The Omnibus P01135809 Criminal Investigation Thread

My read was it was presented as a deal.

You go to prison for X years or you do House Arrest for X years under A, B, C conditions which can be anything as long as both parties agree, yes?

Given how many of those statements she made in court couldn't it backfire on her?

I would assume any whistleblowing on her part would be to indict the bigger fish in some crime. Otherwise all she would be doing is making money writing a book or speaking to the press poisoning his reputation for profit, but that has no real effect on Orange Toxic Wastoid.

I guess it is a question of "backfire" in what way?

This is assuming that she keeps whatever she might do in retaliation within ethical boundaries. She ethically cannot betray client confidences unless the client has committed a crime. And we all know that there's no chance that Alina knows anything about any crimes DJT, his family or the Trump Organization might be guilty of./s/

It would also be a bad assumption that Alina knows and would respect ethical boundaries. If the allegations in the lawsuit we are talking about are true -- that Alina effectively cozied up to a represented person, convinced them to drop their lawyer, then convinced them to sign a settlement/non-disclosure agreement that wildly favored Trump, all while auditioning for becoming and then actually becoming Trump's lawyer unbeknownst to the woman she was advising -- it would be a massive ethical breach that should result in her disbarment anyway. There are probably a few others where I think she has done that probably should be disciplined for already: failing in her duty of competence, attacking without basis the judicial system, suborning perjury from the Trump CFO, refusing to inform the judge when specifically called out about the CFO's forthcoming guilty plea for that perjury....

There are probably other things I'm not thinking of. But the bottom line is that I don't think Alina has anything left to lose. She already is radioactive as an attorney -- even if she manages to navigate through the financial and ethical issues already before her somehow, who in their right mind would hire her. A bunch of people wouldn't out of sheer disdain for her having represented Trump, period. Another bunch would not because she so spectacularly failed pretty much at every turn. Granted, a lawyer gifted with the skill sets of Perry Mason and Atticus Finch is probably not going to win any of the cases she lost. But at least they would not lose so spectacularly. There are those who might hire Alina because of the Trump connection -- wanting to be one degree of separation from Dear Leader, thinking that he only hires THE BEST, or that sort of thing. But if this is a true sign that she's being cut off from Trump's orbit, even such people would seem unlikely to hire her.

So what would Alina have to lose by spilling whatever tea she wants to spill?

In terms of the statements she may have made in court, generally she would not have been under oath and she has a fair amount of latitude to say whatever she would like within ethical/professional boundaries. In the court of public opinion and before the bar, I think she could simply explain "I was being a zealous advocate and my job was to defend my client to the best of my ability without crossing ethical lines, and that's what I did. But now I'm free to tell the truth about _____."

Of course, the people judging her in both locations might disagree or might choose to believe Alina 1.0 vs. Alina 2.0. And she could face the vitriol of Trump, his minions and whichever attorney might be foolish enough to replace her.

I guess the one thing that might stop her is mutually assured destruction in that or some similar way. I obviously do not know anything in depth about Alina, but it strikes me that she has enjoyed going to all the right-wing news outlets and podcasts and being the belle of the ball, worthy of respect, etc. Having those outlets take aim at her as they likely would portraying her as an incompetent idiot who lost Trump over $500 million in the two recent cases alone, on top of other Ls they have had put on them, failed to take basic steps she should have in both trials, who was exposed as incompetent, etc. might be devastating to her ego. Not to mention all the unfair/untrue things on top of that. It might be better from her perspective to take her lumps, take whatever money she's gotten paid and ride quietly off in the sunset rather than bite the hand that fed her.

I'll preface by saying: not my area of expertise, and I haven't done any actual research on the subject.

That said, a plea deal could include various conditions. Those conditions would still have to be approved by a judge if both parties agree to them.

I do not picture a world where Trump pleads guilty to any crime, period. I think no matter how stacked the evidence might be against him, no mater how favorable the terms of the deal, his ego simply would not allow him to say "I'm guilty." When he has spent years and years screaming "WITCH HUNT!" I just don't see him voluntarily putting on green makeup, wearing a pointed hat and hopping on a broom. Not when he can keep dragging out any trial and appeal probably for the rest of his natural life. (Although I would very much like him to write a sequel book "The Art of the Plea Deal.")

But if we lived in a world where a prosecutor was bold enough to propose terms that include no interviews or Truthing/tweeting, and Trump was willing to accept it, I think a judge would be dutybound to reject the deal or at least that term as against public policy/the Constitution.

Also, it seems to me that even if a judge would allow that term to exist, there would be a question of what happens when (not if) he inevitably breaks it.

This John Barron article is amazing.

https://nypost.com/2024/03/20/busin...let-letitia-james-seize-trump-tower-insiders/

10/10 no notes.

Pay no attention to the social media video he just put out (humbly ) begging small donors for whatever money the can send him....

