A federal judge in Florida sanctioned Trump and his lawyers $938,000 for that silly RICO lawsuit he brought against Hillary and others. Yes, he has to pay Hillary Clinton.
Want some fun? We can read the sanctions order together 🤓 then I’ll answer questions. (The sanctions order is here. Trump’s original lawsuit is here.)
Basically, last March, Trump sued Hillary Clinton, and 30 other people and entities, accusing them of conspiring against him to undermine his 2016 campaign by lying about him.
Here is the list of defendants:
HILLARY R. CLINTON, HFACC, INC., DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE, DNC SERVICES CORPORATION, PERKINS COIE, LLC, MICHAEL SUSSMANN, MARC ELIAS, DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, CHARLES HALLIDAY DOLAN, JR., JAKE SULLIVAN, JOHN PODESTA, ROBERT E. MOOK, PHILLIPE REINES, FUSION GPS, GLENN SIMPSON, PETER FRITSCH,NELLIE OHR, BRUCE OHR, ORBIS BUSINESS INTELLIGENCE, LTD., CHRISTOPHER STEELE, IGOR DANCHENKO, NEUSTAR, INC., RODNEY JOFFE, JAMES COMEY, PETER STRZOK, LISA PAGE, KEVIN CLINESMITH, ANDREW MCCABE.
Trump’s first count was brought under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), a federal law designed to combat organized crime. Trump claimed that the above defendants formed an “enterprise” within the meaning of RICO.” (Lawyers everywhere = 🤦♀️)
The sprawling complaint was an incomprehensible mess. Basically, Trump accused the defendants of forming an organization and conspiring to spread lies about him “all in the hopes of destroying his life, his political career, and rigging the 2016 Presidential Election in favor of Hillary Clinton.”
It’s the ultimate Trump Is A Victim Of Hillary and The Deep State lawsuit.
Here are the kinds of “facts” Trump asserted in his lawsuit:
- “President Obama directed Mr. Comey to investigate Mr. Flynn and not inform Mr. Trump.”
- Trump was “banned from different social media platforms, including Twitter as a result of the misinformation campaign waged by Hillary Clinton.”
- Comey “maliciously prosecuted Trump and conspired with Ms. Clinton to do so.” (Never mind that Comey never initiated an investigation, much less a prosecution.)
Have you ever dealt with a compulsive liar and stopped to wonder, “Does this person know he’s lying, or is he crazy?” That was the feeling I got reading the complaint. Evidently the judge ordering the sanctions had a similar feeling.
In ordering sanctions, the court (Judge Middlebrooks) opens with:
Defendants, particularly in criminal cases, are given leeway to raise every possible defense, but if you’re filing a lawsuit you better make sure it has a basis in law or fact or the court may hit you with sanctions to cover the legal fees and other monetary damages incurred by the people you sued. When you sue 31 people, as Trump did, that can be a lot of monetary damage. In fact, if your intent is to harass people, it will be a lot of monetary damage.
Before ordering sanctions, the court bent over backward to give Trump the standard opportunities to withdraw or fix the deficiencies in the claim. For all the people who were screaming, “Why is the court bending over backward like that?” you can see that after offering him reasonable opportunities to fix the defects in his pleadings, the sanctions order is stronger.
To demonstrate that Trump brought his RICO lawsuit for political reasons, the court showed that, after filing the lawsuit, Trump’s lawyers immediately went on Fox and Newsmax to talk about their lawsuit. Like this:
Alina Habba, Mr. Trump’s lead counsel, told Fox News’ Sean Hannity:
“What the real goal [of the suit] is, is democracy, is continuing to make sure that our elections, continuing to make sure our justice system is not obstructed by political enemies. That cannot happen. And that’s exactly what happened. They obstructed justice. They continued the false narrative . . . This grand scheme, that you could not make up, to take down an opponent. That is un-American.”
The order also recounts how Trump immediately used the lawsuit to raise money.
