Former President
Donald Trump has acknowledged he will almost certainly be unable to pay the $464 million bond to appeal the
New York civil fraud case he lost earlier this year. One ironic reason this may be the case, suggested former federal prosecutor John Flannery on Friday's edition of MSNBC's "The Beat," is that because that case found Trump liable for fraudulently valuing his properties, no person or company who can put up the bond can trust that his properties will be adequate collateral. "Let's talk about the law," said anchor Ari Melber, himself an attorney. "Most people are familiar with bonds from a different concept, a physical bond in a criminal case. This is in New York — different states do it different ways — you have every right to appeal and he has afforded the appeal. You don't get to run out the clock ... you put up the money or the bond. In this case he is admitting he's going to have a hard time doing that. If he can't put up the legally required bond by Monday, then what happens?" ALSO READ: Trump is exploiting, abusing, playing, bending and
BREAKING the legal system "What's going to happen is, first of all, the bond is to protect those who are at risk," said Flannery. "If he doesn't put up the bond while he's appealing — it's to hold people in their same positions. Meaning, you can appeal with you make sure you have the funds because our risk on your frivolous appeal is all your funds. His lawyers have said there's a practical impossibility to do it. Ironically, the impossibility is how do you value the land assets that he claims to have that are worth so much?" "Which were deemed often fraudulently described?" said Melber. "Right," Flannery agreed. "And the people who would put up the bonds, according to their own people, are saying, we're not taking anything as collateral because in different cases they've said the property is worth more, which is what they do here? Or they say [it's worth less]." Watch the video below or at the link. John Flannery explains why Trump can't get a bond www.youtube.com A newly released House interview with a
White House valet who was near former President Donald Trump on Jan. 6, 2021, shows special counsel Jack Smith has an excellent witness to bring to trial, a former prosecutor said Thursday. Andrew Weissmann appeared on MSNBC to discuss breaking news that a valet told the select committee investigating the U.S. Capitol attacks that he saw Trump threaten Vice President
Mike Pence with political ruin and commonly tore up documents and threw them on the floor. Weissmann put himself in Smith's shoes to explain his response. ALSO READ: Trump is exploiting, abusing, playing, bending and breaking the legal system "You're looking for vignettes that bring to life themes and that you're trying to give to the jury," Weissmann said. "What you think of is, 'you have a wonderful witness at trial.'" Smith is currently pursuing two federal cases against Trump on
election interference charges in
Washington D.C. and willful retention of national defense information in
Florida. In both cases, Trump has pleaded not guilty, raised the specter of a political witch hunt, and pursued delay campaigns that include sending presidential immunity defense arguments to the
Supreme Court. Weissmann warned Thursday that tactic may work as Trump would have the power to kill the cases against him should he win the presidential election in November. "Unfortunately, because of the Supreme Court's sort of lackadaisical schedule, this may never actually see the light of day before the election," Weissmann said. "If Donald Trump were to be re-elected, then it's never going to see the light of day." That's why Weissmann celebrated the release of the transcript, which he hopes will have an impact on voters even if it never is presented to a jury. Specifically, Weissmann urged those who read the transcript to note Trump's response to the news that rioter Ashli Babbitt had been fatally shot as violence mounted at the Capitol. "I think the most chilling thing in this transcript is the idea that someone is coming to the President of the
United States in an insurrection that he has fomented saying somebody has actually been killed," Weissmann said. "You have actually somebody dying and there's no reaction." According to the transcript, the valet testified he did not recall Babbitt's
shooting having an impact on Trump because the focus in the room was
Social Media. "At that point, everyone was sending out tweets," the valet said. "It was just, he was still probably the biggest person that still hasn't sent out a tweet. I think that's what they were trying to get at. I don't know if the shooting of Ashli Babbitt was the motivator to finally send out the tweet. I can't put that together." Weissmann found this moment deeply disturbing. "I think that tells you everything about ... the psychological makeup of somebody who has no ability to empathize with a human tragedy," he said. "Even if he weren't the person who is ultimately responsible for setting in motion those, that activity, you would have a normal, human response." "This person should not be in public service ever again." Watch the video below or click here. CONTINUE READING Show less Former President Donald Trump's new lawsuit against ABC News is not going to go anywhere — but it doesn't have to, argued Adam Rawnsley and Asawin Suebsaeng for Rolling Stone . That's because his real goal is to bully and intimidate journalists against talking about his history of