“He’s not an ‘I’m passing the hat’ man — he doesn’t want pity or for anyone to feel sorry for him,” the source claimed. “He will do what he has to do. He has plenty of wealthy friends who would help him if asked, but he’s not asking, as far as I’m aware.”​

… the ‘source’ continued, he has billionaire friends come up to him every day with tears in their eyes saying ‘Sir, sir, please take these millions’ but he turns them down and tells them to give it to the orphans instead…

The really fun thing is seized assets could then lead to him having to pay back the principle that he leveraged them against, triggering more and more loans coming due. And as it appears those loans are based on vastly over-estimated valuations...

On a serious note…. We got him?

I was initially skeptical of Monday’s WaPo story that Trump couldn’t come up with the cash, 30 banks refused to loan him money and no one was bailing him out because I have been conscious these last 10 years but if Trump is seeding to the NY Post that him not being able to raise the cash or get anyone to loan him the cash is actually a good thing… Ummm… maybe? Maybe we got him?

To me at least 'we got him' is only real when they slam the door shut on his prison cell. But I will certainly take him being ruined by his own greed and stupidity in the meantime, and he's getting too old to bounce back from yet another bankruptcy.

We have to twiddle our thumbs 'til fucking Monday for it to be final.
During which time, Trump could slither away like a greased pig yet again.
Trump's trials have been a harsh lesson in "don't count your chickens..".

Nah, he's just signaling to folks that if they don't start coughing up money soon, things are going to get dicey. The question is: For whom? For the people who want Trump as their leader? Or the people with big money who could possibly find themselves in legal trouble if Trump started telling all he knows.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I read somewhere that Biff Inc. can't declare bankruptcy to avoid this settlement, though Biff himself might be able to by declaring personal bankruptcy. AFAIK all of his previous bankruptcies have only involved his companies, not him personally declaring.

In Florida, one's homestead is protected from that kind of seizure, which would seem to rule out auctioning off Mar a Lago on the courthouse steps. However, I saw something from a Youtuber (pass the salt, please) that that monument to bad taste, the tacky palace is somehow registered through some sort of New York entity that could leave it vulnerable to seizure.

My understanding is that he can't declare bankruptcy personally to get out of the judgment, but he might have to if a sufficient amount of his other debts come due even if they are doing so because of they are triggered by the judgment. They will still take every last asset in his portfolio though in that case. He'd be left with nothing. Heh.

It depends on how truly leveraged he is on these properties. And it is thought he has some really weird ownership structures, things like 'I own the parking garage and the bathrooms but everything else is in a holding company someone else has rights to.' If that is the case, he could claim he 'owned' a building even while holding very little in the way of the property.

I'd read something similar that said that even if New York seized "his" properties, they might face a real tangle trying to determine just who owns what portion of what.

And some people didn't see a problem with Biff hiding his tax returns for so long.

Wasn't saying a warden would take it upon himself to do, was saying that it would be a condition of his sentence (or rather, that I would like it to be) which would fall to the warden et al to enforce.

There was a guest on MSNBC which speculated that it was within the courts power to compel any necessary disclosure about the status of all properties, and also that the court could appoint...I forget the word, but basically a court appointed manager of the company who would be empowered to work with the state to clear any particular hurdles to a sale.

Probably the term was "special master."

https://newrepublic.com/post/180023/judge-aileen-cannon-law-clerks-quit

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...trump-westchester-assets-if-fraud-fine-unpaid

Lol watch this be the spark that causes another global financial meltdown. He's been doing the classic take out a loan to pay for other loans for so long, he's a walking, covfefeing subprime mortgage bubble.

Okay, so a billionaire investment group just merger-ed with Truth Social, and put 3 billion in Trump's coffers.
But there's a 6 month waiting period for all the legal ink to dry where Trump can't play with the money.
So, this doesn't save him from the Monday deadline.
Letitia James gets to mutilate his empire for those 6 months, and he won't get his stuff back.

This investment group are fucking morons; like everyone else he's dragged down in the quicksand over the decades.

Question: What do you get when you give an idiot a billion dollars? Answer:An idiot with a billion dollars. These techno-bros are the living embodiment of Dunning-Kruger.

Hmm. When your lawyers are trying to argue you can't possibly pay $464M, going on social media to brag that you have $500M in cash might not be the brightest move:

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/nick-akerman-trump-million_n_65fc5353e4b0d2a3e7778a54

The judge would probably like to know where it came and/or why he shouldn’t be sanctioned for lying in court documents about it. How would you like to be lawyer who signed those papers and then saw that?

I think what I was reaching for was "overseer" because in my mind "Special Master" is associated with Judge Cannon's previous bullshit.

On the one hand, there are reports that the six month thing can be waived by the board, if the board is Trumpy enough...on the other hand, if Trump immediately starts dumping stock the market value will crash in a hurry so at most he could skim.

Another report said even with a waiver there are rules that involve only sheading 1%? I'm not sure about that.

Yet another report says given the NY judgements (and other to come) that even if money starts flowing in the court(s) can attach it before he even gets control of it. If that's true it would be very satisfying.