I guess Judge Middlebrooks didn’t like it when Habba went on Fox and called Middlebrooks a “Clinton judge”:
“Why isn’t [Hillary Clinton] being held accountable for what she did? Because when you have a Clinton judge as we did here, Judge Middlebrooks (who I had asked to recuse himself but insisted that he didn’t need to, he was going to be impartial) and then proceeds to write a 65-page scathing order where he basically ignored every factual basis which was backed up by indictments, by investigations, the Mueller report, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, not to mention Durham, and all the testimony we heard there, we get dismissed. . .
Pro Tip #1: Don’t tick off the judge.
The order describes Trump’s complaint as a “hodgepodge of disconnected, often immaterial events, followed by an implausible conclusion. This is a deliberate attempt to harass; to tell a story without regard to facts.”
It’s basically what he did with the election fraud cases.
According to the order, Trump:
After establishing the political purpose of the lawsuit, and the fact that the lawsuit was frivolous by any measure (the allegations were “knowingly false or made in reckless disregard for the truth”) the court then recounts Trump’s history of filing frivolous lawsuits for political purposes: Trump v. Pulitzer Board, Trump v. NY AG, Trump v. Twitter, and more.
The pattern was always the same: After filing each of these lawsuits, his lawyers used the lawsuit as a talking point on right-wing media and Trump used the filing to raise money.
The final 10 pages of the order justify the size of the sanctions, showing that the award is reasonable for covering the defendants’ costs and attorney fees.
If you want some more fun, here is the chart of how much money the defendants get:
I suspect Hillary will enjoy getting that check. Trump will hate writing it.
The court then addressed each possible objection to the size of the award. In other words, the judge wrote this order to make it appeal-proof.
Here is the good part: Trump and his lawyers are jointly and severally liable for the sanction, which means each party is independently responsible, so Clinton and the others can collect payment from any of them.
The court offered Trump an off-ramp. It’s in footnote #38: When reading court orders, always read the footnotes. Those are often the best parts:
I have a feeling Trump will not take this off-ramp.
“But Teri! What if he refuses to pay?”
This is not a bill. It works the same as judgment. You can’t avoid paying. The court can seize your assets. They can grab your bank accounts. You can be held in contempt. Courts have a lot of power. Never mess around with a judgment against you. For more on why, see this post.
One lawyer on Mastodon offered the following suggestion to Hillary and the others for how to collect:
Someone on Mastodon asked:
“So the court doesn’t allocate payment if one or the other or both parties refuse to pay?”
Nope. Clinton and the other defendants can collect from any of them and it’s up to Trump and his lawyers to work it out among themselves. (That thump you heard was me falling off my chair with laughter.)
Yes, this will make it harder for Trump to get legal representation when he most needs it. It has already become almost impossible for him to get good representation.
Trump’s lawsuit against the NY AG was included in the court’s list of lawsuits being filed for political and harassment purposes. That lawsuit is also being brought in the same court, before the same judge, that imposed these sanctions.
Well, on Friday, within 24 hours of getting hit with those sanctions, Trump withdrew his lawsuit against Letitia James.
Fun fact: Trump still refers to himself as “President Donald J. Trump” while the courts refer to him as Mr. Trump.
“But Teri! You’re overlooking the fact that Trump is voluntarily dismissing his claims without prejudice which means he can just file it again, right?”
When a court dismisses your complaint with prejudice it means that the complaint was so bad that the court does not want to see it again. Essentially it is such a mess that it can’t be fixed.
Even the stupidest lawyer would not dismiss their own complaint with prejudice. Why call yourself a moron? Certainly, he can refile it, but he’d have to find lawyers willing to risk a sanctions judgment against them.
I’ll bet you didn’t know reading legal documents could be so much fun.
Food for thought
An account that is unabashedly anti-democratic and pro-authoritarian said this in response to my FAQ page:
“People do not want a totalitarian surveillance state… until something horrible happens, and then they expect one.”
I thought this was an interesting comment and unfortunately true of some (but not all) pro-democracy people. The problem, of course, was that he was arguing in favor of a totalitarian surveillance state implying that the result is inevitable because there is an inclination to demand one when things don’t go a person’s way.
