeffrey Epstein in this criminal enterprise, for 20-25 years, before they finally got caught in 2019. But according to Deputy Attorney General Blanche, she qualifies as someone who knows the difference between "appropriate" and "inappropriate". If Ghislaine Maxwell knows anything about "inappropriate", she knows how to behave very badly. And even how to get way with it, up to a point. She was a woman behaving very badly, for. a very long time. 

And if the Deputy Attorney General of the United States is going to make Ghislaine Maxwell a spokesperson for what's "appropriate" and "inappropriate"... why stop there? Why not he invite the Idaho college serial murderer Bryan Kohberger to give a series of speeches on the importance of human life and being pro-life? He could give those speeches from his prison cell since we all know how private of an individual he his and doesn't like coming out of his closet very often. 

I don't want to make too much light of Bryan Kohberger, (even though I have already done that) but and I think this is Kristy Greenberg's point here, when you give the power to the defendant, to decide what's "inappropriate" or "appropriate" and you are a government attorney, (like I don't know, the Deputy Attorney General of the United States) you are no longer acting as the attorney for the people here. You are now acting like a defense attorney, who wants to make the convict here (Ghislaine Maxwell) a friendly witness for some other case that you are working on here. The only thing that Mr. Blanche is trying to do here, is to clear his client, Donald Trump, of having anything inappropriate to do with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. 

We have an expression... or joke, here at The New Democrat about liars. And it goes something like: "She has the credibility of a compulsive liar". And if we were talking about a man here... replace "she" with "he" in our little expression. If the Southern District of New York didn't have Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein dead to rights on the sex trafficking, where Epstein is probably looking at life in prison, if he didn't take his own life and went to trial and Maxwell got 20 years, she would be a convicted perjurer right now, as well.

And yet this is the person that Trump.Inc wants to use as their character witness to prove that Mr. Trump wasn't seriously involved with either of these distinguished individuals. Back in 2017, President Trump said he thought the U.S. Department of Justice was his own personal law firm. 8 years later, looks like he's gotten that wish. 

You can follow me on Threads and Facebook.

You can also se this post on WordPress.

Harry Litman: MAGA FINALLY CAVES on EPSTEIN FILES?

"Harry breaks down a breaking development in the Epstein File saga. The Justice Department has agreed to share with the House Oversight Committee documents from the Epstein investigation. " 

Source:Talking Feds With Harry Litman with a look at Jeff, Don, and Pam. Perhaps you can tell for yourself who is who.

From Talking Feds With Harry Litman

From CNN: 

"The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform intends to make public some files it subpoenaed related to the Jeffrey Epstein case, though it will first redact them to shield victims’ IDs and other sensitive matters, a committee spokesperson said Tuesday.

The panel is expected to start receiving materials from the Justice Department on Friday, though it appears the public release will come some time after that. The spokesperson said the committee would work with the Justice Department on the process.

“The Committee intends to make the records public after thorough review to ensure all victims’ identification and child sexual abuse material are redacted. The Committee will also consult with the DOJ to ensure any documents released do not negatively impact ongoing criminal cases and investigations,” the spokesperson said.

Many Republicans have called for more transparency surrounding the case and the release of records related to the matter – and the issue has roiled the House... 

From CNN

The New Democrat has been thinking about this story for about a month now (give or take) which is why we haven't weighed in on this at all, except from what you see on our members social media pages, including the official page for The New Democrat on Threads and Twitter. But if you want to know what I think about this, I'll tell you anyway and I have a slightly different perspective from what you see from other commentators who also want to see the Epstein files as well. 

When you think of Donald Trump's base, at least if you took a stereotypical view of his base, you would think his voters are nothing but rural, country bumpkins, who are Anglo-Saxon-Protestants, who only live in the smallest towns in America. And that's a part of his base, no question.

But there's another part of DJT's base, including in New York City... Manhattan, even, out in Los Angeles as well, who also like him, or at least his lifestyle and how he presents himself to the public. And those folks are about as white-collar, well-educated, upper class, metropolitan, professional celebrity types, who are more interested in someone's cultural "brand" and how they appear in pop culture, then anything to do with their morality. These are people where bad boys and bad girls are considered cool. And honest, hardworking people are considered to be so "old school" and so "yesterday" with this professional celebrity community. 

Thanks to Donald Trump and his political reality TV and professional celebrity movement that he personally launched 10 years ago, along with social media, we are way past the days when a sex scandal, and adulterous affair... having kids with your mistress, when you are married, even a serious criminal scandal, can bring down 1 politician. Especially if that politician has a loyal following. 

Professional celebrities today are more popular. when they have a bad boy or bad girl image and have been involved in criminal activities, even have done time in prison, then they would be if their records are completely clean. I think we are going to see that with Sean Combs and others as well and before Mr. Combs. The current President of the United States, is literally a convicted felon, who if he wasn't reelected President, would probably be getting ready for 2 different criminal trials and looking at serious prison time. Who only ran for President in 2024, to tay out of prison and get back at his political opponents.

The speculation (and I'm sure it's true) is that the reason why President Trump doesn't want his Attorney General Pam Bondi, to release the Epstein files, because he knows he's all over them and it would be very embarrassing for him. Even though there's probably nothing in them that could probably incriminate him of anything relating to Jeffrey Epstein. 

But my point is, for reasons that I've already laid out, is Donald Trump literally has nothing to lose here in releasing them. He's already the most unpopular 2nd term President, at least in the television and internet age. People who dislike and hate him now, won't dislike and hate him more after those files are released to the public. 

When the far-right of the Republican Party was talking about "family values", morality and character, the need for these things in our government, that was just something they used to attack Democrats. That's not what they care about. Someone could literally be a convicted felon, a serial liar and adulterer... if that person is on their side and represents their political values. And Mr. Trump's professional celebrity base, would probably just view him as a bigger "rockstar" and "badass", after the Epstein files are released. 

