Trump and the Jan 6 investigation

[Zwinmar]

Doesn't really matter when we have a rogue judiciary who refuses to actually follow the law, rather they 'interpret' to mean something that it does not say.

[LadyTevar]

All of these things are true. None of them make the point you're trying to use them to support.

Then please explain what you're trying to support, because I thought it made perfect sense explaining the Intent of the Amendment at the time it was written.
Because reading your responses prior to this lead me to believe you thought/assumed the 14th was one of the Originial Amendments, and I wished to make sure you understood why it was written the way it was.

Petty spite makes a lot of things complicated, especially Legal Matters.

[Ralin]

Then please explain what you're trying to support, because I thought it made perfect sense explaining the Intent of the Amendment at the time it was written.
Because reading your responses prior to this lead me to believe you thought/assumed the 14th was one of the Originial Amendments, and I wished to make sure you understood why it was written the way it was.

Petty spite makes a lot of things complicated, especially Legal Matters.

Well Tev, I'm taking the position that the fact that this amendment conspiciously fails to mention the presidency as a being subject to its restrictions despite listing a number of other lesser positions by name implies that no, we can't just assume that it's obviously included and thus it's fair game to ban one of the two front-runner candidates for next year's election from the ballot.

Whereas you seem to be of the opinion that the exact wording of the amendment doesn't really matter because the people who wrote it were still big mad about the Confederates and that means we should just assume it includes the president too.

[Rogue 9]

So this is what, the thousandth example of the US's laws being godawfully inadequate?

Should they have used broader language as opposed to a bunch of specific titles? Yes. Did they? No.

They didn't bar specific titles. The amendment says no one "having previously taken an oath ... to support the Constitution of the United States" may hold "any office, civil or military" having engaged in insurrection or rebellion. The problem is that the Presidential oath doesn't say support, it says preserve, protect, and defend. That's the hair that's being split, along with Trump's defense trying to claim the President doesn't count as an officer for nonsensical reasons. Obviously it's bullshit; the Office of the President is clearly an office and the exact wording of the oath is as hairsplitting as hairsplitting gets.

[LaCroix]

Yeah - as a student of law, I can only repeat my professor when he cited one of the oldest "hairsplits" in law, stemming back to the roman civil law.

"Sometimes, an apple can be a nut."

No legal text can be taken absolute unless it is explicitly written in it that it only applies to something, but no other thing.
Because the underlying principle is taht all things are equal before the law, and humans make mistakes.
Simply not listing something among a list of other things that contains ans "and others" clause of any kind, and have something that is clearly similar, but not included due to a technicality is not a sign of intent that it should be included, but a mere oversight.

So unless there is a sentence "This does not, however, apply to the office of the president" in a list that clearly seeks to bar people of ANY kind of office, it is clearly an oversight, not an expression of intent.

[Gandalf]

They didn't bar specific titles. The amendment says no one "having previously taken an oath ... to support the Constitution of the United States" may hold "any office, civil or military" having engaged in insurrection or rebellion. The problem is that the Presidential oath doesn't say support, it says preserve, protect, and defend. That's the hair that's being split, along with Trump's defense trying to claim the President doesn't count as an officer for nonsensical reasons. Obviously it's bullshit; the Office of the President is clearly an office and the exact wording of the oath is as hairsplitting as hairsplitting gets.

Sorry, I must have taken it backwards.

It still shows how hilariously badly written US laws are, in that the law only calls out people who swear to "support" the constitution. None of the other florid wank. It just makes me wonder what the actual meaning of support/protect/defend are in these oaths, if this law calls out the one term, the mandated presidential one omits it, and whatever other combos exist.

[Ralin]

It still shows how hilariously badly written US laws are, in that the law only calls out people who swear to "support" the constitution. None of the other florid wank. It just makes me wonder what the actual meaning of support/protect/defend are in these oaths, if this law calls out the one term, the mandated presidential one omits it, and whatever other combos exist.

You have to remember that they're also taking into account the magnitude ruling otherwise would have. Say someone can't be a senator or representative and you're messing with one state's choice for a position that can be handled by a sufficiently well-trained monkey. Say someone can't be an elector or an officer in the military and basically no one other than him and maybe his family is affected. Banning one of the two front-runner candidates for next year's presidential election risks borderline disenfranchising somewhere between a quarter and half of the electorate and runs a non-negligible chance of starting a civil war. Judges aren't supposed to do shit like that unless their justification for doing so is ironclad.

