President Trump has had a few wins, as well as a few setbacks, but other than NY, these big cases aren't even close to the trials.
Apparently the jury notices for DC just started to go out. There's going to be prescreening process, so they probably are starting early
NY Case
The moron judge in NY has already decided he was guilty before the trial (no jury) so that's how it will probably end.... and then it will likely get overturned.
The trial is about deciding other issues. The main issue is the amount of "disgorgement of profits" Trump will pay and a ban on future NY business including >A five-year ban on Trump or the Trump Organization applying for loans from any financial institutions chartered by or registered in New York. The AG is asking for a disgorgement of $250 million.
The finding of liability for fraud and the turning the Trump LLCs over to receivership to be dissolved was decided. Waiting on appeal.
Trump has had some good defense witnesses and some bad ones. I could see the awarding less than the AG is asking for. One witness pointed that high net wealth private banking is not just about that client but other clients that person could lead to you. Another mentioned even if the loan said Trump needed to maintain $2.5 billion in net wealth, going below that would not be a material default, it might just lead to more collateral being put up or a new rate negotiated. I thought they did good and undercut a specific witness called by the state. It seemed like he was not using realistic interest rates.
The past couple of witnesses I didn't think were too strong. They were discussing Mar a Lago. One was a guy who sold real estate in Palm Beach. Each witnesse has to testify to his or her expertise. He never graduated high school. When asking if he ever sold any social clubs in Palm Beach he said no. When asking if he used a formula to calculate Mar a Lago's value he said no. So his testimony was limited to his opinion of the value of Mar a Lago "if it was valued as a private house." Previous testimony talked about the limitations on Mar a Lago and it can't be used as a private house. So it didn't seem useful.
In the "deed of development rights" that Trump signed in 2002, the deed says
WHEREAS the Club and Trump intend to forever extinguish their right to develop or use the Property for any purpose other than club use;
Another witness testified about development right at mar a lago, but from the 1990's before this document was signed.
Eric was supposed to testify today and they pulled him. No reason given. Trump is set to testify Monday. We will see if that goes through.
GA case Fallout from this case is starting to happen in other states. After Kenneth Chesebro plead guilty, he apparently starting hearing from other states.
He told the judge he needed to modify his bail conditions to allow him to travel to other states. he talked to NV and today 6 electors were indicted https://thehill.com/homenews/4345851-nevada-grand-jury-indicts-six-pro-trump-electors/
He supposedly is about to speak to Arizona next.
FL case There was a big drop from Jack Smith in this case. There a laws regarding federal evidence. Specifically around if the prosecutor is going to use evidence not charged in the indictment particularly character evidence in this filing, the prosecution has to give notice. In most cases this is not allowed, but there's a section of the law where you can use it.
Example, if you robbed a bank 10 years ago, it doesn't mean you robbed this bank in your new case. Prejudicial evidence would be kept out.
But if the prosecutor's can use other evidence to show for example that you are very familiar with the laws against conspiracy to rob a bank and show your actions showed consciousness of this. Not a lawyer, this is a rough example
Here's the law https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_404
(1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of any other crime, wrong, or act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.
(2) Permitted Uses. This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.
GOVERNMENT’S NOTICE PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE 404(b) establish his motive, intent, preparation, knowledge, absence of mistake, and common plan https://static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2023/12/2463dc6e-1f98-4759-9a49-c15c27edfab3.pdf
This gives a sense of the case they will use against Trump.
Robert Gouvela discusses this filing here https://x.com/RobGouveiaEsq/status/1732510732347232322?s=20
President Trump has had a few wins, as well as a few setbacks, but other than NY, these big cases aren't even close to the trials.
Apparently the jury notices for DC just started to go out. There's going to be prescreening process, so they probably are starting early
NY Case
The moron judge in NY has already decided he was guilty before the trial (no jury) so that's how it will probably end.... and then it will likely get overturned.
The trial is about deciding other issues. The main issue is the amount of "disgorgement of profits" Trump will pay and a ban on future NY business including >A five-year ban on Trump or the Trump Organization applying for loans from any financial institutions chartered by or registered in New York. The AG is asking for a disgorgement of $250 million.
The finding of liability for fraud and the turning the Trump LLCs over to receivership to be dissolved was decided. Waiting on appeal.
Trump has had some good defense witnesses and some bad ones. I could see the awarding less than the AG is asking for. One witness pointed that high net wealth private banking is not just about that client but other clients that person could lead to you. Another mentioned even if the loan said Trump needed to maintain $2.5 billion in net wealth, going below that would not be a material default, it might just lead to more collateral being put up or a new rate negotiated. I thought they did good and undercut a specific witness called by the state. It seemed like he was not using realistic interest rates.
The past couple of witnesses I didn't think were too strong. They were discussing Mar a Lago. One was a guy who sold real estate in Palm Beach. Each witnesse has to testify to his or her expertise. He never graduated high school. When asking if he ever sold any social clubs in Palm Beach he said no. When asking if he used a formula to calculate Mar a Lago's value he said no. So his testimony was limited to his opinion of the value of Mar a Lago "if it was valued as a private house." Previous testimony talked about the limitations on Mar a Lago and it can't be used as a private house. So it didn't seem useful.
In the "deed of development rights" that Trump signed in 2002, the deed says
WHEREAS the Club and Trump intend to forever extinguish their right to develop or use the Property for any purpose other than club use;
Another witness testified about development right at mar a lago, but from the 1990's before this document was signed.
Eric was supposed to testify today and they pulled him. No reason given. Trump is set to testify Monday. We will see if that goes through.
GA case Fallout from this case is starting to happen in other states. After Kenneth Chesebro plead guilty, he apparently starting hearing from other states.
He told the judge he needed to modify his bail conditions to allow him to travel to other states. he talked to NV and today 6 electors were indicted https://thehill.com/homenews/4345851-nevada-grand-jury-indicts-six-pro-trump-electors/
He supposedly is about to speak to Arizona next.
FL case There was a big drop from Jack Smith in this case. There a laws regarding federal evidence. Specifically around if the prosecutor is going to use evidence not charged in the indictment particularly character evidence in this filing, the prosecution has to give notice. In most cases this is not allowed, but there's a section of the law where you can use it.
Example, if you robbed a bank 10 years ago, it doesn't mean you robbed this bank in your new case. Prejudicial evidence would be kept out.
But if the prosecutor's can use other evidence to show for example that you are very familiar with the laws against conspiracy to rob a bank and show your actions showed consciousness of this. Not a lawyer, this is a rough example
Here's the law https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_404
(1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of any other crime, wrong, or act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.
(2) Permitted Uses. This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.
GOVERNMENT’S NOTICE PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE 404(b) establish his motive, intent, preparation, knowledge, absence of mistake, and common plan https://static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2023/12/2463dc6e-1f98-4759-9a49-c15c27edfab3.pdf
This gives a sense of the case they will use against Trump.