The main lesson from Watergate that both Republicans and Democrats have failed to learn the last 50 plus years, that once a bad story is about to break, or has broken, is that the worst thing that you can do is to try to cover it up. What you do, is what a good lawyer would do in court: get the bad information and evidence about your side out, before the opposition and the media does it for you. Get ahead of the story and put your own spin on it, before you lose the narrative of it. 

As long as The White House and Trump DOJ try to cover up this story, the longer it will be in the news, along with the slowing economy, rising prices, everything else that has gone wrong since Donald Trump became President again. And that's not where you want to be going into an election year. So of course they should release the redacted portions of the Epstein files to Congress and the public as soon as possible. 

You can follow me on Threads.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Harry Litman: 'Judge Merchan Makes HUGE Decision Before Sentencing Donald Trump'

Source:Talking Feds With Harry Litman talking about Judge Juan Merchan's partial lifting of Convicted Felon Don's gag order.

"Judge Merchan partially lifted a gag order on Trump yesterday while still maintaining some crucial provisions. Harry explains why this is significant." 

From Talking Feds With Harry Litman

This might sound sick, so bare with me: but I don't mean to sound the death row inmate whose trying to convince his guard that he's actually innocent and shouldn't be executed tomorrow night, but I'm actually not a lawyer. I'm just going off the information from what I've read and seen from people who are not just real lawyers, but accomplished lawyers as well. 

I just don't want people to take my observations here as legal observations here. They're at best like observations from legal affairs correspondents who don't have law degrees. But even there I'm relying on those folks information and observations as well. 

I think the lifting of gag order could be a problem for Donald J. Trump. Why do I say that? Anyone whose watched any police documentaries, or followed any high profile case, knows the phrase: "Anything that you can say can and will be held against you in a court of law." 

If Convicted Felon Don uses this order to put anyone whose involved in this case, life, or physical safety in jeopardy, either directly or indirectly, like trying to get someone else to do that for him, or reposting what one of his militants said about someone whose directly involved in this case, those words could come back in directly hurting Donald Trump here. And Judge Juan Merchan could use DJT's own words against him when rendering his sentence here. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Harry Litman: 'Jury Asks to Hear MORE About Donald Trump's AWFUL Crimes'

Source:Harry Litman talking about Defendant Don.

"The jury in the Trump trial has asked to re-hear some evidence about witnesses David Pecker and Michael Cohen. Harry reviews these requests and explains their significance." 

From Harry Litman

As I'm writing this post at 5:15 PM EST, we still don't have a decision on the verdict. But my colleague Ederik Schneider will have a post about whether Donald J. Trump is judged guilty or not guilty, at around 7PM or so. Unfortunately not even The New Democrat has a time machine, or can predict into the future. So we can't talk about things that haven't happened yet. But stay tuned. 

I have a prediction for you, if you want. And even if you don't want it, I'll give it to you anyway. 

Again, no decision on the verdict yet, but just the way this jury is acting and what they're doing, the questions they're asking, the evidence they're reviewing, suggests to me that they've found Donald J. Trump guilty of multiple felonies: 

They've reviewed David Pecker's testimony, who of course exposed (pun intended) this whole damn affair and scheme, between Trump Inc. (let's call it) and the two women that they paid off. 

They reviewed Michael Cohen's testimony about the scheme, that was corroborated by David Pecker. 

And as Harry Litman said (who is a real-life lawyer) they reviewed the Cohen-Trump phone call about how to pay off Stephanie Clifford (also known as Stormy Daniels) and Karen McDougal. 

They're going through the evidence that the Manhattan DA wants them to and have focused on the evidence that they wanted them too. This looks like multiple felony convictions for Mr. Donald J. Trump. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Harry Litman: 'Judge Merchan EVISCERATES Donald Trump in Gag Order Hearing'

Source:Harry Litman- Not that I'm a psychic, but I'm thinking Judge Juan Merchan is not a fan of Defendant Don.

"Judge Merchan held a hearing this morning in which prosecutors argued that Trump is in violation of his gag order due to several of his Truth Social posts. Merchan did not yet rule on the issue." 

From Harry Litman

I'm willing to bet this is not a great reference, I doubt it's even a good reference, but when I'm watching courtroom dramas, which at time can seem more like courtroom soap operas and even courtroom comedies, you see out-of-control defendants all the time. And the judge will say something like: "Mr. Jones (or whatever the name of the lawyer is) please get your client under control, or I'll hold him in contempt. And if these outbursts continue, I'll hold you in contempt as well." 

Now, other than falling asleep in court and perhaps badly in need of some under armour, perhaps even taking a shower before showing up in court, perhaps even issues with flatulence, (and that's as nice as I'll be about this) Donald Trump hasn't yet been in violation of Judge Juan Merchan's rules in court yet. It's outside the court where Defendant Don has been in clear violation of the Judge's gag order. 

But I'm wondering if Defendant Don keeps violating the gag order, could the Judge take that out on his lawyer and do that first, before he holds the defendant in contempt and throws him in a holding tank. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Harry Litman: 'Donald Trump's MASSIVE Bond Could FALL APART'

Source:Harry Litman- left to right: California insurance billionaire Don Hankey, Defendant Don & New York Attorney General Letitia James.

"New York Attorney General Letiticia James is questioning the legitimacy of Trump's $175 million bond, sponsored by billionaire subprime loan mogul Don Hankey. Accoridng to James, Hankey's California-based company Knight Insurance Group might not have the legal right to cover bond obligations in New York State. Judge Arthur F. Engoron has tentatively set a hearing for 4/22 to discuss." 

From Harry Litman

"New York attorney general Letitia James is asking to contact Donald Trump's court-appointed monitor to get more information about his $175 million bond posting.