[Formless]

By the same token, interpreting the law to discount the president on account of a technicality undermines the obvious intention of preventing insurrectionists from entering the government, as the President is universally considered the highest office in said government. The magnitude of that ruling is just as important. The President is so powerful by now that I think most of the Founding Fathers would have scrambled to re-write the whole office into oblivion if they could have seen the future.

And no, there isn't going to be another civil war. They tried that and it backfired, that's the reason this trial is even happening. The vast, vast majority of this country turned on Trump before the events that caused this, so fearing that is just stupid.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

When it comes to matters concerning Trump, 'stupid' is inevitable.

[bilateralrope]

Donald Trump's challengers pledge to pardon him if he's convicted

Reis Thebault
16:53, Jan 01 2024

Donald Trump’s leading Republican primary challengers said in recent days that if they are elected, they would pardon the former US president should he be convicted of any of the 91 felony charges he’s currently facing.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and former governor of South Carolina Nikki Haley argued in separate campaign stops last week that extending clemency to Trump would be in the country’s best interest.

Both had previously signalled they were leaning toward issuing a pardon, but their recent statements were the most definitive yet and left little room for doubt just weeks before the first nominating contests in January.

“I would pardon Trump if he is found guilty,” Haley told a crowd in New Hampshire on Thursday.

DeSantis, who has blamed Trump’s dominance in the polls in part on the string of criminal indictments, said on Friday that he would pardon a convicted Trump because “we got to move on as a country”.

Speaking with reporters after a campaign stop in Elkader, Iowa, DeSantis echoed Haley’s commitment, invoking the only previous time a US president has received a pardon.

“It’s like Ford did to Nixon,” DeSantis said, referencing Gerald Ford’s 1974 pardon of disgraced former president Richard M Nixon. “Because you just, you know, the divisions are just not in the country’s interest.”

DeSantis and Haley, who are leading a winnowed field of GOP candidates opposing Trump, have for months walked a political tightrope, seeking to distinguish themselves from the former president while continuing to court his substantial bloc of supporters, whose votes will be key in deciding the Republican primary.

Aside from Trump, who has remained the clear leader in polling and campaign fundraising, three of the GOP’s top four candidates have now said unequivocally that they would pardon him, with entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy committing to the move in July.

Ex-New Jersey governor Chris Christie, meanwhile, has railed against these pledges, calling Trump’s actions a threat to democracy. A pardon for Trump, Christie said on Friday, would signal “two systems of justice: One for all of us and one for the most powerful”.

“If we allow that to happen as a country, we would be no better – no better – than a lot of these tinpot democracies around the world who treat the privileged different than they treat everyday citizens,” Christie said at an event in New Hampshire.

Trump is facing 44 federal charges and 47 state charges across four separate criminal cases. The federal charges with the most severe penalties are those concerning allegations of obstruction of justice, which in typical cases can result in up to 20 years of imprisonment.

Defendants, however, rarely receive maximum sentences and it is not clear whether Trump would be imprisoned if convicted.

Trump’s conduct, especially his role in the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol, is not only at the heart of criminal cases against him, it is central to officials’ decisions to keep him off presidential primary ballots in two states.

In Maine, Secretary of State Shenna Bellows barred Trump from the ballot late last week and has been subjected to violent threats in the days since.

Over the weekend, her home was “swatted” – having a fake emergency call that drew heavily armed police to her house – Bellows shared in a social media post.

Despite the charges against him, Trump has retained a wide lead in polls ahead of the 2024 primary, which officially begins in less than a month with a caucus in Iowa and voting in New Hampshire. According to FiveThirtyEight’s polling average, Trump held a nearly 50-point lead over his two closest rivals, DeSantis and Haley, as of Sunday.

In New Hampshire, Trump’s lead was smaller but still commanding, with 46% of potential voters supporting him, 28 points more than the next closest candidate, according to a Washington Post-Monmouth University poll.

DeSantis had previously said it would not be “good for the country to have an almost 80-year-old former president go to prison”. Haley made the same case in New Hampshire last week, responding to a 9-year-old’s question about the former president.

“A leader needs to think about what’s in the best interest of the country,” Haley said.

“What’s in the best interest of the country is not to have an 80-year-old man sitting in jail that continues to divide our country. What’s in the best interest of our country would be to pardon him so that we can move on as a country and no longer talk about him.”

New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu, who is supporting Haley in the primary, defended her remarks in a Sunday interview on CNN.