How many pro-democracy people over the past 2 years have literally argued that the DOJ should dispense with rules so they can get the results they want? I had cross-words with one well-known TV pundit who insisted that Garland must reveal whether Trump was under investigation. When I pointed out that it was against the rules for Garland to do that, the pundit said, “Those rules were ignored in the past.” Right. And they shouldn’t have been.
Someone else responded to my FAQ page by saying, “We don’t want to become what we despise.” Yes. That sums it up well.
What’s funny (or ironic) is that people keep casting me as a DOJ defender. I’m a defense lawyer, people! I spent my legal career frustrated with prosecutors!
I am, however, pro-rule-of-law, even though I rarely got what I wanted.
Someone put this comment on last week’s blog post:
I have often thought of this as the fundamental political battle between the “lizard brain” and the “enlightened self-interest brain”.
The lizard brain wants immediate satisfaction and lives in fear (of crime, people who look different, etc). There are always politicians who will appeal to the lizard brain because the payoff (to the politician) is clear and immediate: lots of support.
Meanwhile, the enlightened self-interest brain will always struggle to be heard. But we are lucky that the world and life are such that enlightened self-interest produces, ultimately, a society that more people want to live in.
It’s much easier to appeal to a lizard brain. That’s why rage merchants have the easier task. Rule of law is boring, slow, and cumbersome, and we don’t always get what we want.
Speaking of rule of law, did you see the exchange of letters between Jim Jordan and the DOJ?
Jim Jordan v. Rule of Law
Jim Jordan, who is now Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, wrote a series of letters to the DOJ demanding information about ongoing investigations. Here’s the latest. He and his friends who helped spread Trump’s lie and who supported his insurrection naturally have an interest in interfering with the DOJ’s investigation into the events of January 6, 2021.
The DOJ’s response is here.
Shorter DOJ: We follow rules. Rules prevent you from interfering with an ongoing investigation. It’s the same answer the DOJ gave when people demanded that Garland say whether Trump was under investigation. The letter basically says: here are the procedures blah blah blah. The DOJ letter also pretends that Jordan’s plan is to legislate (what Congress does) instead of meddle and interfere.
Isn’t it nice when rule of law can block MAGA interference with the DOJ investigation?
Think about this: Had Merrick Garland given into pressure and bent the rules to reassure people that certain people were being investigated, what grounds would he have now for telling Jim Jordan no, we don’t talk about ongoing investigations?
The way to save rule of law is with rule of law.
JJ Back on Duty
I was alerted to danger by some serious growling. I went to find out what was happening (da dum, da dum) . . . 
It was a close call. The evil and highly suss UPS truck stopped in front of our house, but the driver, no doubt frightened away by some menacing growls, did not approach our house. A dog trainer explained: JJ growls at, say, a skateboarder. The skateboarder continues past the house. JJ thinks that his ferocious growl did the trick, which explains why he spends most of his waking hours on that chair keeping a close eye on the neighborhood.
Imagine if he was snoozing when a skateboarder or UPS truck came near. What then?
As I’m reading this, Trump has withdrawn his other suit against James, so … LOL. As to these sanctions, is there a due date by which these have to be paid?
Thank you so much for your incredibly thorough and humorous analysis. I always learn so much from you.
One thing I don’t understand, is if these lawyers file frivolous law suits, like this one for Trump, at what point are these lawyers dis-barred from practicing? It seems to me that the judicial system would not tolerate these suits in time. And in Trump’s case there have been many albeit not with the same lawyers because they have learned their lesson and won’t represent him.
That is a separate procedure, and many of them are being disbarred. Proceedings are underway to disbar Giuliani, Sydney Powell, and I forget which others.
What happens if they go after the law firm for the entire amount and the law firm files a statement that they can’t afford it?
They have 10 days to file under seal and say that the amount would be a hardship, but whatever assets they have will be siezed.
Prior to today, this layman never read more than a few sentences of a court order. I read most of Judge Middlebrooks’ order in “the original Shakespeare” – it was like savoring the mess he had to untangle, in all its nuances. I so admire good lawyers who can sort fact from fiction and who can cogently present what’s going on to the rest of us, and who can then step back and give us the big picture, as this Judge did in his order, and which you do in your writings.