James asked Manhattan Judge Arthur Engoron on Thursday to confirm that her office can contact Barbara Jones, whom the New York Supreme Court Justice appointed to oversee the finances of Trump's parent company, The Trump Organization.

James filed a proposed order to Engoron in which James' office would be allowed to communicate with Jones' office without Trump's lawyers being present.

The New York Superior Court rejected Trump's $175 million bond this week due to the paperwork from the insurance company issuing the bond not providing sufficient information about its financial status." 

From Newsweek 

"Attorneys for former president Donald Trump have resubmitted his $175 million bond for his civil fraud judgment in New York Thursday, following a rejection by the court.

Trump's initial bond, posted on Tuesday, was rejected and returned for correction, as reflected by the New York County Supreme Court's website, due to a missing financial statement and other documentation. These missing documents have been added in a new filing.

The financial statement comes from Knight Specialty Insurance Company, the underwriter for the bond. It is signed by Don Hankey, the billionaire chairman and CEO of Hankey Group, and Amit Shah, president of Knight Specialty Insurance. The statement assures that the company can cover the $175 million bond.

The bond averts the immediate risk of Trump's properties and assets being seized by New York Attorney General Letitia James. Trump has been ordered to pay a $464 million judgment by New York Supreme Court Judge Arthur Engoron after being found guilty of business fraud. 

The presumptive Republican nominee for president has appealed the judgment, arguing that the penalty is excessive. However, he is required to post bond while the appeal is mulled by the appellate court. He was originally ordered to pay the judgment in full. If he was unable to, James warned that she would take legal action to seize his properties and assets.

The New York Court of Appeals later granted him additional time to come up with the funds for the bond, and lowered the amount he was required to post to $175 million.

The former president posted a $91.6 million bond in another civil case last month. That bond was related to the defamation judgment against him in the case brought forward by writer E. Jean Carroll." 

From UPI

As my colleague Kire Schneider pointed out yesterday: 

"So to put this in plain English, or perhaps in dirty English: New York Attorney General Letitia James is challenging Donald J. Trump's bond here. And if NYAG wins that, this bond will get rejected by the New York County courts and he'll perhaps get another extension to post another bond, or perhaps they would rule that he's already had plenty of time to post a legitimate bond and give Defendant Trump a choice: post the cash himself, or start selling some of his assets." 

From The New Democrat

I don't like posting multiple links on a blog post that contradict each other. But this is a fast moving story. Sort of like an escaped inmate on the run for his life, escaping in a sports car. But Harry Litman seems to be a little bit behind on this story. 

Donald Trump post his bond thanks to California (not New York, which a story right there) insurance billionaire Don Hankey earlier this week. But then New York Attorney General Letitia James challenged that legitimacy of that and wants to know whether or not Mr. Hankey is actually good on the bond. Does he or his company have the 175 million or not. She won that motion in New York Superior Court yesterday. But then that court sends the bond back to Mr. Trump and apparently he got it corrected. 

I think MSNBC anchor Stephanie Ruhle (who I'm quickly becoming a big fan of for her knowledge about business and economics, as well as her very quick wit, and other personal reasons that I won't get into here) had the best commentary about this story so far. Last night she said talking about Mr. Trump's bond here: 

"It's not just a regular bank that's backing him (referring to Donald Trump) here. This guy (referring to Don Hankey) is in the business that he's always been in. I mean subprime auto lending, this is like the former President of the United States going to a payday lender. Like the riskiest low-end lender." 

From MSNBC. 

Right, I mean, Donald J. Trump still calls himself a billionaire. But of course anyone whose currently not drunk, high, insane, born without a brain, who just flew in to Planet Earth from Planet Zorton (or some other far out made up planet) who also happens to be familiar with Donald J. Trump, knows he's not a billionaire. 

You don't go to the rich man's equivalent of a payday lender, (to use Stephanie Ruhle's words) to come up with 175 million, to post a bond on a legal judgement against you, if you are a billionaire. It would be like a guy who has 100 bucks on him, who ask his buddy for 10 bucks, so he can get some lunch at some fast food joint. 

When it comes to high class in America, especially in Manhattan, New York, where Donald J. Trump has always wanted to be a member of that very exclusive club of billionaires, (as much as he claims to be a populist) he's like the Goddard Bolt (played by Mel Brooks) character from the movie Life Stinks (1991) where he plays a rich man one day and he's completely broke and homeless the next day. Mr. Trump is now relying on real-life billionaires and rich people, to pay his own damn bills for him.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Harry Litman: 'Donald Trump FINALLY ADMITS DEFEAT As Financial Crisis Looms'

Source:Harry Litman talking about Defendant Don.

"Trump's attorneys said in a court filing today that Trump has been unable to secure the roughly $450 million bond in his New York civil fraud case. His attorneys said that securing this amount would be a "practical impossibility." Trump must post an appeal bond in order to prevent AG James from seizing his assets on March 25th." 

From Harry Litman

"Former President Donald Trump has been unable to obtain an appeal bond to secure a $454 million civil judgment against him in a New York business fraud case, his attorneys said in a court filing Monday.

Lawyers for Trump and his co-defendants said it has been “impossible” for them to secure a complete appeal bond, which would effectively require “cash reserves approaching $1 billion,” which neither the former president nor his company has.

Trump’s team has approached, without success, around 30 surety companies through four separate brokers as he seeks an appeal bond, and they have spent “countless hours negotiating with one of the largest insurance companies in the world,” according to the filing with the Appellate Division of Manhattan Supreme Court.

Under New York court rules, Trump must post an appeal bond if he wants to avoid New York Attorney General Letitia James moving to collect on the fraud judgment in the state’s favor.

James has said she will seize Trump’s property if he is unable to pay the entire judgment or obtain an appeal bond.