Sexual Assault, the report suggests. The lawsuit targets reporter George Stephanopoulos, for stating in a recent interview with Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) that Trump was “found liable for rape and defaming” writer E. Jean Carroll . The jury actually found him liable for
Sexual Abuse — a distinction that Judge Lewis Kaplan emphasized wasn't meaningful in any real way, but which Trump is using as a basis to claim that Stephanopoulos defamed him. ALSO READ: Trump is exploiting, abusing, playing, bending and breaking the legal system "Behind closed doors, the presumptive 2024
Republican presidential nominee has told confidants and lawyers that a primary purpose of the suit is to make an example of Stephanopoulos, two people with direct knowledge of the matter tell Rolling Stone ," said the report. "In recent days, Trump has privately said that 'everyone' in the media should think twice about calling him a 'rapist' on TV and in print, and that 'tak[ing] them to court' — win or lose — is a good way to remind them of that, one of the people says." "Trump, the sources recount, grew absolutely livid when he saw the Stephanopoulos interview, and began calling up advisers and demanding a suit from his vast gallery of personal attorneys," the report continued. "Some had advised the ex-president that a lawsuit could risk drawing more attention — including from voters in a crucial election year — to Carroll’s sexual-assault allegations, or possibly invite expensive
sanctions from a court, the sources add. Trump, in conversations with close associates and MAGA-aligned lawyers, emphatically did not seem to care." Trump separately plans to appeal the $83.3 million judgment he owes to Carroll, as well as the $464 million judgment for civil fraud secured by New York Attorney General Letitia James. CONTINUE READING Show less Former President Donald Trump's civil fraud trial bond troubles are exposing him to more scrutiny, and ridicule too, a legal expert said Thursday. Former prosecutor and Pace University law professor Bennett Gershman told Salon Thursday he was baffled by Trump's recent announcement that he could not find an insurer to back the $464 million payment due Monday in his New York civil fraud case. "I find it strange that Trump is essentially claiming that he either does not have sufficient assets to cover a bond or that bonding companies don’t trust him," Gershman added. "Either claim is stunningly embarrassing to someone who has flaunted his wealth and power." Gershman posited the presumptive GOP presidential nominee might be "lying" or reluctant to "squander limited assets" he'll need to fuel his bid to reclaim the White House. The former prosecutor also wondered if Trump's "lengthy history of his business fraud and numerous bankruptcies" raised red flags. Thirty companies have declined to underwrite Trump's civil fraud judgement, ordered last month by Justice Arthur Engoron, after he was found liable for defrauding lenders and investors by inflating the value of Trump Organization assets. Trump has filed a notice of appeal, but must still hand over cash or bond on March 25 to ward off state Attorney General Letitia James potentially padlocking his assets. ALSO READ: Tax the rich and end Republican welfare for the wealthy That's why in a filing earlier this week, Trump asked for a stay on the payment as he pursues his appeal. In a response, James' team knocked Trump's filing in a response requesting the appeals court ignore it. James also threw some shade, suggesting Trump could not secure a loan because no one wanted to take his property as collateral. "As far as the Court can infer, sureties may have refused to accept defendants' specific holdings as collateral because using Mr. Trump's real estate will generally need 'a property appraisal' and his holdings are not nearly as valuable as defendants claim," James' response reads. Gershman suspects the companies Trump's tried to woo may have "good reason" for refusing "to underwrite the entire amount" of his judgment because they "probably don't trust" the former president's numbers based on the civil fraud case ruling. Meanwhile, Syracuse University College of Law professor Gregory Germain told Salon that whatever the reasons behind the ruling, and despite being given more than a month to cough up the dough, it's "not reasonable to expect someone to be able to post a half-billion-dollar bond on short notice." CONTINUE READING Show less