The longer your compound capital, the less you need luck and the more you need Shrewdness.
- Manlobbi
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy❤
No. of Recommendations: 9
Challenges abound for the Trump familiy and its legal team in the New York civil case.
Ivanka Trump was previously dropped from the civil suit because the alleged actions invoving her were beyond the statute of limitations. However, prosecutors are still trying to force her to testify. After her removal from the case, prosecutors filed new subpoenas addressed to the individual children and the LLC names of various Trump entities involved with the bogus records. Ivanka is now arguing she was improperly served because while her individual name was listed in the TO: section of the subpoena, her individual name was not explicitly listed in the detailed request for deposition, etc. She's also arguing that since she was dismissed from the case, well... I mean, I'm not in the case, you can't make me testify.
So I'm pretty sure if you are NAMED as an INDIVIDUAL at the top of a subpoena, it is implied that YOU as an INDIVIDUAL are expected to make yourself available for a deposition and produce any documents requested in the subpoena. The need to explicitly name INDIVIDUALS in the body of the subpoena should only apply to organizations or companies being subpoened, if the party requesting the subpoena has a specific idea of who they want the organization to use in providing the requested information. If YOU appear as an individual in the TO: field, you are being explicitly served. And even if you are explicitly excluded from being the TARGET of a civil suit or criminal charge, you are never explicitly protected from having to testify, even about events beyond formal statute of limitations. Facts are facts. If they are required in a case and you have information pertaining to them, there's no statute of limitations on dates and times that can arise in a case.
Allen Weisselberg may have perjured himeself regarding his testimony about changes in the square footage of Trump's penthouse atop Trump Tower. Weisselberg had testified that he had never really focused much one way or the other about the square footage figure for Trump's home -- it just wasn't ever a big deal so it was NOT the focus of special efforts at any time to adjust for bragging rights or economic advantage. A Forbes writer reading the account of Weisselberg's testimony publicly stated Weisselberg was lying because the writer had email correspondence between Weisselberg and Forbes magazine that explicitly talked about upping the square footage of the Trump home and the fact that there was an email THREAD about it -- not just one note -- indicated it WAS something Weisselberg focused on for some ulterior motive.
Prosecutors have asked Trump and the Trump Organization to re-re-re-search its archives to find any emails on the topic, determine if any are found WHY they weren't produced at original discovery and identify if similar process gaps indicate the organization failed to comply with other categories of documents requested in discovery. And obviously, if copies of this correspondence in the posession of Forbes magazine are produced for the court, Weisselberg could be charged with perjury which might send him back to prison if he violated prior plea agreements.
WTH
No. of Recommendations: 0
Nothing compared to the challenges families have, and all Smug 401K Liberals have are the links to tell people that they are wrong about their own lives.
Trump can ride the lightning.
But all around the world - Smug Libs have created something that is going to grow less pleasant.
2020's.... the good ol' days ;)
The only good part is, your Bill of Rights will indeed be re-done because of this.
"Democracy!" - lol. buh-bye
No. of Recommendations: 1
A Forbes writer reading the account of Weisselberg's testimony publicly stated Weisselberg was lying because the writer had email correspondence between Weisselberg and Forbes magazine that explicitly talked about upping the square footage of the Trump home and the fact that there was an email THREAD about it -- not just one note -- indicated it WAS something Weisselberg focused on for some ulterior motive.
This is surprising to me. Why would you risk perjury? What was the calculus there?
No. of Recommendations: 5
Lapsody:
Why would you risk perjury? What was the calculus there?Couple million reasons...
On Tuesday, former Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg began his testimony with what some considered a blockbuster admission: Under a severance agreement signed shortly after he left the company, he is entitled to $2 million, paid in eight equal installments.
As of now, the Trump Organization hasn't even paid him half of that amount, according to the agreement's payment schedule -- and he must fully comply with the agreement to be paid in full.https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblo...
No. of Recommendations: 0
Aaah yes - thanks! :)
3. Employee promises, in exchange for benefits in paragraph 2, Employee promises...
...d. that except for acts or testimony directly compelled by subpoena or other lawful process issued by a court of competent jurisdiction, he will not (1) communicate with, provide information to, or otherwise cooperate in any way with any other person or entity, including his counsel or other agents, having or claiming to have any adverse claims against the Company or any person or entity released by this Agreement, with regard to the adverse claim; or (2) take any action to induce, encourage, instigate, aid, abet or otherwise cause any other person or entity to bring or file a complaint, charge, lawsuit or other proceeding of any kind against the Company or any person or entity released by this Agreement.
But, curious, isn't the testimony he gave "compelled by subpoena of other lawful process issued by a court of competent jurisdiction"? So the implication is that it's understood that the exception isn't real and W will have to spend real money fighting with the Trump org., which is well practiced in lie, obfuscate, and delay. That's my interpretation at the moment.