Trump’s lawyers in their filing said that if the appellate division considers denying a stay of the judgment, it should schedule oral arguments on the issue.

And the attorneys asked that if the division declines to grant the stay, they be allowed to ask the Court of Appeals, the highest state court in New York, to pause the judgment without Trump having to obtain an appeal bond in the full amount.

Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Arthur Engoron in February ordered Trump and his co-defendants to pay a total of $464 million in damages and interest for violating a New York anti-fraud statute.

Engoron ruled in favor of James, who in a lawsuit had accused Trump, his two adult sons, the Trump Organization, and the company’s top executives of falsely inflating Trump’s asset values for years to boost his net worth and get financial perks.

Trump was ordered to pay the lion’s share of the judgment: $454 million. Post-judgment interest on Trump’s share of the damages continues to accrue at a rate of nearly $112,000 a day.

Trump, who has secured the Republican presidential nomination, in a deposition last year claimed to have “substantially in excess of $400 million in cash.”

Despite that, Monday’s nearly 5,000-page court filing by his lawyers detailed his inability to get a bond to secure the full judgment.

The filing includes an affidavit from Gary Giulietti, president of the Northeast division of the Lockton Companies, which he describes as the largest privately held insurance brokerage firm in the world.

Giulietti, who was hired to help the defendants to obtain a bond, in that statement wrote, “Despite scouring the market, we have been unsuccessful in our effort ... for the simple reason that obtaining an appeal bond for $464 million is a practical impossibility under the circumstances presented.”

Only a handful of bond surety companies are approved by the Treasury Department to underwrite a bond that large, and many of those firms will only issue a single bond to a maximum of $100 million, Giulietti wrote.

He also said that none of those companies will accept non-liquid assets — such as real estate — as collateral.

“Simply put, a bond of this size is rarely, if ever, seen,” Giulietti wrote. “In the unusual circumstance that a bond of this size is issued, it is provided to the largest public companies in the world, not to individuals or privately held businesses.”

The Trump Organization is privately held.

Giulietti wrote that it would be unattainable for a private company to obtain a bond to secure the $464 million total judgment unless it had around $1 billion in cash or cash equivalents to offer as collateral, while still being able to satisfy its other business obligations.

“While it is my understanding that the Trump Organization is in a strong liquidity position, it does not have $1 billion in cash or cash equivalents,” he wrote.

Trump’s attorneys also noted in the filing that bond issuers often will demand collateral totaling 120% of the judgment, which equates to over $557 million.

Those issuers are also likely to demand a two-year advance on a 2% annual bond premium, which would require the defendants to pay more than $18 million upfront, the lawyers wrote.

The defendants had previously offered to post a $100 million bond to prevent James from collecting on the judgment while Trump appealed Engoron’s verdict.

An appellate division judge rejected that proposal but allowed the defendants to continue doing business in New York and lifted Engoron’s three-year ban on Trump seeking loans in New York. That order is temporarily in effect before a full appeals court panel hears the motion for a stay.

Trump’s attorney Alina Habba did not immediately respond to CNBC’s request for comment on the filing.

Trump earlier this month obtained a $91.6 million bond from insurance company Chubb to secure a civil defamation judgment against him in favor of writer E. Jean Carroll as he appeals that verdict.

Carroll had successfully sued Trump in federal court for defaming her after she accused him in 2019 of raping her in the mid-1990s in a Manhattan department store." 

From CNBC

This might not be a perfect analogy, (actually, I'm sure this is an imperfect analogy) but Donald Trump as a New York businessman, is like the shopaholic, who manages to buy everything they want on other people's credit, as their credit cards are already taken from them and then finally gets caught and is now stuck with this huge bill to that he's never intended to pay at all. He's run out of credit: 

DJT's word is as useless as spitting on your burning house, after it just caught on fire, just to put out the fire. 

Or, driving a car without tires. 

Or, trying to fly a plane from the roof of the plane. 

Or, making a sandwich without bread, 

Drinking water with a fork. 

Try to walk without legs and feet. 

Donald Trump has essentially made his career and whatever money he still has left, off the backs and with other people's money. To paraphrase the character Gordon Gecko from the movie Wall Street: "I create nothing. I sell nothing." And now he's finally been caught and he's not only not a billionaire, but the only way he can the loans and the bond that he needs to to avoid losing his real estate empire, which at this point is just the properties that he still owes, is putting all that up for collateral. 

The problem with DJT putting up collateral is, that he doesn't want to do that because he's Donald Trump. And because of that, Donald Trump believes that he's entitled to live off of other people's money and never ever be forced to pay for the consequences of his own decisions. 

The problem with DJT's above the law attitude, well, just one problem with that attitude, is that banks and insurance companies, are in the business to make money. Not to lose money. And before they can give people loans, regardless of the amount of money that the potential borrower needs, they have to be assured that the potential borrower can and will pay them back. Donald Trump can't and won't give them that assurance. 

And as a consequence, Donald Trump will probably now, or in the next few months, will have to file for bankruptcy just to pay off the 500 million dollar judgements against him. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Harry Litman: 'Donald Trump DESPERATE To Avoid $454 Million Fine, FILES APPEAL'

Source:Harry Litman talking about Defendant Don.

"Only a few days after Justice Arthur Engoron issued the $464 million verdict in the civil fraud case, Trump appealed it asking an appeals court to determine whether Engoron “committed errors of law and/or fact, and whether he abused his discretion and/or acted in excess of his jurisdiction.”

From Harry Litman

"MeidasTouch host Ben Meiselas and Harry Litman report on what’s going on behind the scenes with the Supreme Court as it prepares to make its decision on Donald Trump’s application for a stay pending certiorari related to his claim of presidential immunity." 

