Trump Foundation's lawyer asked that trial not begin so close to midterms. Judge laughed in response

[bigtree]

Katie Phang @KatiePhang 9h9 hours ago
The Trump Foundation’s lawyer asked that trial not begin in October, as it was so close to the midterms.

“Judge Scarpulla laughed in response, did not change the trial date, and hinted that she is likely to require the President to testify.” https://t.co/3b6j3fu8cN

from the NewYorker:

Barring an unexpected change, the Donald J. Trump Foundation will be defending itself in a New York courtroom shortly before this fall’s midterm elections. The proceedings seem unlikely to go well for the institution and its leadership; President Trump and his elder children, Ivanka, Donald, Jr., and Eric, are being sued by New York’s attorney general, Barbara Underwood, for using the charity to enrich and benefit the Trump family. On Tuesday, the judge in the case, Saliann Scarpulla, made a series of comments and rulings from the bench that hinted—well, all but screamed—that she believes the Trump family has done some very bad things.

The judge seemed frustrated, even confused, that the Trumps were fighting the case at all. At one point, she told a lawyer for the Trump children that they should just settle out of court and voluntarily agree to one of the sanctions: a demand by the Attorney General that they not serve on the boards of any nonprofits for one year. (The case will be tried in civil court, and the Trumps aren’t facing any criminal charges.) That’s far from the worst sort of punishment, but to accede to it would be a public embarrassment and an acknowledgement that the family did, indeed, use the foundation as something of a private slush fund to enrich themselves and reward their cronies. Judge Scarpulla made clear that she felt the children should agree to the sanction now, and that, if they don’t, she will probably impose a similar restriction “with or without your agreement.”

...In recent years, the only “contributions” to the charity seem to have been payments from business partners, not from the Trumps or the Trump Organization. The charity’s spending appears to have benefitted the Trumps themselves, not the public welfare. The organization had been operating this way for years, but, according to Underwood, in 2016 the Trump Foundation became an arm of the Trump political campaign, cutting checks to Trump’s political allies in key states just before the election. If true, this would mean that the Trump Foundation evolved from a mere tax-avoidance scheme into an instrument for carrying out potential acts of campaign-finance fraud. The Attorney General made clear that her evidence could support criminal cases against the Trumps, but she has no jurisdiction to bring such charges, since tax and campaign fraud are federal matters. She referred the case to federal officials, though it seems unlikely that the I.R.S. or the Federal Election Commission would choose to prosecute a sitting President or his children.

During Tuesday’s hearing, the Trump Foundation’s lawyer, Alan Futerfas, asked that the trial not commence in October, because it was so close to the midterms. Judge Scarpulla laughed in response, did not change the trial date, and hinted that she is likely to require the President to testify. It is not clear, however, that such a trial would dramatically change how people vote; it was clear during the 2016 Presidential election, thanks to Fahrenthold’s reporting, that the Trump Foundation was almost certainly engaged in systematic fraud...

read more: https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-inconvenient-legal-troubles-that-lie-ahead-for-the-trump-foundation

[no_hypocrisy]

1. Let me get this straight. Trump wants to shove through the vote on the replacement to the

USSC despite it occurring before the mid-term elections. But Trump also wants to delay his fraud trial because it would be so close to the mid-term elections.

[DarthDem]

2. Exactly

Well put. I had the same thought. Quite the headscratcher.

[bigtree]

8. that's an excellent observation

...I'll be listening for that analogy out in medialand.

[mountain grammy]

20. Yes. Let that sink in.

[RandomAccess]

3. I sure as heck hope there's a LOT more at stake than merely

not serving on any foundation boards for a year.

[bigtree]

5. . but her emails

. but her emails

...and I remember she gave a speech.

It is what it is. Much less has been made into much more by the opposition, with success.

Can the Trumps testify without perjuring themselves?

[kag]

16. Pretty sure there's lots of money at stake, too.

But since it's a civil case, there's no jail time involved. The family is looking at having to pay a bunch of fines and to repay some money to the state, I think. I'll try to find a link.

[FakeNoose]

19. The Trump family has used this foundation to avoid taxes

...it's not a charity it's a scam to benefit Trumps, and also avoid paying taxes. Pretty sure somebody will go to jail over this. For sure they'll have to pay a lot of back taxes with penalties, once the trial is done. There's no way they'd get a not guilty verdict, but they can drag it out, appeal it, etc.

[SHRED]

6. Could this case make it to the SCOTUS?

[bigtree]

7. why isn't this political death for Trump?

...it's corruption by a president and his family on a scale never seen before in our history.

And the trial is happening before an election.

Why can't Trump be leveled on this before it even gets that far?

[SHRED]

9. Because he took over an entire political party

They would rather go after her emails and try to subvert Mueller.

[bigtree]

15. it's an election year

...a president under investigation, and a republican party seeped in inhumanity.

Republicans made political gold out of much less, out of straw.

[thucythucy]

10. "It seems unlikely that the IRS

or the Federal Election Commission would choose to prosecute a sitting President or his children."

So much for all that "in our country no one is above the law" jazz.

[kag]

17. Exactly.

This is so frustrating!

[maxrandb]

11. WTF???

"It seems unlikely that the IRS or Federal Election Commission would choose to prosecute a sitting president or his children ????

Ok, even if you say "maybe" you can't prosecute a sitting president...wtf makes the princes and princesses imune.

Are we a fucking full blown monarchy now ?

Why even hold another election... we can just pass down the kingdom to the next heir just like King George used to do.

Holy fuck. What fucking planet are we living on?

[BigmanPigman]

14. Didn't they charge VP Spiro Agnew with tax violations

and he had to leave office? Then we got Ford.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

12. Trump modus operandi: litigate endlessly and delay, delay, delay. . . . nt

[Shrike47]

13. Next will be a motion to disqualify the judge because of bias.

After all, anybody who says no to Donnie is clearly biased and unfair.

[SunSeeker]

18. Trump's lawyer's request just confirmed the foundation exists to support Trump, not charity.

I'd be laughing too if I were the judge.

[Maraya1969]

21. There should be criminal charges in this case. Isn't this fraud and a bunch of other stuff?

[Scurrilous]

22. K&R