Trump claims he wasn’t referring to clerk when he violated fraud trial gag order
The fifth week of Donald Trump’s civil fraud trial is underway in New York however one other Trump trial has begun in Colorado.
The latest authorized motion considerations a lawsuit searching for to dam Mr Trump from the 2024 presidential poll based mostly on the 14th Amendment and its ban on insurrectionists working for workplace. Denver District Court Judge Sarah B Wallace will hear arguments on the Civil War-era federal constitutional modification all through the week.
Meanwhile, in New York, Mr Trump’s sons Donald Trump Jr and Eric Trump are anticipated to testify within the fraud trial this week, with the previous president and Ivanka Trump taking the stand the next week.
And in Washington, DC, the choose within the former president’s federal election interference case has reinstated a gag order on him within the federal case introduced by particular counsel Jack Smith.
US District Judge Tanya Chutkan issued a gag order within the case in early October, banning Mr Trump from making statements about prosecutors and potential witnesses within the case.
The order was briefly paused on 20 October earlier than being reinstated on Sunday.
Mr Trump lashed out on the ruling on Truth Social fuming that it’s “NOT CONSTITUTIONAL!”
Jan 6 rioter who hit police officer with picket plank, sentenced to jail
As a Colorado courtroom hears testimony about Donald Trump’s position in allegedly instigating the violence on the US Capitol on 6 January 2021, a person from that state who hit a police officer with a picket plank through the storming of the US Capitol on January 6 2021, has been sentenced to 3 years in jail.
On Monday he was sentenced to 33 months in jail and 12 months of supervised launch, in response to the US Department of Justice (DOJ).
According to an announcement put out by the DOJ, Clark had “anticipated violence” properly earlier than the occasions on January 6, and had pushed throughout the nation from his home in Colorado Springs to “be a part of history”.
Text messages despatched by Clark to his father on January 5 2021 and obtained by the DOJ said: “I’m here for the riots when they say he isn’t the winner lol.” Clark then joined the “mob” that pressured its means onto Capitol grounds, later texting his mates “We are gonna storm the [sic] capital.”
Mike Bedigan has the story.
Oliver O’Connell31 October 2023 15:50
Voices: How Democrats could be playing into Donald Trump’s hands
Last week, President Joe Biden got another primary challenger.
He already had a few in the form of author and new-age woo-woo guru Marianne Williamson and Democratic scion (now an Independent) lawyer turned anti-vaccine crackpot and Tucker Carlson stan Robert F Kennedy Jr.
But this one has had a legitimate political career and is a card-carrying Democrat who has flown with Mr Biden aboard Air Force One.
This latest challenger is The Honourable Rep Dean Phillips, Member of Congress. Since 2019, Mr Phillips has represented Minnesota’s third congressional district, which encompasses suburban and exurban communities outside Minneapolis.
Oliver O’Connell31 October 2023 15:30
NY fraud trial: Brief cross-examination of underwriter
Oliver O’Connell31 October 2023 15:24
NY fraud trial: Pre-taped testimony from Zurich underwriter continues
Monday’s proceedings in court concluded during the screening of pre-taped testimony from Claudia Mouradian, an underwriter in Zurich North America’s commercial insurance division.
Here’s what we reported on what was seen of her testimony yesterday:
The most significant part of her testimony is when she is shown a transcript of former Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg’s deposition and is pointed to a passage in which he is asked whether, at any point in 2018, he informed a Zurich underwriter that the valuations contained in the statement of financial condition were in fact performed by an appraiser.
Weisselberg says he does not recall saying that.
Ms Mouradian says: “It’s not consistent with what he told me at the meeting.”
She provides that it might have been “material” to her consideration and that they count on “our customers to be truthful to us when we’re underwriting them”.
Oliver O’Connell31 October 2023 15:14
On Monday, the Colorado testimony started with particulars concerning the Jan. 6 assault that was supposed to cease Congress from certifying President Joe Biden’s election win.
Lawyers representing six Republican and unaffiliated Colorado voters argued that Trump’s violent rhetoric previous the attack makes him culpable, and barred from the presidency once more beneath that clause prohibiting anybody who swore an oath to the structure after which “engaged in insurrection” towards it from holding workplace.
“We are here because Trump claims, after all that, that he has the right to be president again,” legal professional Eric Olson mentioned. “But our Constitution, the shared charter of our nation, says he cannot do so.”
Trump’s authorized staff and presidential marketing campaign assailed the lawsuit as little greater than an try by Democrats to derail his try to reclaim his old job. Trump is up to now dominating the Republican presidential major, and the lawsuits to dam him had been organized by two separate liberal teams.
Seeking to underscore that time, Trump’s marketing campaign mentioned earlier than the listening to that it had filed a movement for District Court Judge Sarah B. Wallace to recuse herself as a result of she had made a $100 donation in October 2022 to the Colorado Turnout Project, a gaggle whose web site says it was fashioned to “prevent violent insurrections” such because the Jan. 6 attack. Wallace declined to take action.
She was appointed to the bench in August of that yr by Gov. Jared Polis, a Democrat. Wallace mentioned she didn’t recall the donation till the movement was filed and has no preconceptions concerning the authorized points within the case.
“I will not allow this legal proceeding to turn into a circus,” she mentioned.
On Monday, the Colorado testimony started with particulars concerning the Jan. 6 assault that was supposed to cease Congress from certifying President Joe Biden’s election win.