“Look, I understand Nikki’s argument,” Sununu said. “Everybody wants to move on from the drama and the chaos of Donald Trump. We are all so tired of it. We’re all so worn out of it as Americans.”

Good thing they can't pardon state crimes.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Are any of them likely to defeat Trump in a primary challenge though?

[Rogue 9]

Are any of them likely to defeat Trump in a primary challenge though?

Not as things stand now, but if he's convicted before Super Tuesday (which his lawyers are desperately trying to keep from happening by delaying the trial by any means) maybe. This is a bid for the support of his base in the event he's not the nominee for some reason.

[LadyTevar]

Are any of them likely to defeat Trump in a primary challenge though?

Not as things stand now, but if he's convicted before Super Tuesday (which his lawyers are desperately trying to keep from happening by delaying the trial by any means) maybe. This is a bid for the support of his base in the event he's not the nominee for some reason.

Ah yes, because the GOP believe that Trump's Base is gonna keep them alive and valid as a party for this election and future elections.

I just seriously hope and pray that Trump's Base isn't as deep and wide as the GOP hopes and the DEMS fear.

[Raw Shark]

Ah yes, because the GOP believe that Trump's Base is gonna keep them alive and valid as a party for this election and future elections.

I just seriously hope and pray that Trump's Base isn't as deep and wide as the GOP hopes and the DEMS fear.

Donny Jingles hasn't done a single thing in the last three years that is going to impress anybody who didn't vote for him last time, and he lost last time by a good margin. "Oh hey, I didn't support him before, but he's been found liable for sexual assault so now I like the cut of his jib!" The GOP's advantage (besides willingness to cheat and oodles and oodles of money) has always (at least within my lifetime) been that they get out the vote. I'm hoping that the abortion issue is enough to defeat Democratic apathy this year, but the threat of another installment in the Crouching Elephant, Sleeping Donkey franchise is always a real one.

[Highlord Laan]

Ah yes, because the GOP believe that Trump's Base is gonna keep them alive and valid as a party for this election and future elections.

I just seriously hope and pray that Trump's Base isn't as deep and wide as the GOP hopes and the DEMS fear.

The GOP's advantage (besides willingness to cheat and oodles and oodles of money) has always (at least within my lifetime) been that they get out the vote.

That, and republicans tend to be fascists, retarded, or both.

[Gandalf]

That, and republicans tend to be fascists, retarded, or both.

I get the ITG thing, but no need for the ableism.

[Ralin]

"Oh hey, I didn't support him before, but he's been found liable for sexual assault so now I like the cut of his jib!"

I fully expect him to win a non negligible number of votes on exactly that ground

[EnterpriseSovereign]

"Oh hey, I didn't support him before, but he's been found liable for sexual assault so now I like the cut of his jib!"

I fully expect him to win a non negligible number of votes on exactly that ground

It did last time, they voted him into office despite him being caught on tape saying he was a pussygrabber.

[bilateralrope]

Filing alleges ‘improper’ relationship between Fulton DA, top Trump prosecutor

Fani Willis hired alleged romantic partner as special prosecutor, court motion says

By Bill Rankin and
Tamar Hallerman
Updated Jan 9, 2024

District Attorney Fani Willis improperly hired an alleged romantic partner to prosecute Donald Trump and financially benefited from their relationship, according to a court motion filed Monday which argued the criminal charges in the case were unconstitutional.

The bombshell public filing alleged that special prosecutor Nathan Wade, a private attorney, paid for lavish vacations he took with Willis using the Fulton County funds his law firm received. County records show that Wade, who has played a prominent role in the election interference case, has been paid nearly $654,000 in legal fees since January 2022. The DA authorizes his compensation.

The motion, filed on behalf of defendant Michael Roman, a former Trump campaign official, seeks to have the charges against Roman dismissed and for Willis, Wade and the entire DA’s office to be disqualified from further prosecution of the case.

Pallavi Bailey, a Willis spokeswoman, said the DA’s office will respond to Roman’s allegations “through appropriate court filings.” Wade did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The document offers no concrete proof of the romantic ties between Willis and Wade, but says “sources close to both the special prosecutor and the district attorney have confirmed they had an ongoing, personal relationship.”

Roman’s lawyer, Ashleigh Merchant, said she reviewed the case file in Wade’s ongoing divorce proceedings at the Superior Court Clerk’s Office and made copies of certain documents. But the case file was later improperly sealed because no court hearing was held as required by law, the motion said.

