Courts and the Judiciary

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      This Is What Worries Me About the Trump Trial

      by

      I can’t remember when I’ve been more disturbed by a criminal trial than I have been by the Manhattan trial of Donald Trump. The prosecutors are painting a vivid picture of Trump as a vile and dishonest person, and the daily pilgrimages of Republican politicians to the Manhattan courthouse, in spite of horrific testimony against Trump, demonstrates that the party has a broken soul.At the same time, the underlying legal theory supporting the prosecution’s case remains dubious. The facts may be clear, but the law is anything but — and that could very well mean that the jury convicts Trump before the election, an appeals court reverses the conviction after the election, and millions of Americans, many of them non-MAGA, face yet another crisis of confidence in American institutions.Let’s first discuss the dreadful facts. Stormy Daniels’s testimony crystallized, better than that of any other witness, the prosecution’s theory that Trump ordered Michael Cohen to pay off Daniels to save his campaign and then fraudulently disguised the reimbursements. It helped answer a key question: Why would a known playboy, a person who has boasted of his affairs with his friends’ wives, suddenly be so keen to suppress details of his encounter with a porn star?Consider the timeline. On Oct. 7, 2016, the “Access Hollywood” story broke. The Washington Post released the infamous recording in which Trump told Billy Bush, one of the show’s hosts, “When you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.” Trump went on, saying he could grab women by the genitals. “You can do anything.”The next day, a representative for Daniels told The National Enquirer that Daniels was willing to talk on the record about her encounter with Trump. We now know from Daniels’s sworn testimony that her story was going to essentially affirm the “Access Hollywood” tape. Trump used his star power to draw in Daniels and then exploited her.At trial, she did not testify to a frivolous or joyful encounter with Trump; she testified to something far more distressing. He invited her to his hotel room, and after she went to the bathroom, she walked out to find Trump on the bed in just his boxers and a T-shirt. She did not claim he forced himself on her, but she said she left “shaking” and testified that she was ashamed.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Ethics Panel Cautions Juan Merchan, Judge in Trump Trial, Over Political Donations

      by

      Justice Juan M. Merchan, the judge overseeing Donald J. Trump’s criminal trial in Manhattan, donated modest amounts to Democratic groups in 2020.A state ethics panel quietly dismissed a complaint last summer against the New York judge presiding over the criminal trial of Donald J. Trump, issuing a warning over small donations the judge had made to groups supporting Democrats, including the campaign of Joseph R. Biden Jr.The judge, Juan M. Merchan, donated a total of $35 to the groups in 2020, including a $15 donation earmarked for the Biden campaign, and $10 to a group called “Stop Republicans.”Political contributions of any kind are prohibited under state judicial ethics rules.“Justice Merchan said the complaint, from more than a year ago, was dismissed in July with a caution,” the spokesman for the court system, Al Baker, said in a statement.A caution does not include any penalty, but it can be considered in any future cases reviewed by the state’s Commission on Judicial Conduct. A letter outlining the caution was not released because of the commission’s rules, and Justice Merchan did not make the letter available.“The Commission on Judicial Conduct is governed by a confidentiality statute and cannot comment on nonpublic dispositions,” said Robert Tembeckjian, the commission’s administrator.The commission’s decision was first reported by Reuters.In its 2024 annual report, the commission said it was made aware of dozens of New York judges who had violated the rules against political contributions in recent years. Most were modest amounts, the report said, and many appeared to stem from the misperception that the rules only apply to state campaigns. In fact, judges are prohibited from contributing to any campaigns, including for federal office.“Like so much of the misconduct the Commission encounters, making a prohibited political contribution is a self-inflicted mistake,” the commission wrote in the report.For Justice Merchan, the stakes of such a mistake are considerably higher than most: He is the first judge in American history to preside over the criminal trial of a former president.The donations in part fueled Mr. Trump’s efforts to have Justice Merchan removed from the case before the trial began. Mr. Trump’s lawyers also focused on Justice Merchan’s adult daughter and her work at a Democratic consulting firm.But Justice Merchan declined to recuse himself, appeals court judges declined to step in, and the trial is now nearing its conclusion.The case centers on a hush-money payment to a porn star, Stormy Daniels, in the last days of the 2016 presidential campaign. Ms. Daniels says she had a sexual encounter with Mr. Trump, but a $130,000 payment from Mr. Trump’s fixer bought her silence. Mr. Trump is accused of falsifying business records to cover up his reimbursement of the fixer, Michael D. Cohen, casting them as routine legal expenses.Mr. Trump has denied the accusations against him — and has lashed out at Justice Merchan and the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, who brought the case, noting that both are Democrats. More