I’m a bit dumbfounded by the Alina Habbas of the world – smart enough and logical enough to get through law school, but dumb enough to be blind-sided by their own emotional biases to end up in this career/financial cul-de-sac. Surely she had enough legal training to, on some level, know that she was crossing some pretty serious ethical lines (maybe not). Maybe she was rolling the dice on getting an incompetent judge (paging Aileen Cannon). It’s hard for me to understand how she could believe the stuff she was arguing, much less thinking this scrambled mess was a valid argument for her client.
Dear Teri: I just read your Thurgood Marshal book in your “The Making of America” series. The various stories enraged me more than I remember being angered at the time.
(In my lame self-defense, we were so furious with LBJ at the time, the Marshall appoint resonated little in my circle. Likely, we thought of Marshall as an Uncle Tom. We were so-smug at the time, based on self-designated good intentions.) Fifty-five years later, my “white privileged” personal-contact sense of so many outrages is more-real, less-abstract than it was when my greatest ambition was to end the war. By “more-real,” I speak to how skillfully you painted the people in your book as individuals.
Back when I was a pre-teen, I read all the youth-targeted biographies I could get my hands on. I believe those books personalized the historical figures in a way that adult-oriented biographies may not do so well.
I’m trying to squeeze my experience into this “Comment,” to be held for moderation, and then better not posted in this week’s discussion of Trump & Co. (That’s up to you, of course.)
I think of the relatively ineffectual efforts that many of us make, especially in these Dark Times, and your logic-based, dispassionate updates make a positive difference. I share them with all and sundry, and hope that the whole—of productive efforts, as well as our many less-adequate ones—make a big difference. In other words: Thank you.
(($; -)}™
Gozo
The second thing I learned in law school was never piss off a judge. What is wrong with these lawyers? Are they seriously ignorant?
Just finished reading the Sanctions Order. Loved this from Judge Middlebrooks: “It was not that the Complaint and Amended Complaint were inadequate in any respect, they were inadequate in nearly every respect, even after the deficiencies had been identified in the multiple motions to dismiss.”.. ie ‘inadequate in any respect–I wasn’t expecting his, ‘were inadequate in nearly every respect’. Thank you for linking these (& other docs) in your post–not having to go find them on my own means I actually ‘get ’round to reading’ them–right away (vs ‘I’ll google it later,’ but that gets lost in shuffle). In this instance, I got a real, kind of 1st hand appreciation for what went into Judge Middlebrook’s decisions, better understanding of frivolous suits, why they cannot be tolerated, how an excellent Judge works (tho I might be upset if my compensation was cut 15%!) Muchas Gracias.(PS So your’e saying the mailman & skateboarders are much closer to JJ’s window than it looks in this pic, eh?-if it was as far as appears–do you think he’d still have to reprimand them?)
The view from the window is accurate but the street view used some trick with the camera to make the distance seem longer.
P.S. At least JJ doesn’t get angry. My neighbor’s dog gets appreciably angry whenever I _dare_ to step outside my home or anyone else dares to walk on the roadway below their house. So, yeah, a growl is better than the maniacal anger I put up with. 🙁
“Evidently the judge ordering the sanctions had a similar feeling.”
Nice phrasing. I enjoy understatements. 🙂 One question, I believe that Middlebrooks included statements to the effect that it was tRUmp and not his lawyers who directed the legal strategy. If my hearing of TV pundits was correct, I’d think that alone would be one of the most important findings in the order. It basically means that tRUmp is, effectively, a vexatious litigant regardless of who represents him. WIth that as a citable finding, I would expect future lawsuits to be perilous for any lawyer. Perhaps tRUmp would continue filing pro se? That has different dangers.
Thanks for my “legal” education! I learn so much from your posts.
Thanks Teri. Not only did I get to see JJ in his ever faithful defense but I was reminded to reaffirm a judgement on a spurious builder. ; )
As a psychologist, I use to think reading about things like the paranoid personality was fun-but then I met Teri.
and welcome home JJ.
Wait. Are you saying I’m paranoid???