Because the case remains under seal, Merchant said she is not sharing the information she obtained from the divorce file until the seal is lifted. She also said she is asking a judge to unseal the case file.

It is unclear if the explosive issues raised in the filing undermine the validity of the indictment against Trump and the remaining 14 co-defendants or simply muddy the waters by questioning Willis’ professional ethics.

One ethics expert said that the allegations, if true, raised serious questions.

Stephen Gillers, a professor emeritus at New York University Law School who has written extensively about legal and judicial ethics, said a closer look at Willis’ decision-making is needed before it can be determined whether the indictment should be dismissed.

If the allegations are true, Gillers said, “Willis was conflicted in the investigation and prosecution of this case” and wasn’t able to bring the sort of “independent professional judgment” her position requires.

“That does not mean that her decisions were in fact improperly motivated,” Gillers said in an e-mail. “It does mean that the public and the state, as her client, could not have the confidence in the independent judgment that her position required her to exercise.”

The filing alleges that Willis and Wade have been involved in a romantic relationship that began before Wade was appointed special prosecutor. It says they traveled together to Napa Valley and Florida, and they cruised the Caribbean together using tickets Wade purchased from Norwegian and Royal Caribbean cruise lines — although the filing did not include documentation of those purchases.

The motion said the checks sent to Wade from Fulton County and his subsequent purchase of vacations for Willis could amount to honest services fraud, a federal crime in which a vendor gives kickbacks to an employer. It is also possible this could be prosecuted under the federal racketeering statute, the motion said

Merchant wrote that the “motion is not filed lightly. Nor is it being filed without considerable forethought, research or investigation.”

But the issue had to be raised and must be heard because the issues “strike at the heart of fairness in our justice system and, if left unaddressed and unchecked, threaten to taint the entire prosecution of this case, invite error and completely undermine public confidence in any outcome in this proceeding.”

Willis and Wade, the motion contends, “have been engaged in an improper, clandestine personal relationship during the pendency of this case, which has resulted in the special prosecutor, and, in turn, the district attorney, profiting significantly from this prosecution at the expense of the taxpayers.”

A problem with Wade’s appointment is that it was not approved by the Fulton board of commissioners as required by law, the motion said. The motion also questions Wade’s credentials, contending he has never prosecuted a felony case. (Wade was an assistant solicitor for Cobb County in 1999. The office handles misdemeanor cases.)

Wade entered into his special prosecutor contract on Nov. 1, 2021, just one day before he filed for divorce in Cobb County, the motion said. Willis is divorced.

Roman’s filing also resurfaces an accusation previously made against Wade: that his two oaths of office were not filed in court prior to his work on the case, so he misrepresented himself as a duly authorized special prosecutor.

Judge Scott McAfee previously rejected that argument, stating that the requirements don’t apply to contractors working on single cases and that the defendants didn’t establish a constitutional violation or structural defect to the grand jury process that warranted dismissing the case outright.

”If this parrot of a motion is somehow not yet dead, the defendant has failed to establish how (Wade’s) actions resulted in prejudice,” McAfee wrote, alluding to a famous Monty Python sketch.

Merchant acknowledged McAfee’s ruling but said that “in the larger context of the various issues surrounding his appointment, Willis’ lack of authority to appoint him and the conflict of interest issues addressed below, the fact that Wade did not file his oath before beginning work takes on new and more significant meaning and, indeed, constitutes a structural defect in the indictment.”

Merchant’s filing came on the day McAfee had set as a deadline for most of the defendants to submit pretrial motions in the sprawling criminal case.

Roman worked as director of Election Day operations for the Trump campaign in 2020. He was charged with seven felony counts in Fulton, most of them conspiracy charges in conjunction with his role helping organize slates of Trump electors in battleground states won by Democrat Joe Biden, including Georgia. He has pleaded not guilty to the charges, and his legal team previously turned down a plea offer from the DA’s office.

Notably, Roman was the only one of the 19 people Willis charged who had not been recommended for indictment by a special grand jury which spent eight months investigating election subversion efforts in Georgia after the 2020 election. A separate grand jury handed up criminal charges.

If true, this is a serious problem with the Georgia case. At a minimum, Willis would need to be replaced, which could be a major delay if it doesn't kill this case completely.

But no evidence was provided. No statements from anyone who witnessed anything. Just a claim that one of the defendants lawyers saw something incriminating in some of the documents in the now sealed divorce case of the special prosecutor. So that lawyer wants the divorce case unsealed.

So I have no idea if the lawyer believes that the improper relationship happened or is just trying to get the divorce unsealed to give more ammunition for mudslinging.

