Trump on Trial

[billy.pilgrim]

How pathetically desperate.

The linked article goes off into that “branding value” bs. While true that branding may have value, it never has value as collateral.

[GoCubsGo]

The linked article goes off into that “branding value” bs. While true that branding may have value, it never has value as collateral.

"Branding Value" with trump is nebulous at best. Odds are there are more people that would want a discount than would pay a premium for trump branded properties which would negate any additional value.

Pretty sure there's market evidence to support that.

[Vrede too]

The linked article goes off into that “branding value” bs. While true that branding may have value, it never has value as collateral.

"Branding Value" with trump is nebulous at best. Odds are there are more people that would want a discount than would pay a premium for trump branded properties which would negate any additional value.

Pretty sure there's market evidence to support that.

Depends on the year being discussed. IIRC it wasn't until a couple of years into the "presidency" that his name started being removed from properties that he didn't fully own. Maybe it started during the 2015-16 campaign. What fraudulent years does the trial cover?

[GoCubsGo]

Depends on the year being discussed. IIRC it wasn't until a couple of years into the "presidency" that his name started being removed from properties that he didn't fully own. Maybe it started during the 2015-16 campaign. What fraudulent years does the trial cover?

You might be very well right, I'm not sure what the "as-of" date of the lawsuits are, but they still contend there's a premium for his brand.

[Vrede too]

Depends on the year being discussed. IIRC it wasn't until a couple of years into the "presidency" that his name started being removed from properties that he didn't fully own. Maybe it started during the 2015-16 campaign. What fraudulent years does the trial cover?

You might be very well right, I'm not sure what the "as-of" date of the lawsuits are, but they still contend there's a premium for his brand.

Yeah, that's gone now outside of hardcore MAGAt circles.


Lousy lawyers, the ongoing saga:

“Crazy thing to say to a judge”: Experts stunned after judge explodes at Trump lawyer’s “misogyny”
Judge Engoron pounded the table and threatened to gag Trump's lawyers for taking a shot at his law clerk

The Manhattan judge overseeing Donald Trump’s civil fraud case blew up at the former president’s legal team for complaining about his law clerk on Thursday.

Judge Arthur Engoron, who previously issued a gag order and fined Trump twice for targeting law clerk Allison Greenfield, warned Trump attorney Chris Kise that he may expand the gag order after the lawyer made a comment about the clerk.

"Do not refer to my staff again," Engoron said, according to The Messenger, later adding: “She’s a civil servant.”

Trump previously attacked Greenfield on Truth Social, sharing a post falsely claiming that she was Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s, D-N.Y., “girlfriend.”

"Sometimes I think there's a bit of misogyny in you referring to my female principal law clerk," Engoron told Kise on Thursday, warning that he may expand the gag order to include Trump’s legal team.

“I am not a misogynist,” Kise told the judge, according to The New York Times, noting that he’s happily married and has a daughter.

Ummm, millions of domestic abusers have wives and daughters, moron.

"I assure you that’s not the issue," fellow Trump lawyer Alina Habba insisted, before complaining about Greenfield having improper influences over the judge and arguing she can’t be a misogynist because she is a woman, according to the Times.

I'm not following close enough to say whether Habbadabbado (is that misogynist?) or even Kise is misogynist, but Habbadabbado is an idiot if she doesn't know about self-loathing women, millions of anti-choice women, for example.

Kise and Habba continued to accuse the clerk of bias, claiming that she had written notes to the judge against the defense, according to The Messenger.

Engoron at one point became so frustrated he slammed the table.

“I have an absolute unfettered right to get advice from my principal law clerk!” he exclaimed.

Duh, don't need law school to know that.

MSNBC’s Lisa Rubin reported that Kise took a shot at Greenfield before the judge’s explosion.

“I'll wait again to get the note that you have from Ms. Greenfield. You may have a question for me. Maybe it is about dinner,” Kise told the judge, according to Rubin.

“That is an absolutely crazy thing to say to a judge. Nutso,” tweeted conservative attorney George Conway....

Misogynist nutsos - are they representing their client too well?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogPH5pdlumY

[Vrede too]

Lousy lawyers, the ongoing saga:

Trump's Lawyers Relying On Breitbart Source Who Accused Judge Engoron of Drinking on the Job
In 2020, a court ruled that this source created websites and videos in "a bad faith effort to harass and intimidate defendants, their counsel, and the court"

Liarbart. Seriously, Liarbart.