When the immature, pampered, faux genius bought Twitter, I had to leave my favorite platform. Having your blog really helps me deal with my Twitter addiction withdrawal. Thank you.
Have you tried Mastodon? You can see what my feed looks like here: https://law-and-politics.online/@Teri_Kanefield
suggestion for future blog posts – how welk does Mastadon work for news consumers? I follow you on post.news which i like for it’s ease of use. Every time I think about joining Mastadon I get bored with the explanation of how it works.
I did this post: https://terikanefield.com/socialmedia/
Things have looked worse for Post since I wrote that and better for Mastodon. Start with this. I am not a technical person and once I figured out where the buttons are, I had no trouble with Mastodon. The only hurdle for mastodon is picking a server.
Post is a terrible place for conversations.
Here’s my mastodon page: https://law-and-politics.online/@Teri_Kanefield
“The only hurdle for mastodon is picking a server.”
That is mainly because you picked the most difficult path possible for a server. (Also: I think Anne was saying she’s learning to enjoy your legal dissections. Leastwise, I am. 🙂
I have a request to follow you on Mastodon, but it hasn’t been approved. I think it was a couple of weeks ago? There are 19K people following you, so it seems like it should be automatic. Any suggestion?
Something went wrong when I changed to my own server. The best explanation I have is that the servers were overloaded when I made the change. Try this: Click on the pending button (or whatever your message says) and then refollow. Let me know if that worked.
It worked! Should have known to try “turning it off and then turning it back on.” Thank you!
So glad it worked!
I’m gonna jump in here with a Mastodon tip, if you don’t mind. There is a “list” function in the control thingies (as you can see I am not a tech wizard) so when ever you follow someone who might be a good news source, you click on the 3 little dots beside the follow button. This give you a bunch of options, one of which is “add/remove from lists.”
So, you make a list called “news” or whatever, then you add that person to your news list, and as you come across more, you just add them when you follow them.
Then, when you want to read news, you go to your lists, click on “news” and Bob’s your uncle!
Teri, thanks for my associate of Twitter law degree! the letter to Gym Jordan from the DOJ was pure chef’s kiss!
My latest best delicious pleasure is reading the Teri Kanefield blog post Sunday morning! Thank you.
They’re not always this fun 🙁
Teri, your writing and comments always make any topic fun! And JJ is a great guard dog! We have a Cocker Spaniel that growls or wuffs just loud enough to get our attention.
Hi Teri!
They may not always be this fun, but they are all very, very informative. Thanks so much for shedding light for those of us who are non-legal peeps.
I’ve been following you for a while on Twitter, but last summer, I subscribed to your blog. I also started following you on Mastodon…hung w/you while you were figuring out which end was up.
That said, I’m not on Post. Like you mentioned, I’ve begun hearing that Post isn’t what ppl were trying to make it out to be. ‘Hard to have conversations’ is one of the things I’ve read.
Thanks, again, for being a light in the dark.
I would love to be a fly on the wall at the emergency Partner’s meeting at Habba’s law firm!
We love your balanced, informed, and fun Blogs. It keeps us balanced with all the negative and dramatized news out there these days.
We are terrified at the possibility of the House messing up our Social Security and Medicare. At our age, it could be a death sentence. Including a look at this possibility in your blog would be very helpful to all us old folks.
Because we have Biden in the White House and a Democratic Senate, there is only so much damage they can do. Once more, it’s all about 2024. It becomes increasingly essential to keep the Republican Party out of power. The scariest part for me is how many people believe their lies.
” The scariest part for me is how many people believe their lies.”
I concur completely. People like Trump will always be with us. But if he didn’t have a following, he would be impotent and irrelevant.
I don’t think the media are helping when they soft-pedal lies instead of calling them out. I have heard several commentators say that the sides are, “Operating from different sets of facts”, as though all those lies are “facts”. If one side is saying that there are three purple unicorns in the parking lot, and the other side is saying that unicorns don’t exist, where is the middle ground?