From the Meidas Touch

From what my colleague Kire Schneider wrote yesterday. 

"So the bottomline here, is Donald Trump has 25 days to come with 450 million, perhaps 500 million by then, or he goes bankrupt, just as he's trying to run for President again, just as he's facing two felony convictions, in separate jurisdictions, by the end of this summer." 

From The New Democrat

No offense to Harry Litman: but there's only one interesting story here, because the rest of these stories are fairly well-known as far as Donald Trump's potential bankruptcy, if he can't meet the bond payment on his New York State judgment against him. As well as what's going in Atlanta, Georgia right now, with Trump's lawyers trying to get the District Attorney there, Fani Willis, removed from the case, for having an adulterous affair with her lead prosecutor in that case and being inaccurate about the timeline there. 

The interesting story here, the newsworthy story here, is Harry Litman's theory for why the Supreme Court is taking so long to either grant or deny Donald Trump's stay on his immunity claim. Litman believes that they've already decided this case, but the Chief Justice, John Roberts, is simply waiting for the dissent opinion from either Justice Clarence Thomas or Samuel Alito. Meaning the Supreme Court will deny Trump's request for a stay. But they're simply waiting on the dissenting opinion from Justice Thomas or Justice Alito, perhaps they'll write a joint dissent in this case. 

I have my own theory here. Justice Thomas seems even more partisan than Justice Alito. We saw that during Donald Trump's appeals to deny Joe Biden the election back in late 2020. He simply turned away a big case that then President Trump had and simply didn't take that case and let the lower court ruling stand. Also, Justice Thomas's wife Ginni, is all in when it comes to MAGA. She was part of the "stop the steal movement" in late 2020 and perhaps one of the organizers 2021 insurrection attempt. 

My theory is that the Court has already ruled against Donald Trump. But they're waiting on whether Justice Thomas will either vote no and go down 8-1 in one of the biggest cases in the history of the Court and be remembered as the one U.S. Justice who believes Donald Trump is above the law. And risk looking pretty bad, perhaps even corrupt and looking like a partisan politician, instead of a judge. Or, will he just recuse himself and not vote at all and save himself from a little historical embarrassment. But that's my theory as an outsider in this case, whose not even a lawyer. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Harry Litman: 'NY Judge PUTS A FIRM STOP To Donald Trump's CHILDISH Argument'

Source:Harry Litman- left to right: NYC Judge Juan Merchan & Defendant Don.

"Judge Merchan ruled today that the trial, known as the hush money case, will proceed with the March 25th trial date. Trump's lawyer clawed at arguments to postpone to no avail." 

From Harry Litman

Judge Juan Merchan literally just put it all out there and on the line and completely blew up Trump lawyer Todd Blanche, after Blanche literally argued that this trial should be delayed, because his client is running for President of the United States. 

Just think about that for a second: future criminal defendants, perhaps just not in New York City, but perhaps around the country, could get out of criminal prosecution, if they're running for President of the United States. But take that a step further and perhaps they could decide to run for President, after they're already indicted. This about what that argument could sound like in court: 

"Judge, my client doesn't have the time or money to be here in court. He has to be out on the campaign trail raising money for his presidential campaign and campaigning for President. 

If this trial goes further while my client is still running for President, that would take away from his ability to raise money and campaign for President. 

Plus, with all this physical evidence, paperwork, and all these witnesses who are testifying against him, who were one time friends and associates, (perhaps relatives) my client is going to look like a criminal on the campaign trail. You have to dismiss this case, because it could hurt my client politically. Or at least put it off until he's elected, so he can dismiss the case after he's in office." 

Now, of course Todd Blanche and company didn't use those words exactly. I'm just giving you a hypothetical of what a future criminal defense for postponement or dismissal could sound like, from future criminal defendants, if they also happen to be running for President of the United States, the same year that they're goin to trial. 

Blanche and company are literally arguing that Donald Trump should be immune from criminal prosecution, simply because he's running for President of the United States. With Judge Merchan giving the perfect response to that argument: "That's not a legal argument. That's a political argument."

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Harry Litman: 'Tanya Chutkan's CRUCIAL Word Choice REVEALS All-Important State of Trial'

Source:Harry Litman talking about U.S. Federal Judge Tanya Chutkan.

"Judge Chutkan officially scrapped the March 4th trial date for the DC election subversion case on Friday. The trial has been paused while Trump seeks to have the case thrown out on the basis of immunity." 

From Harry Litman

I guess my first points would be a response to Harry Litman's last point when he said if the trial were to happen in the summer, in the heat (no pun intended) of the presidential election, Donald Trump could claim election interference against him and that this is somehow unfair to force him to sit in court, while he's running for President. 

1, no one is forcing Donald Trump to run for president in 2024. 

2, no one forced him to incite an insurrection against the U.S. Capitol in 2021. He could’ve just accepted the obvious that he lost in 2020 and just moved on with his life. after his legal appeals were over.

3. Donald Trump is intentionally delaying the start of this trial, in order to not be convicted before the presidential election.

If we don't get a ruling from the appeals court this month, we might be looking at a summer start of this trial. But, if we not only just get a ruling from the appeals court, but it's not just unanimous, but the ruling itself is delivered by the Chief Judge and it's also a unanimous ruling, (which I believe is reason for the delay here because they want a a unanimous ruling and opinion on that ruling) I think we're looking at an April or May start of this trial and it would take 3-4 months. 

But even so, while we're waiting for the appeals court to make a final decision here, Manhattan, New York could go ahead and start their trial against Donald Trump and he could get convicted up there in the 2016 hush money case involving Stormy Daniels, to prevent her from going public about their affair from 10 years earlier, right before the 2016 election. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Harry Litman: 'FASCINATING TURN OF EVENTS in Donald Trump's Appeal'

Source:Harry Litman- Defendant Don.