[LaCroix]

Right now, Trump team need to work on their message...

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-ba ... -immunity/

In stark contrast to the argument they used against impeachment after Jan 6 - Impeachment is wrong, you can sue the president in the courts, instead - they now claimed that you can only sue a former president for actions that he was impeached and convicted over.

According to this argument, Biden could order Trump, all the Republican Congressmen, and Senators killed, then immediately resign to avoid impeachment, putting Kamala Harris in power with an completely empty congres and senate who would rubberstamp everything they want until the seats are refilled, and would be immune to any further prosecution.

[bilateralrope]

I don't think Trump believes he can win the immunity claim. Instead, I think his plan there is to delay until the trial won't impact the election, win the presidency, then pardon himself.

[LadyTevar]

I don't think Trump believes he can win the immunity claim. Instead, I think his plan there is to delay until the trial won't impact the election, win the presidency, then pardon himself.

AGAIN. As Mentioned many times before -- President Cannot Pardon State Crimes.
Oh, he'll try, but he will find out fast it won't work, and then we'll have more whining as he tries to change it so he can.

BUT -- Right now they're in closing arguments. Trump has been warned he is not allowed to speak during these closing arguments. We'll see how that goes, and what the judge decides.

[LaCroix]

Hypothetical: Say he is sentenced in, say Georgia for the state charges of election fraud, and gets a few years in prison. No Parole.
Then he wins the election. Can the secret service come and just take him with them?
Can he even rule from there - he isn't allowed to phone too much, and only a few visits.

How would that even work?

[bilateralrope]

I don't think Trump believes he can win the immunity claim. Instead, I think his plan there is to delay until the trial won't impact the election, win the presidency, then pardon himself.

AGAIN. As Mentioned many times before -- President Cannot Pardon State Crimes.
Oh, he'll try, but he will find out fast it won't work, and then we'll have more whining as he tries to change it so he can.

My reply is to LaCroix, who is talking about the immunity claims in the Jan 6 case in DC. Which is a federal case.

Trump only made claims of immunity in the Georgia case last monday. Because last monday was the last day to file pre-trial motions there. My guess is that his plan there is to delay and hope that some way out of that case shows up. Or maybe delay the trial past his death.

BUT -- Right now they're in closing arguments. Trump has been warned he is not allowed to speak during these closing arguments. We'll see how that goes, and what the judge decides.

That sounds like it's from the New York fraud case. The judges conditions for allowing Trump to speak seem reasonable.

Judge blocks Trump plan to deliver own closing argument in New York fraud trial

Arthur Engoron said over email Trump could address court if he agreed to certain terms but ex-president’s lawyers fail to agree

Dominic Rushe and Associated Press
Wed 10 Jan 2024 19.39 GMT

Donald Trump’s plans to deliver closing arguments on Thursday in his New York civil business fraud trial were dashed on Wednesday by the judge overseeing the case.

Trump had planned to give his own speech in addition to his legal team’s summations, according to two people familiar with the highly unusual plan. But judge Arthur Engoron rescinded permission for the speech.

In an email exchange, the judge requested Trump agree to certain conditions – requiring he focused only on the facts of the case, and refrained from introducing new evidence, or commenting on “irrelevant matters” – to formally address the court.

Engoron also stressed that Trump would not be allowed to deliver “a campaign speech”, or “impugn myself, my staff, plaintiff, plaintiff’s staff, or the New York state court system”.


Judge blocks Trump plan to deliver own closing argument in New York fraud trial
Arthur Engoron said over email Trump could address court if he agreed to certain terms but ex-president’s lawyers fail to agree

Dominic Rushe and Associated Press
Wed 10 Jan 2024 19.39 GMT
Donald Trump’s plans to deliver closing arguments on Thursday in his New York civil business fraud trial were dashed on Wednesday by the judge overseeing the case.

Trump had planned to give his own speech in addition to his legal team’s summations, according to two people familiar with the highly unusual plan. But judge Arthur Engoron rescinded permission for the speech.

Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley spar during the debate in Iowa on Wednesday night.
Republican debate: Haley and DeSantis exchange barbs in fight for second place
Read more
In an email exchange, the judge requested Trump agree to certain conditions – requiring he focused only on the facts of the case, and refrained from introducing new evidence, or commenting on “irrelevant matters” – to formally address the court.

Engoron also stressed that Trump would not be allowed to deliver “a campaign speech”, or “impugn myself, my staff, plaintiff, plaintiff’s staff, or the New York state court system”.

