I confess to back pedaling into Trump territory when I wanted to leave discussions about him in the garbage can. My thread on the read-only break room site has 9,600 replies so I thought I'd bring up a new one.
He's not going away.
Haberman's book is out based on interviews. I won't read it, but the excerpts are interesting. Especially what he says about McConnell, a description that's against the Terms of Service here, but I actually don't disagree with. LOL
Quote
“At one point, Trump made a candid admission that was as jarring as it was ultimately unsurprising. ‘The question I get asked more than any other question: “If you had it to do again, would you have done it?”’Trump said of running for president. ‘The answer is, yeah, I think so. Because here’s the way I look at it. I have so many rich friends and nobody knows who they are.’ … Reflecting on the meaning of having been president of the United States, his first impulse was not to mention public service, or what he felt he’d accomplished, only that it appeared to be a vehicle for fame, and that many experiences were only worth having if someone else envied them.”
While one can waive trial by jury and have their case heard by a judge only, I belive he or she still has the right to a jury trial.
Not your phone as I've had this problem as well.
Summary judgement is also appeal-able. If trump proves his rights were violated or the opposition's facts were actually in doubt, he potentially gets another shot at a jury trial.
Since he also moved for summary judgement himself, he might be on shaky ground, however.
Both parties have requested summary judgement, per the cited article.
Yes, but for separate reasons. Ms. James wants a summary judgement in her favor that Mr. Trump's financial statements were false; while Mr. Trumps legal team is seeking judgement that the entire case should be dismissed.
Yes, but for separate reasons. Ms. James wants a summary judgement in her favor that Mr. Trump's financial statements were false; while Mr. Trumps legal team is seeking judgement that the entire case should be dismissed.
IOW, the case will be tried in appellate court? That should be interesting.
Yes, but for separate reasons. Ms. James wants a summary judgement in her favor that Mr. Trump's financial statements were false; while Mr. Trumps legal team is seeking judgement that the entire case should be dismissed.
I haven't been following this case, but did some reading today. Some questions I have for those who have:
Who exactly are the alleged victims in this case and what damages did they incur? Banks and insurance companies? If so, aren't they capable of filing their own lawsuits?
If the AG is accusing Trump of fraud, why hasn't she filed criminal charges? My assumption is because the burden of proof is lower in a civil case.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
chare said:
That's different, and acceptable if both parties agree. However, this is not what I commented on.
OK?
chare said:
Yes, but for separate reasons. Ms. James wants a summary judgement in her favor that Mr. Trump's financial statements were false; while Mr. Trumps legal team is seeking judgement that the entire case should be dismissed.
It seems logical that reasons for wanting summary judgement would always differ between prosecution and defense.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Beerman said:
Oh, OK..LOL. That makes even less sense. But, go ahead...How are the People of the State of NY victims, and what damages did they incur?
Yes. The referral to the DOJ and IRS almost a year ago. What has become of those?
Maybe this will be how Trump defends himself in this civil matter, to reason that there are no victims, no one sustained harm and therefore, accountability is unnecessary. I wonder how that will go for him.
Yes, the referral to the DOJ. The DOJ may be more concerned with the appearance of political motivations than many of us would prefer. This may be another example. Certainly, as a number of comments have reflected. I'm not the only member of AN, or member of the public that wonders why Garland's DOJ has been so sluggishly responsive to the referrals.
It does seem true, however that with the documents case and the January 6th cases, the DOJ is devoting quite a few resources to prosecuting some crimes of real significance. Maybe they've just prioritized. We'll have to wait and see.
Maybe this will be how Trump defends himself in this civil matter, to reason that there are no victims, no one sustained harm and therefore, accountability is unnecessary. I wonder how that will go for him.
It's a civil case. Typically, there is a victim that incurred damages.
It's a civil case. Typically, there is a victim that incurred damages.
Often those kinds of things are brought up in the court, if it's decided things go to court. For example suing for mental anguish they provide in court the evidence of the mental anguish, or "civil rights violations", they bring up in court the details.
But I do agree it's a strange case, and wonder if he inflated his worth and banks and insurers were defrauded why is it not criminal and why can't they bring up charges themselves? They couldn't have been harmed that much.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Beerman said:
It's a civil case. Typically, there is a victim that incurred damages.
The state AG had brought charges that indicate that the people is the state are the victims. It will be an interesting defense for Trump to use in court.
These charges are certainly the least of his legal concerns just now.
heron, ASN, RN
4,671 Posts
Summary judgement is also appeal-able. If trump proves his rights were violated or the opposition's facts were actually in doubt, he potentially gets another shot at a jury trial.
Since he also moved for summary judgement himself, he might be on shaky ground, however.