BREAKING: NY Judge Expands Trump's Gag Order To Include His Attorneys
The New York Judge presiding over Trump's trial is not messing around

Ka-ching, the judgement amount only increases every time Judge Engoron gets pissed off. Bleed cheatin' Dolt .45 and his cretinous lawyers dry!

O Really, have you ever seen counsel this incompetent?

[O Really]

O Really, have you ever seen counsel this incompetent?

That would be "no."
Maybe some pro se plaintiffs, but I've never run into any real lawyer that would think it's a good idea to intentionally piss off the judge who's handling your bench trial. Somebody suggested that they're doing that to try to goad the judge into doing/saying something to justify a mistrial or support appeal, but that's way past risky.

[GoCubsGo]

O Really, have you ever seen counsel this incompetent?

That would be "no."
Maybe some pro se plaintiffs, but I've never run into any real lawyer that would think it's a good idea to intentionally piss off the judge who's handling your bench trial. Somebody suggested that they're doing that to try to goad the judge into doing/saying something to justify a mistrial or support appeal, but that's way past risky.

Aren't they just at the pound on the table point of their supposed defense?

[O Really]

What boggles my mind is that most of the stuff they bring up wouldn't be a lawful defence even if true. I real defence would start with "I didn't do what I'm charged with." I haven't heard that at all in any of these cases. "I didn't do anything wrong" is not at all the same. "I relied on attorney advice is one thing, but "I relied on the accountants" is not. The guy who has the authority/responsibility to sign the form is the one to take the blame, no matter where he got his information. And in the case of the boys' wanting to blame the accountants, they'd need to come up with some plausible reason why a legit international accounting firm would on their own decide it's a good idea to grossly overstate the value of property to the point of being ridiculous. These are people whose entire reputation is based on being accurate and right. They have no possible incentive to do that on their own.

[Vrede too]

What boggles my mind is that most of the stuff they bring up wouldn't be a lawful defence even if true. I real defence would start with "I didn't do what I'm charged with." I haven't heard that at all in any of these cases. "I didn't do anything wrong" is not at all the same. "I relied on attorney advice is one thing, but "I relied on the accountants" is not. The guy who has the authority/responsibility to sign the form is the one to take the blame, no matter where he got his information. And in the case of the boys' wanting to blame the accountants, they'd need to come up with some plausible reason why a legit international accounting firm would on their own decide it's a good idea to grossly overstate the value of property to the point of being ridiculous. These are people whose entire reputation is based on being accurate and right. They have no possible incentive to do that on their own.

P01135809 is somewhat taking responsibility for cooking the books, but claims that it was the "Trump brand" premium.

On The Stand, Trump Admits To Adjusting Property Valuations
In a separate line of questioning, Trump also seemingly forgot he'd stopped being president by 2021.

Opps. Judge Engoron, of course, knows that it's ridiculous. Dolt .45 is playing to his moronic perpetual victim minions, and is hoping to goad Engoron into a fatal trial error. Good luck with the latter goal.

Speaking of mind boggling and "ridiculous":

"Then why exactly am I being paid as an attorney?"
-- Alina HabbaDabbaDoo

Funny, we and millions of other Americans have been wondering that very thing for months.





More whiny stupidity:

“And that sketch is a travesty too. It looks nothing like Trump.”
-- Kayleigh McEnany

With all the makeup and hair dye along with the combover no one knows what ex-PINO looks like. Plus, it's a really dumb thing to waste airtime on.

[GoCubsGo]

She's looking good.

[O Really]

Everything that touches Trump dies. And it goes poorly for his lawyers.

After Nixon Peabody filed a motion to dismiss on behalf of Donald Trump, the firm’s partnership started wondering, “Why is this the first we’re hearing about the firm representing the most brand toxic man in the country?” It didn’t help that the motion strayed from a narrow focus on procedural issues to include Trump’s favorite argument — and everyone else’s favorite to mock — to hurl Brandenburg at everything from gag orders to the constitutional standard for aiding an insurrection and that January 6 was just a run-of-the-mill exercise in free speech.

https://abovethelaw.com/2023/11/nixon-p ... ve+the+Law

Here's the culprits. Feel free to let them know how you appreciate their work.

Brian T. Kelly (BBO No. 549566)
Thomas A. Barnico, Jr. (BBO No. 696929)
Nixon Peabody LLP
53 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
617-345-1000
bkelly@nixonpeabody.com
tbarnico@nixonpeabody.com

[neoplacebo]

My only question to them would be "did trump tell you before or after you took him as a client that he intended to act as his own executioner in this case?"

[Vrede too]

Everything that touches Trump dies. And it goes poorly for his lawyers.

