March 7, 20242 yr MAGA - Make Attorneys Get Attorneys. Legal experts warn Trump lawyers could face "criminal prosecution” if they knew ex-CFO lied Former Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg on Monday pleaded guilty to perjury, admitting to lying under oath to the New York attorney general’s office as it was investigating Donald Trump. The repercussions of Weisselberg's plea agreement could have serious consequences for Trump's attorneys, including Alina Habba, Clifford Robert, and others, The Daily Beast reported. Under the New York Rules of Professional Conduct, a lawyer "shall not knowingly: ... offer or use evidence that the lawyer knows to be false.” If a lawyer becomes aware that their client or a witness called by the lawyer presents "material evidence" that is false, the lawyer is obligated to "take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal.” The rules go on to mention that a lawyer "who represents a client before a tribunal and who knows that a person intends to engage, is engaging or has engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct related to the proceeding shall take reasonable remedial measures.” In this case, if the Trump lawyers in the attorney general's case knew that Weisselberg lied in his testimony, they were required to take "reasonable remedial measures," Stephen Gillers, a professor of legal ethics at New York University School of Law, told Salon. "They had to do this even if those measures required them to disclose a client's confidential information,” Gillers said. "Here those remedial measures would have required disclosure of the lie to the court. Perjury is ‘criminal’ and ‘fraudulent conduct’ under paragraph (b) [of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct].” The disciplinary committee can start an investigation into the lawyer's conduct on its own or in response to a complaint, he added.
March 7, 20242 yr Let the seizure and sale of his property begin. The house of cards starts crashing down in 2 days. Trump has until March 9 to pay more than $91 million if he wants to challenge the defamation penalty. Trump has until March 25 to secure a stay on the collection of the money he was ordered to pay in the New York civil-fraud case.
March 7, 20242 yr Trump ordered to pay six-figure legal costs to ex-MI6 agent Christopher Steele's company after suing over 'dirty dossier' which claimed he took part in 'sex parties' and gave bribes to Russian officials https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13169747/Trump-pay-six-figure-legal-costs-ex-MI6-agent-Christopher-Steeles.html
March 8, 20242 yr Trump loses bid to delay $83.3 million E. Jean Carroll judgment, becoming the biggest loser in US history, overtaking the Confederacy.
March 8, 20242 yr Fact checking Trumps fact checking of SOTU. https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-biden-fact-check-sotu-b2509196.html
March 8, 20242 yr 4 hours ago, Talkingbirds said: Fact checking Trumps fact checking of SOTU. https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-biden-fact-check-sotu-b2509196.html if stuff like this doesn't get you fired up to go and vote, i don't know what will.
March 8, 20242 yr 49 minutes ago, Alpha_TATEr said: if stuff like this doesn't get you fired up to go and vote, i don't what will. Voters that need to pay attention to stuff like this aren't paying attention.
March 8, 20242 yr 1 hour ago, Talkingbirds said: Fact checking Trumps fact checking of SOTU. https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-biden-fact-check-sotu-b2509196.html It really is mind boggling that not only is trump still so ignorant on how nato membership works, but also that there are voting eligible people that can’t even recognize how woefully unqualified it makes him.
March 8, 20242 yr 1 hour ago, toolg said: Voters that need to pay attention to stuff like this aren't paying attention. they don't want to take the time to look beyond the words or headlines.
March 8, 20242 yr 2 hours ago, Alpha_TATEr said: if stuff like this doesn't get you fired up to go and vote, i don't what will. Yep. Especially, when he has no facts to support his BS responses.
March 8, 20242 yr 2 minutes ago, vikas83 said: He posted the smaller of the 2 bonds he needs He got a bond from Chubb insurance co. according to Jim. I don't believe it.
March 8, 20242 yr " Trump's bigger problem is the judgment he owes in the New York attorney general's civil fraud lawsuit against him and his company. He has until March 25 to obtain a bond for the $454 million verdict he owes in that case — an amount that grows with interest each day and exceeds most estimates of his cash holdings.
March 8, 20242 yr 4 minutes ago, VanHammersly said: The Shareholders should sue Chubb to get the guy who agreed to the loan terminated.
March 8, 20242 yr 8 minutes ago, jsdarkstar said: The Shareholders should sue Chubb to get the guy who agreed to the loan terminated. There's zero basis for that. Most appellate bonds are cash collateralized. Of course Chubb will post a bond secured by cash and make free money. Everyone has the right to appeal.
March 8, 20242 yr 1 minute ago, vikas83 said: There's zero basis for that. Most appellate bonds are cash collateralized. Of course Chubb will post a bond secured by cash and make free money. Everyone has the right to appeal. They have a right to do it and a right to suffer any consequences of getting into bed with rapists.
March 8, 20242 yr Just now, VanHammersly said: They have a right to do it and a right to suffer any consequences of getting into bed with rapists. Sure, people can boycott Chubb and not do business with them. But there is zero basis for a shareholder lawsuit. Sell your stock? Sure. But there's nothing actionable on a legal basis here.
March 8, 20242 yr Just now, vikas83 said: Sure, people can boycott Chubb and not do business with them. But there is zero basis for a shareholder lawsuit. Sell your stock? Sure. But there's nothing actionable on a legal basis here. Yeah, I don't think there's much case for that. Would be a waste of time. It's absolutely terrible PR for any company to post bond in a rape defamation case though. Add in the political element and it's even worse. They certainly owe an explanation to their shareholders.
March 8, 20242 yr 2 minutes ago, VanHammersly said: Yeah, I don't think there's much case for that. Would be a waste of time. It's absolutely terrible PR for any company to post bond in a rape defamation case though. Add in the political element and it's even worse. They certainly owe an explanation to their shareholders. I'm sure they'll be asked on their next earnings call by a research analyst -- probably ask how did they evaluate the negative PR versus the profit.
March 8, 20242 yr 13 minutes ago, vikas83 said: There's zero basis for that. Most appellate bonds are cash collateralized. Of course Chubb will post a bond secured by cash and make free money. Everyone has the right to appeal. I don't know, they have to protect shareholders based on a fiduciary duty of care, loyalty and good faith. Seems to me it would be a lack of care to lend to a criminal defendant who was found liable for sexual assault and has other outstanding verdicts to pay. It also seems to me it would be bad faith to lend to a guy who has a long history of failing to pay his creditors. Just sayin.
March 8, 20242 yr Just now, jsdarkstar said: I don't know, they have to protect shareholders based on a fiduciary duty of care, loyalty and good faith. Seems to me it would be a lack of care to lend to a criminal defendant who was found liable for sexual assault and has other outstanding verdicts to pay. It also seems to me it would be bad faith to lend to a guy who has a long history of failing to pay his creditors. Just sayin. They didn't lend him money. Appellate bonds are cash collateralized ~99% of the time. Very rarely they will take less liquid collateral, but then it needs to be MASSIVELY overcollateralized. Management owes shareholders a fiduciary duty to maximize profits/value. That's what they are doing. Claiming the reputational damage will negatively impact value (and offset the free profit) is basically impossible to prove. You're just wrong here. Any lawsuit would be laughed out of court.
Create an account or sign in to comment