"A nonprofit watchdog organizaion, American Oversight, filed an amicus brief arguing that the DC Court of Appeals does not have jurisdiction to take up Trump's immunity appeal. Instead, the lawyers argue, the immunity question should be sent back to Judge Chutkan." 

From Harry Litman

"Represented by Arnold & Porter, American Oversight argues that the D.C. Circuit lacks jurisdiction to hear Trump’s appeal and should send the case back to the district court for trial without further delay. Neither the special counsel nor Trump, nor anyone previously, has raised this issue.

Statement from American Oversight Executive Director Heather Sawyer:

“Trump’s goal is to delay the trial until after the 2024 presidential election under the theory that if he wins the presidency, he may never be held accountable for his effort to overturn the 2020 election. This is a perfect example of the adage ‘justice delayed is justice denied.’ The American people should have the benefit of a jury verdict on Trump’s guilt before they choose the next president of the United States.”

As the American Oversight amicus brief argues, Supreme Court precedent prohibits a criminal defendant from immediately appealing an order denying immunity unless the claimed immunity is based on “an explicit statutory or constitutional guarantee that trial will not occur.” Trump’s claims of immunity rests on no such explicit guarantee. Therefore, given that Trump has not been convicted or sentenced, his appeal is premature. The D.C. Circuit lacks appellate jurisdiction and should dismiss the appeal and return the case to district court for trial promptly.

Arnold & Porter partner Stanton Jones stated: “The law is clear: Mr. Trump cannot appeal his immunity defenses until after he is tried and convicted. He should not be allowed to use an improper appeal to delay the scheduled March trial.”

On Dec. 23, Trump filed a brief in the appellate court asking that the charges against him be dismissed on the grounds that he is immune from prosecution. The Department of Justice’s opposition is due on Saturday, Dec. 30, and Trump’s reply is due on Jan. 2. Oral argument is scheduled for Jan. 9." 

From American Oversight

"A district court order denying a defendant's motion to dismiss an indictment for an alleged violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), which prohibits public disclosure by Government attorneys of matters occurring before a grand jury, is not immediately appealable under 28 U. S. C. § 1291. Since petitioners have not yet been sentenced, the District Court's order is not a final judgment ending the litigation on the merits." 

From Supreme Justia

When I first heard about this, I was thinking as a non-lawyer that this would just add to the delay of the Trump trial in Washington Federal Circuit Court, because I'm thinking now the appeals court would not only have to deal with Donald Trump's claim of presidential immunity, but have to deal with this amicus brief first. 

But you listen to Harry Litman, he says that the appeals court would take this first and then rule on that and if American Oversight wins, the case goes back to Judge Tanya Chutkan's circuit court in Washington and that trial gets back on track. And of course if Donald Trump loses on this as well, his lawyers would of course appeal that to the appeals court, but as they're doing that, Judge Chutkan's case would continue to move forward and the stay would end at that point. 

And then Trump would have to win on the amicus brief appeal, before the stay would come back. But American Oversight apparently has the case and precedent that you need to win their case.

So Donald Trump's game of delay, stonewall, and obstruct, could be ending this month, with his case Washington case getting back on course and perhaps that trial starting in late March. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Harry Litman: 'The Coming Biden Blowout'

Source:Harry Litman talking to David Frum from The Atlantic about the 2024 presidential election.

"Harry talks with David from about his recent article in the Atlantic arguing that the Republican party is galloping ahead with an electoral strategy certain to secure defeat in November 2024. Frum discusses why the polling suggesting that Trump is even with or even ahead of Biden is flawed, and why Trump’s historical track record as a weak candidate will hold in the coming election. They end by discussing the possibility that Trump could change direction as a candidate to pursue a more effective strategy, which Frum suggests is beyond Trump’s capacities." 

From Harry Litman

"The Republican plan for 2024 is already failing, and the party leadership can see it and knows it.

There was no secret to a more intelligent and intentional Republican plan for 2024. It would have gone like this:

(1) Replace Donald Trump at the head of the ticket with somebody less obnoxious and impulsive.

(2) Capitalize on inflation and other economic troubles... 

From The Atlantic 

Just for the record: I sure as hell hope that David Frum is right here. 

The only pushback I have to what Frum is arguing here, is that we went through this in late 2015 and the most of 2016 with Donald Trump against Hillary Clinton. 

During the 2016 election cycle, Trump was considered so damaged for the Republican Party, that not only would Trump lose, but he would lose Georgia, Arizona, North Carolina, maybe Indiana as well, to go along with Florida, Ohio, and the rest of the states that HRC had to win to the that election. Plus, Republicans were supposed to lose Congress as well (House & Senate) because with Donald Trump on the top of the ballot, Congressional Republicans wouldn't be able to hold the House and Senate, because they would be tied to Donald Trump, etc. Anyone whose old enough to remember the 2016 general election, knows what happened during those elections.

Now the pushback to what I just said and I agree with this, is we already know what Donald Trump is like as President and he's even more unpopular and in more legal, as well as financial trouble today, Joe Biden already beat him in 2020, and Republicans had a bad year in 2022 because of Donald Trump and his MAGA followers. And despite President Biden's unpopularity, the economy is improving with not just high economic and job growth, as well as low unemployment, but wages are now rising faster than prices again, as David Frum also mentioned. 

The only real prediction about this that I have myself, is I think Donald Trump's legal situation is biggest achilles heel here. He can't afford any convictions before the 2024 presidential election. There's polling out there right now that even 2/3 of the Republican Party would not vote for Donald Trump for President, if he's a convicted felon before election day 2024. And if his Washington trial goes to trial  by let's say the spring or late spring of 2024, he'll probably lose that case by some point during that summer and perhaps be remanded into custody as well, which would officially end his presidential campaign. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Harry Litman: 'Mark Meadows Removal Decision Spells Trouble. FOR DONALD TRUMP!'