After Nixon Peabody filed a motion to dismiss on behalf of Donald Trump, the firm’s partnership started wondering, “Why is this the first we’re hearing about the firm representing the most brand toxic man in the country?” It didn’t help that the motion strayed from a narrow focus on procedural issues to include Trump’s favorite argument — and everyone else’s favorite to mock — to hurl Brandenburg at everything from gag orders to the constitutional standard for aiding an insurrection and that January 6 was just a run-of-the-mill exercise in free speech.

https://abovethelaw.com/2023/11/nixon-p ... wn-demand/

Here's the culprits. Feel free to let them know how you appreciate their work.

Brian T. Kelly (BBO No. 549566)
Thomas A. Barnico, Jr. (BBO No. 696929)
Nixon Peabody LLP
53 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
617-345-1000
bkelly@nixonpeabody.com
tbarnico@nixonpeabody.com

Thanks. I think this is the first time you've suggested contacting attorneys. Something special about this event or firm?

Don't forget, also complicit according to the article:

Stephen D. Zubiago
CEO and Managing Partner
szubiago@nixonpeabody.com
Anthony Barron
Litigation Department Chair
abarron@nixonpeabody.com

Then, there's the rest of Leadership, who may not have known about taking on P01135809. I'm CCing 4 as being most apt. There may be better choices.
Michael Green
Chief Information Officer
mgreen@nixonpeabody.com
Allison McClain
Chief Communications Officer
amcclain@nixonpeabody.com
Danielle Paige
Chief Marketing & Growth Officer
dpaige@nixonpeabody.com
Lauri Walker
Chief Operating Officer
lwalker@nixonpeabody.com

Note that in a firm where women are very well represented in leadership and partners ALL of the Trumpettes are men. Hmmm.

To: bkelly@nixonpeabody.com, tbarnico@nixonpeabody.com, szubiago@nixonpeabody.com, abarron@nixonpeabody.com
CC: mgreen@nixonpeabody.com, amcclain@nixonpeabody.com, dpaige@nixonpeabody.com, lwalker@nixonpeabody.com
Subject: Ex-PINO, P01135809

Dear Mr Kelly, Mr Barnico, Mr Zubiago, Mr Barron,

Re:
Nixon Peabody Partners Meet Over Repping Donald Trump, Managing Partner Called On To Step Down
Representing Donald Trump always ends badly for the lawyers involved.
https://abovethelaw.com/2023/11/nixon-p ... wn-demand/

Hahaha, you're representing traitor Dolt .45. Don't you know, "Everything Trump Touches Dies" :
https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/ ... 1982103149

You've already done incalculable damage to your firm, both for repping TRE45QN and also for the slimy and sneaky way you went about it. Smart. I'll enjoy watching your FAILURE.

Sincerely,
(Vrede too)

CC: Mr Green, Ms McClain, Ms Paige, Ms Walker

If you want careers ruined more than they already will be, O Really, ask neoplacebo to pile on rather than just post here.

[neoplacebo]

I don't really know why, but it seems that lately I've had a much kinder, gentler machine gun hand.

[GoCubsGo]

That's really incredible.

[O Really]

Thanks. I think this is the first time you've suggested contacting attorneys. Something special about this event or firm?

Naa, nothing special nor personal. But Nixon Peabody is a huge firm with a lot of good clients. The Trump work was under the radar and then these guys file a motion that is publicly posted and they have to sign it and include their email. I just thought it might be fun for some to let them feel some (more) consequences.

[GoCubsGo]

Bueno.

“Puts Trump in a box”: Experts say Judge Chutkan just forced Trump to “put up or shut up” on defense

"When a defendant invokes such a defense in court," Smith's office argued, "he waives attorney-client privilege for all communications concerning that defense, and the government is entitled to additional discovery and may conduct further investigation, both of which may require further litigation and briefing."

[GoCubsGo]

So he admits (again) he stole the docs. What happens when he gets to trial and his lawyers say uh, sorry sir that's not what the Presidential Records Act says at all and we can't use that as a defense and if we try you're totally screwed and going to jail and we'd be absolute fools as lawyers to try. In addition, whatever Biden may or may have not done is completely irrelevant.

[billy.pilgrim]

So he admits (again) he stole the docs. What happens when he gets to trial and his lawyers say uh, sorry sir that's not what the Presidential Records Act says at all and we can't use that as a defense and if we try you're totally screwed and going to jail and we'd be absolute fools as lawyers to try. In addition, whatever Biden may or may have not done is completely irrelevant.

Cannon has got his back. Now she’s saying that May is too soon.