The former president’s legal team would not agree to these terms.

“I won’t debate this yet again,” Engoron wrote on Wednesday, after Trump’s lawyers pushed back. “Take it or leave it. Now or never. You have until noon, seven minutes from now. I WILL NOT GRANT ANY FURTHER EXTENSIONS.”

When Trump’s lawyers failed to respond in time, Engoron followed up with another email.

“Not having heard from you by the third extended deadline,” he wrote, “I assume that Mr Trump will not agree to the reasonable, lawful limits I have imposed as a precondition to giving a closing statement above and beyond those given by his attorneys, and that, therefore, he will not be speaking in court tomorrow.”

The exchange, disclosed in court filings, also revealed that Trump had requested on Tuesday evening that this week’s court date be postponed until later this month following the death of his mother-in-law. His lawyers cited “the challenges presented by this deeply personal family matter”.

Engoron denied the request, however. “I am sorry to hear the sad news,” he wrote, before explaining that “every appearance of Mr Trump requires court officers, court clerks, administrators, security details, technical people, etc to rearrange their schedules and to plan for the day”.

Trump is a defendant in the case brought by the New York attorney general, Letitia James. She claims his net worth was inflated by billions of dollars on financial statements that helped him secure business loans and insurance.

An attorney for Trump informed Engoron earlier this week that the former president wished to speak during the closing arguments, and the judge approved the plan, according to one of the two people who spoke to the Associated Press.

Both persons who confirmed the plan did so on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to disclose the information to reporters.

The Trump campaign and a spokesperson for James declined to comment.

The former president and current Republican frontrunner denies any wrongdoing, and he has condemned the case during a peppery day of testimony, on social media and in verbal comments in the courthouse hallway.

In recent days on his Truth Social platform, he called the case a “hoax”, dismissed the months-long proceedings as as a “pathetic excuse for a trial”, and criticized the judge and the attorney general, both Democrats.But delivering a summation would have been another matter.

Although some people represent themselves, it is highly uncommon for defendants personally to give summations if they have attorneys to do so. Trump has several, and he is not a lawyer.

In closing arguments, both sides give their views of what the evidence has shown and why they should win. It is each camp’s last chance to try to persuade the ultimate decision-maker – in this case, Judge Engoron.

Trump’s plans regarding the trial have changed before. In December, he was scheduled to testify as a witness for a second time, but he canceled the day before, saying he had “nothing more to say”.

James’s office says Trump, his business and some top executives defrauded banks and insurers by hugely goosing the values of assets such as his triplex at Trump Tower in New York and his Mar-a-Lago club and residence in Florida.

The state claims the bigger numbers got Trump better rates, while lenders and insurers didn’t get the information they needed to make a truly informed assessment of the risk they were taking on and what they should charge for it.

The “defendants reaped hundreds of millions of dollars in ill-gotten gains through their unlawful conduct”, state lawyers wrote in a court filing on Friday. They are seeking $370m in penalties, plus interest, and a ban on Trump doing business in New York.

The defense says Trump more than qualified for the deals he got – and say he upheld his end of them, including by repaying all the loans. He and his lawyers maintain that his financial statements were clearly offered as unaudited estimates that recipients should check out for themselves, and that the net worth numbers were far too low, not the opposite. Any overstatements were just errors too small to affect the bottom line, the defense says.

“There have been no losses to any party, as the loans here were negotiated between very sophisticated parties,” Trump lawyers Christopher Kise and Michael T Madaio wrote Friday in court papers. “Lenders made their own informed decisions.”

Engoron will weigh claims of conspiracy, insurance fraud and falsifying business records. He has said he hopes to have a verdict by the end of this month.

He decided the lawsuit’s top claim before trial, ruling that Trump and other defendants engaged in fraud for years. The judge then ordered that a receiver take control of some of the ex-president’s properties, but an appeals court has frozen that order for now.

[Ralin]

Hypothetical: Say he is sentenced in, say Georgia for the state charges of election fraud, and gets a few years in prison. No Parole.
Then he wins the election. Can the secret service come and just take him with them?
Can he even rule from there - he isn't allowed to phone too much, and only a few visits.

How would that even work?

Uncharted territory. But I expect it would boil down to the White House telling Georgia they aren't allowed to hold him and asking what army they're going to do it with if they argue.

The intended remedy here is that if something that crazy happened Congress would impeach him to end the embarrassment, but well. You know how it is.