Source:Harry Litman- left to right: Defendant Don & Defendant Mark. Also known as the Chief & Deputy Chief of the Keystone Kops of American politics.

"The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals' decision to reject Mark Meadows's bid to have his case moved to federal court hints at a potential outcome in Trump's effort to have his case tossed out on grounds of presidential immunity. Opinion... 

From Harry Litman

“Meadows cannot point to any authority for influencing state officials with allegations of election fraud,” Pryor wrote. “At bottom, whatever the chief of staff’s role with respect to state election administration, that role does not include altering valid election results in favor of a particular candidate.”

“Meadows cannot have it both ways,” Pryor wrote. “He cannot shelter behind testimony about the breadth of his official responsibilities, while disclaiming his admissions that he understood electioneering activity to be out of bounds. That he repeatedly denied having any role in, or speaking on behalf of, the Trump campaign, reflects his recognition that such activities were forbidden to him as chief of staff.”

From POLITICO

"​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​The Hatch Act, a federal law passed in 1939, limits certain political activities of federal employees, as well as some state, D.C., and local government employees who work in connection with federally funded programs. ​The law’s purposes are to ensure that federal programs are administered in a nonpartisan fashion, to protect federal employees from political coercion in the workplace, and to ensure that federal employees are advanced based on merit and not based on political affiliation.​​​​ ​" 

From the U.S. Office of Special Counsel 

From I wrote about the Mark Meadows case on The New Democrat back in August:

"George Conway already explained in this video (that's linked on this post) about the Hatch Act. If Meadows is making a free speech argument by saying that he was advocating for the President of the United States in Georgia, when he was trying to convince the Secretary of State to overturn the election there and declare President Trump the winner, he would be in violation of the Hatch Act, which is a Federal felony. 

Under Federal law, Federal officials, who are not elected officials, meaning they don't serve in Congress or are not President or Vice President, are barred from weighing in on and contributing to political campaigns and elections. Legally, they're supposed to be above politics. So which felony does Mr. Meadows want to plead guilty to: the Federal Hatch Act, or the Georgia RICO ACT?" 

From what I wrote on the Mark Meadows case on The New Democrat back in September: 

"It’s clear that what Mark Meadows was doing post-2020 election day, after President Donald Trump had already lost to Joe Biden, (and that’s according to the 50 United States, including Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan) he was working on behalf of his de-facto client Donald J. Trump, to overturn that presidential election and just automatically declare President Trump the winner of that state. Even though it was clear that the President lost that election by 12,000 votes. Mr. Meadows wasn’t acting as White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, on behalf of the U.S. Federal Government, which is why he lost today." 

What I wrote yesterday on The New Democrat about the Mark Meadows decision: 

"The term slam dunk, especially since the days of the Iraq War back in the early 2000s, gets thrown around a lot. Sort of like the football in the modern NFL, (to use a modern sports reference) but slam sunk is appropriate in the Mark Meadows case and I'll explain why. 

I guess it's legal to be both a campaign official and a U.S. Government official at the same time. (But you might want to consult a lawyer on that) You just can't do both jobs at the same time. 

There's no statue or law in the U.S. Government that allows for one of their government official to interfere in democratic elections, especially to try to benefit one particular candidate or another. Which is what then White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows was trying to do back in late 2020 in Georgia, to get that presidential election thrown out and just automatically declare Donald Trump the winner of the Georgia election. 

Mark Meadows wasn't acting as White House Chief of Staff when he was trying to get Georgia state officials to reverse the election there and just automatically declare President Trump the winner there. He was acting on behalf of his de-facto client Donald Trump, as a campaign employee for the Donald Trump presidential campaign. Which is why he lost back in October and lost yesterday and will keep losing, as long as keeps fighting the charges against him."

I would ask what were Mark Meadows and company thinking when they went through this whole overturn the 2020 presidential election scheme, just because their candidate Donald Trump lost. But it's obvious they weren't thinking at all. 

I mean to try to corrupt state elections officials, that you don't even know, at lost not well, who are literally in the business to supervise state elections, like in Georgia, but Arizona, and other states as well, thinking that of course they would do that for them, is not thinking at all. It's like being in debt for over a million dollars, when you only make 30 thousand-dollars a year, thinking that you can pay off your debt by winning the lottery or robbing a string of convenient stores, or something. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Harry Litman: 'Federal Judge Makes MAJOR DECISION in Donald Trump Case'

Source:Harry Litman- U.S. Federal District Judge Tanya Chutkan, for Washington, D.C.

"Judge Tanya Chutkan has temporarily pressed pause on all procedural deadlines in the federal election interference case while the appeals court weighs the immunity question. The decision will likely delay the March trial date, but the trial could still wrap before the November election." 

From Harry Litman 

Geraldo Rivera on CNN last night: 

"GERALDO RIVERA, JOURNALIST: Well, I liked them before the election so people could make a more reasoned judgment when they were voting for whoever they're going to vote for. But that's not the issue. The Supreme Court doesn't care whether or not it's fair. It cares whether it's legal.

So, he's being charged with obstruction of the election or conspiracy to obstruct the election. But the issue is, and Trump alleges, that he has absolute immunity for any crime committed when he's president. So, the Supreme Court has decided to litigate that. They're going to decide whether or not Trump has absolute immunity.

I mean, there are other defenses that he has, like double jeopardy and some of the others. But the main one is this absolute immunity. Are presidents absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for acts committed while they are in office? And so far, Trump's been losing on that. But we'll see. 

RIVERA: I -- right now, I think that the Supreme Court is going to look at this statute, this conspiracy to obstruct statute, and they're going to decide whether or not it's constitutional. The case against President Trump is hanging by a thread, I think, right now.