And mixing editorial positions with content doesn’t help, either. I read two separate headlines this morning that used the word “seized” when describing the repossessing of classified documents from President Joe Biden’s home. “Seized” implies that there was resistance involved, which is completely untrue, but it serves the “bothsidesist” narrative that is so prevalent. Josh Marshall, yesterday, stated that a main motivator of mainstream reporters is to not be accused of liberal bias. Maybe those reporters should reacquaint themselves with the actual meaning of the word FACT.
L
The word “seized” struck me, too. I agree with your analysis. Further msm is reverting to the same methods used during the 2016 election when it was all about Clinton’s ‘e-mails.’
IANAL, but the verb “seize” could just mean “take possession of” in legal terminology. In Canada we have a criminal charge of “Mischief” which covers many illegal acts, including some for which the sentence can include imprisonment for life.
I agree – “seized” in English connotes “grabbed”, as opposed to “received” from a willing holder, or “found” when searching. If they want to be both-side reporters perhaps they should learn some more neutral terms.
The terrorists do have a hostage (debt ceiling). That’s always highly dangerous because it’s clear the Biden Administration is refusing all the easier paths off the precipice:
* mint the coin
* follow the Constitution (all debts must be paid)
I think there are others, but they refuse them all.
Concur w Larry.
Teri, thanks as always for the good, and certainly this time, hilarious, read. 🙂
I think I see gravel ground cover and corrugated metal fence; and I’m so curious now. From interior images of your desk and JJ’s guard post chair, I would’ve guessed different landscape preferences; more contemplative garden perhaps. Function over Form? Or is the front yard the preferred Form also?
Your writing and insight amaze me…so I’m totally unsure why this is the topic that has first prompted me to ask a question. Please pardon if this is intrusive.
You are looking out the window to the right of the door at the back of this fence. The bark is because we live in Southern California and we have a water shortage 11 months of the year, and we flood the other month 🙂
The photographer did something fancy. The front yard is not big. Distance from door to street isn’t as much as it looks.
My office is in the back. The sculptures are gone: They belonged to the previous owner, who came back for them.
Beautiful home. JJ is doing good work.
Wonderful litigation disaster tour.
Teri,
Thanks for all you do. It’s hard to convey the point to people but I use the American Civil War; it’s actually a very short road from being unable to resolve differences through democracy and law to everyone shooting at each other.
The Jan 6th insurrection demonstrates this and it was only handled because a substantial majority had NOT given up on democracy and law. It seems unthinkable that it would have triggered a real shooting war but if the Republicans had succeeded in reinstating Trump and refused to back down that’s where we would have been. As the tolerance of political violence (Paul Pelosi, the guy shooting us democrats houses, Jan 6th, GOP playing bodycam footage of Breanna Taylor’s murder by police) increases we are just waiting for a spark, a Supreme Court decision etc etc.
garland is walking this tightrope superbly in just keeping the temperature down.
Keep up the good work.
Very, very nice read – fun AND informative! Thanks very much. Legalese is not an easy read – really appreciate your clear explanations – especially about who can be held responsible for payment. Oh, I SO hope trump follows his usual pattern and refuses to stump up – so that it all gets put on Habba. . . .
Thank you Teri for keeping it real. 🙂
JJ is tops 🙂
Teri, thanks as always for a delightful read . I did not know until your blog post that the withdrawn lawsuit had been filed in the same court and was before the same judge. Let’s hope this is the end of his frivolous lawsuits.
I highly doubt this is the end of his frivolous lawsuits.
Lawsuits in general are a favorite tactic of his and have been for many years, over a spectrum of frivolity.
And when he can use the very fact of filing them to raise more money from many of the roughly 35 percent of our population (any human population, apparently) who are “lizard brains” or authoritarians, why stop?
This particular judge has proven willing, thank goodness, to push back and actually impose meaningful sanctions. Which I highly doubt Trump himself will ever pay a dime of, and if he does it will be out of money he raised with publicity generated by the filing itself.
I think he will be filing these suits from the coffin. I doubt his estate will pay his undertaker.
Hi, Teri – love to read your posts. I am curious if and when you will be commenting on the Proud Boys’ sedition trial? I must say legal analysts seem pretty quiet about this (other than live tweeting which is not helpful to a non-attorney). Thanks!