    • 100 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Transcript of Trump Manhattan Trial, May 16, 2024

      by

      M. Cohen
      –
      Cross/Blanche
      3839
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      And you had been hearing on television that they were
      dangling pardons. So, you directed your lawyer, hey, find out
      if I can get a pardon. I want this nightmare to end, right?
      A Not if I can get a pardon. If the President was going
      to be doing these pre-pardons.
      But you
      —
      you testified that you were 100 percent
      open to accepting it, anything to end this, right?
      8
      A
      Yes, sir.
      9
      And so
      —
      and you did that with a couple of your
      10
      11
      A
      12
      13
      14
      15
      16
      17
      18
      19
      A
      20
      21
      22
      23
      lawyers, Mr. Ryan and Mr. Costello, correct?
      Mr. Costello was never my lawyer.
      Well, you asked Mr. Costello, putting aside whether he
      was your lawyer, you asked Mr. Costello to reach out to people
      in the administration, including Mr. Giuliani, about the
      possibility of a pardon?
      A We spoke about it.
      And as part of your conversation with him, you asked
      him to reach out to Mr. Giuliani and explore it, correct?
      Yes, sir.
      And so, when you testified under oath less than one
      year later, February, on February 27th, 2019, that you never
      asked for, nor would you ever accept a pardon, that was a lie,
      wasn’t it?
      24
      A
      At the time it was accurate.
      25
      Well, the very next day so, again, February 27th,
      Susan Pearce-Bates, RPR, CCR, RSA
      Principal Court Reporter More

    • 100 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Transcript of Trump Manhattan Trial, May 13, 2024

      by

      M. Cohen Direct/Hoffinger
      3277
      1
      was there at The Trump Organization about executives coming in
      2
      to meet with Mr. Trump?
      3
      A
      Mr.
      Trump had an open-door policy, which, if there was
      4
      5
      6
      somebody in there, you waited; and if not, you knocked on the
      door, and I would say, “Boss, do you have a second?”, and I
      would walk right in.
      7
      Q
      And others did the same, to your knowledge?
      8
      A
      9
      To my knowledge, yes.
      Now, when you met with Mr. Trump at The Trump
      Organization, in his office, did you, generally, need
      10
      —
      I’m
      11
      sorry.
      12
      Did you, generally, record those meetings in your calendar?
      13
      A
      No, ma’am.
      14
      15
      16
      As part of your work at The Trump Organization, did
      you feel that it was part of your job to keep him updated on
      matters that you were handling for him?
      17
      A
      Yes.
      It was actually required.
      18
      19
      20
      21
      22
      23
      A
      Tell us what you mean by that.
      When he would task you with something, he would then
      say, “Keep me informed. Let me know what’s going on.”
      And what he was saying, what everybody did is, as soon as
      you had a result, an answer, you would go straight back and
      tell him. Especially if it was a matter that was troubling to
      24
      him.
      25
      So, two things, just to break that down.
      Laurie Eisenberg, CSR, RPR
      Senior Court Reporter More

    • 100 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Transcript of Trump Manhattan Trial, May 10, 2024

      by

      1
      2
      J. Jarmel-Schneider
      –
      Direct/Conroy
      3217
      And if we could just continue going down January and
      February, those two columns, we talked about the one invoice,
      two vouchers; and is there only one check?
      3
      4
      A
      Yes.
      5
      with?
      How many invoices were there, in total, on this chart?
      Eleven.
      And can you just read which counts they’re associated
      Counts 1, 5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 20, 23, 26, 29 and 32.
      After January and February, is there one invoice for
      each month for the rest of the year?
      Going down to vouchers, same question. Could you just
      read the count number for each of the vouchers?
      ७
      A
      7
      8
      9
      A
      10
      11
      12
      A
      Yes.
      13
      14
      15
      A
      Sure.
      16
      17
      18
      A
      19
      20
      21
      A
      Sure.
      22
      23
      24
      25
      A
      Yes.
      Counts 2, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, 27, 30 and 33.
      And is there one voucher for every month in 2017?
      Yes.
      And, finally, in checks, could you read the count
      number for each check?
      It’s counts 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 19, 22, 25, 28, 31 and 34.
      And after January and February, is there one check for
      each of the remaining months in 2017?
      Laurie Eisenberg, CSR, RPR
      Senior Court Reporter More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Judge Blocks New U.S. Rule Limiting Credit Card Late Fees

      by

      Set to take effect on Tuesday, the rule would save households $10 billion a year in “junk fees,” the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau said.In March, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau announced that a new federal rule would cap fees on late credit card payments at $8 a month, estimating that the change would save American households $10 billion a year.On Friday, a federal judge in Fort Worth temporarily blocked the rule, siding with bank and credit card company lobbyists who contend in a lawsuit that it is unconstitutional.The rule was scheduled to take effect on Tuesday. Now, the lobbyists can continue their legal fight in U.S. District Court before Judge Mark T. Pittman, who granted the preliminary injunction.The consumer bureau’s new rule would limit issuers to an $8 fee unless they could show that more money was needed to cover their collection costs. The bureau estimated that the rule would apply to more than 95 percent of all outstanding credit card balances.The Federal Reserve previously aimed to significantly limit credit card late fees in 2010. But a loophole in its rule, which permitted adjustments for inflation, allowed banks and credit card companies to charge an average of $32 a month in late fees, according to the consumer bureau.In announcing the new rule, Rohit Chopra, the bureau’s director, said it would end “the era of big credit card companies hiding behind the excuse of inflation when they hike fees on borrowers and boost their own bottom lines.” President Biden backed the rule, saying, “The American people are tired of being played for suckers.”Two days later, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce joined the American Bankers Association and the Consumer Bankers Association — whose boards of directors include executives from Bank of America, Capital One, Citibank and JPMorgan Chase — in suing Mr. Chopra and his bureau. Three Texas business associations are also plaintiffs. More