It is -- to get this thing done before election is going to be extremely difficult. The Supreme Court is going to come down with their decision probably in June, then it's going to be July, and before you know it, it's going to be an election. I don't know how they could possibly do it physically before the election.

RIVERA: Well, that may be true, Abby, but the Supreme Court also, one thing Philippe did not mention, is deciding whether or not the very statute under which he is accused in this main case, the Jack Smith case, these four counts in the indictment, whether or not the statute itself is appropriate, whether or not it is constitutional, whether or not you need corrupt intent.

It's not only Trump's case that hangs in the balance right now, Abby. It's hundreds of January 6th rioters. Their cases also hang in the balance. And whether or not the very statute under which they are accused, even -- Philippe may not like Trump. That's not relevant. What is relevant is what is constitutional, what is appropriate.

There's a reason presidents have not been arrested before. There's a reason that they're not indicted. They are impeached. He has been impeached twice. He has also been acquitted twice by the Senate of the United States.

Trump argues, maybe successfully, maybe farfetched, that that is double jeopardy. The court, the original court of jurisdiction, has said no, it's not double jeopardy. But the Supreme Court has now decided that they want to rule on this case.

RIVERA: Is there corrupt intent? I -- Abby, trust me, it is shocking to me as well that the Supreme Court took this case and they are now reviewing the case of whether or not the very statute is constitutional. It is -- they say, their statute requires corrupt intent, not only corrupt intent.

So, was there corrupt intent? You know, that is something that will be litigated, but it is, by no means, a slam dunk. It is nerve-wracking. Ask Jack Smith how he feels tonight that the Supreme Court has taken these cases. 

RIVERA: Who is on the Supreme Court? Hold on. who is on the Supreme Court of the United States right now? Is it not a fact that Trump has managed to put three justices on the Supreme Court and now there's a conservative 6-3 majority? I think your complacency and attitude that this thing is going to go ahead and you'll get it done in a timely fashion.

What people have to grasp is, and with all due respect, I really believe that this issue of corrupt intent will screw up all of the schedules that people have and I believe that it will be physically impossible for the Supreme Court and everybody else to rule in time for the election. I don't believe that that will happen.

It is in Trump's interest." 

From CNN

I'm showing you Geraldo Rivers'a response and opinion on Donald Trump's immunity claim, because he was on CNN's Newsnight With Abby Phillip last night, essentially trying to make Trump World's (or what's left of Trump World) argument for why Donald Trump shouldn't be tried at all right now, at least until he's President again and can just unilaterally throw all these Federal cases out that are against him. 

I think what Geraldo is really doing here, is campaigning to be Donald Trump's attorney attorney, similar to what Alan Dershowitz was doing on his podcast a couple months ago, by making the garbage argument that Donald Trump is immune to all prosecutions against him, simply because he's currently running for President right now. I'm not a lawyer, but I love to see the statue or the section in the U.S. Constitution where it says that presidential candidates are immune from prosecution, or even about the law, simply because they are presidential candidates.

But with Geraldo Rivera, unlike most of his other lawyers like Alina Habba and others, at least he tries to sound intelligent and put a real argument together, unlike Trump's Washington lawyers right now who are literally arguing that there should be a delay here, because it's the holiday season and they need to spend time with their families. Apparently they were asleep in law school on the day when they were told that bering a lawyer, especially a criminal defense lawyer and prosecutor, involves a lot of hard work and personal sacrifice. 

I agree with Harry Litman that this delay with the Trump appeal on immunity, will probably delay the Washington trial by a month or so. But DJT will lose that as well, simply because their argument is ridiculous, (and that might be putting it mildly) because no one is above the law in this country, including former President's and presidential candidates. And that this trial will probably start in April or May, maybe June and DJT will be convicted by the end of the summer 2024.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Harry Litman: 'Donald Trump Lawyer Makes PREPOSTEROUS CLAIM in Hearing in Front of GA Judge'

Source:Harry Litman- left to right: (flor all you blind, insane, drunk, and high people out there, just waking up from a coma) Fulton County, Georgia Judge Scott McAfee & Defendant Don Trump.

"Judge Scott McAfee heard arguments from Trump's lawyer Steven Sadow on Friday. Sadow argued the Georgia trial should be delayed — if Trump wins the election, he says, it should be delayed until after Trump leaves the White House." 

From Harry Litman

I think we now need to get into what Donald Trump is actually doing here and why he's even running for President, because it's not the job that he wants again, just the power, and the added power that he would try to give himself, if there are enough Americans on Election Day 2024, who are too drunk and blind, to make the right decision 11 months from now and Donald Trump becomes President again. 

Donald Trump's 2024 election campaign and theme is essentially this: 

"You have to reelect me, so I can stay out of prison. If I get reelected President, I could then end all the Federal trials and investigations against me and my allies and we can then go about our business and back to business as usual, with no one around to hold me and and my people accountable. But, if I don't get back to The White House, I'm going to prison for at least the rest of my political career and I'll be 78 in 2024." 

That's what al these bogus (to be too kind) political motions that his lawyers are making in Washington and Atlanta, for their client Donald Trump. They're essentially telling a very competent, responsible, and sober U.S. Federal Judge Tanya Chutkan and a very competent, responsible, and sober Fulton County, Georgia Judge Scott McAfee, that their client is immune from prosecution and trial, simply because he's running for President again. 

Forget about all the evidence against DJT in Washington and Atlanta, Donald Trump (according to his lawyers) is immune from prosecution and trial, simply because he's running for President again. 

Forget about the fact that DJT is running for President again. DJT's lawyers might as well just say that Donald Trump can't be prosecuted, because he's Donald Trump and he's the King of the United States (not reality TV) and therefor has the right to live and operate above the law. Because that argument makes as much sense as what they're saying now. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.