I actually have been writing about it, but this blog post got long. If you go to my blog and scroll down you’ll find it.
What’s there is probably half of next week’s blog post, depending on what else happens this week.
Curious: Are you on social media?
This was great to read! Clearly your writing is of the highest quality when JJ is fending off all the dark forces that wander so close to your home. Teamwork makes the dream work.
Terri—Thank you for this great, informative, and entertaining posting.
You state: “Things have not been going well for Trump’s lawyers, many of whom are facing criminal investigation and disbarment. Eastman is in big trouble. Giuliani is in bigger trouble.”
Why are the disbarments proceeding so slowly?
A few of Trump’s lawyers have already been disbarred, right? (I’ll look it up tomorrow).Everything happens slowly, a fact everyone will appreciate when Jim Jordan isn’t able to make any progress!
I agree. Every means must be employed to inhibit the poisonous potential of The United States House Judiciary Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government—the official title of the Jim Jordan chaired Obstruct Justice and Defend Trump and Our Own Rumps No Matter What Subcommittee.
The official title of this subcommittee proves beyond all doubt that today’s Trumpist brutalists are devoid of any sense of irony and are narcissistically incapable of seeing themselves as others see them.
Great acronym, though: USHJSSWFG.
HA! My favorite fantasy these days is the one where Gym Jordan’s head explodes every time his grand investigation ideas run into a buzz saw operated by smarter attorneys than the ones working for the Republicans.
Also, I’m very happy to see JJ is alert and on the job! 🙂
Thanks,
Lee
P.S. There’s a “w” missing near the beginning of the 2nd-to-last line – “have noW for telling Jim Jordan no”
Teri, I always enjoy your blogs, posts, etc but this one was exceptionally enjoyable! Your ability to translate “legalese” into simple, to the point yet humorous parlance is a skill I never get tired of! Thanks so much for all you do & thanks too, for driving home the point that you are coming not just from a love for the rule of law but also a defense attorney’s perspective.
And oh…that JJ pic-priceless!!
Oh Teri – if I’ve learned nothing else from your posts, it’s that reading legal filings in this realm is highly entertaining, especially the judgements against Trump. Thank you for this one!
Seeing that Judge Middlebrooks correctly called out the Trump team for filing frivolous law suits and sanctioned them heavily for doing so, why were they not sanctioned for the 60+ fallacious election fraud law suits which were clearly filed for political purposes and graft? Although all but one of those cases were dismissed for having no standing or decided against team Trump, it seems like if those cases had resulted in the same kind of sanctions, perhaps there would have been fewer of them. ‘Tis a pity that the election fraud cases weren’t before Judge Middlebrooks.
Maybe they didn’t come right out and insult the judge(s)?
that individual or firm should file within ten (10) days of this Order, under seal, a verified statement of net worth which includes assets and liabilities. In the event of such a filing, the obligation of that individual or law firm will be tolled until further order of the Court.“
Would you mind explaining the meaning of ‘tolled’ in this context? Thanks.
Stalls. Stops the timeclock.
Can you imagine him filing a paper claiming that he can’t afford to pay ???
This was a fun and satisfying read. TFG withdrawing a lawsuit after this judgement against him was icing on the cake.
“You can’t stiff a court” certainly that’s true. However, Trump is a master of delay, bad faith objections and public whining, and non-compliance. The full staff of DOJ’s financial crimes/money laundering unit could probably unravel all of Trump’s LLC’s and separate which assets are his, vs somebody else’s and which are encumbered in ways that are senior to this court’s jurisdiction, etc. but it’s not going to be easy with the staff of a single District Court judge.
My real question is how much ability to appeal this does Trump have? What kind of timelines would realistically be involved?
Alina Habba has a very different set of interests and priorities in this than Trump does, but it’s clear to me that he regards her as expendable and has no regard for her financial or professional future. From his point of view, if this stuff is still pending when he dies, he wins. Looking at his condition, I’d say he has a 50% chance of being dead by his 80th birthday, in June 2026. Will this be enforced before then?
*31 Defendants
Thanks! will fix