Lawyers representing six Republican and unaffiliated Colorado voters argued that Trump’s violent rhetoric previous the attack makes him culpable, and barred from the presidency once more beneath that clause prohibiting anybody who swore an oath to the structure after which “engaged in insurrection” towards it from holding workplace.
“We are here because Trump claims, after all that, that he has the right to be president again,” legal professional Eric Olson mentioned. “But our Constitution, the shared charter of our nation, says he cannot do so.”
Trump’s authorized staff and presidential marketing campaign assailed the lawsuit as little greater than an try by Democrats to derail his try to reclaim his old job. Trump is up to now dominating the Republican presidential major, and the lawsuits to dam him had been organized by two separate liberal teams.
Seeking to underscore that time, Trump’s marketing campaign mentioned earlier than the listening to that it had filed a movement for District Court Judge Sarah B. Wallace to recuse herself as a result of she had made a $100 donation in October 2022 to the Colorado Turnout Project, a gaggle whose web site says it was fashioned to “prevent violent insurrections” such because the Jan. 6 attack. Wallace declined to take action.
She was appointed to the bench in August of that yr by Gov. Jared Polis, a Democrat. Wallace mentioned she didn’t recall the donation till the movement was filed and has no preconceptions concerning the authorized points within the case.
“I will not allow this legal proceeding to turn into a circus,” she mentioned.
The plaintiff’s attorneys contend the availability is simple and that Trump is clearly disqualified from the presidency, simply as if he had been beneath the Constitution’s minimal age for the workplace of 35.
Trump’s attorneys argue that there stays a bunch of questions — did the authors even imply for the availability to use to the presidency, which isn’t talked about within the modification though “presidential and vice presidential electors” are, together with senators and members of the House of Representatives? Did it goal those that merely exercised free speech to assist unpopular causes or solely those that took up arms?
Scott Gessler, Trump’s lead Colorado legal professional and a former Republican secretary of state there, dismissed the lawsuit as “anti-democratic” and famous that one different presidential candidate — socialist labor organizer Eugene Debs — even ran for the workplace from jail with out individuals making an attempt to make use of Section Three to disqualify him.
“If they don’t like President Trump, they need to get involved in an election,” Gessler mentioned after the primary day. “But what they’re trying to do is short-circuit an election.”
The plaintiff’s attorneys contend the availability is simple and that Trump is clearly disqualified from the presidency, simply as if he had been beneath the Constitution’s minimal age for the workplace of 35.
Trump’s attorneys argue that there stays a bunch of questions — did the authors even imply for the availability to use to the presidency, which isn’t talked about within the modification though “presidential and vice presidential electors” are, together with senators and members of the House of Representatives? Did it goal those that merely exercised free speech to assist unpopular causes or solely those that took up arms?
Scott Gessler, Trump’s lead Colorado legal professional and a former Republican secretary of state there, dismissed the lawsuit as “anti-democratic” and famous that one different presidential candidate — socialist labor organizer Eugene Debs — even ran for the workplace from jail with out individuals making an attempt to make use of Section Three to disqualify him.
“If they don’t like President Trump, they need to get involved in an election,” Gessler mentioned after the primary day. “But what they’re trying to do is short-circuit an election.”
Colorado disqualification case: Day two will get underway
The movies taking part in in a Colorado courtroom had been each chilling and, by now, acquainted — a violent mob, with some carrying tactical gear, smashing by the U.S. Capitol, attacking law enforcement officials and chanting “Hang Mike Pence!”
Now, attorneys on day two of the weeklong listening to are arguing whether or not the notorious occasions of Jan. 6, 2021 constituted an riot beneath a hardly ever used clause of the U.S. Constitution that they’re making an attempt to make use of to disqualify former President Donald Trump from the 2024 poll. The listening to in Colorado is certainly one of two this week — with the second earlier than the Minnesota Supreme Court on Thursday — that might find yourself earlier than the U.S. Supreme Court, which has by no means earlier than dominated on the Civil War-era provision within the 14th Amendment.
Tuesday’s witnesses are anticipated to incorporate an knowledgeable in right-wing violence and an knowledgeable on Section Three of the 14th Amendment, which has solely been used a handful of instances because it was adopted in 1868. The testimony will get to the center of the thorny authorized points the case raises — what constitutes an “insurrection” and the way can the intense political penalty of being barred from workplace be utilized?
Trump defence objects to NYAG knowledgeable witness
Donald Trump’s defence staff started courtroom proceedings in New York on Tuesday morning by objecting to an knowledgeable witness lined up by the legal professional basic’s workplace within the former president’s civil fraud trial. Christopher Kise, representing Mr Trump, raised the objection.
The legal professional basic’s knowledgeable is anticipated to testify concerning the phrases of the loans the Trump Organization was in a position to safe based mostly on what the prosecution maintains had been fraudulent statements of monetary situation.
Court papers from the NY AG state: “[His] testimony is being offered to establish the difference between the interest rates defendants obtained by using the [financial statements] versus the interest rate for a loan they could have obtained without utilizing a guarantee and the [statements].”
Justice Arthur Engoron notes that there was testimony concerning the lenders’ reliance on the monetary statements in business offers. He mentioned in response: “I think to a certain extent the defence are whistling past the graveyard here.”
Oliver O’Connell31 October 2023 14:48
Trump complains about NY AG presence in courtroom
Oliver O’Connell31 October 2023 14:23
Anti-Trump group marks Halloween whereas gathering exterior New York courtroom
Oliver O’Connell31 October 2023 13:58
