'They had a duty': Experts erupt over Trump lawyers' potential 'deception' on fraud bond – Raw Story
David joined Raw Story in 2023 after nearly a decade of writing about the legal industry for Bloomberg Law. He is also a co-founder and a commissioning editor at Hypatia Press, a publisher that specializes in philosophical works that challenge religion or spirituality.
Donald Trump's lawyers may have made misrepresentations to the court regarding the former president's bond in his civil fraud case, and legal experts are looking out for what comes next.
ProPublica reported on Friday that Trump's attorneys "had told the appellate court it was a 'practical impossibility' to get a bond for the full amount of the lower court’s judgment, $464 million."
"But before the judges ruled, the impossible became possible: A billionaire lender approached Trump about providing a bond for the full amount," according to the recent report. "The lawyers never filed paperwork alerting the appeals court. That failure may have violated ethics rules, legal experts say."
ALSO READ: A criminologist explains why keeping Trump from the White House is all that matters
That news made its way around the internet over the weekend, with various people chiming in.
ProPublica Illinois deputy editor Steve Mills asked the question, "Did Trump and his lawyers fail to disclose key details about his bond?"
That led former federal prosecutor Andrew Weissmann to post a related reminder.
"And the $175 bond has reported issues: the surety company may not be licensed to give bonds in NY & may not have met the NY solvency reqs (can't post more than 10% of its worth so it is solvent to meet the bond requirements). 4/22 hearing scheduled by the court."
Former prosecutor Barbara McQuade also chimed in:
"AG is doing her job on behalf of the people of New York to inquire into whether Trump’s appeal bond meets legal standards," she wrote on Sunday in response to Weissmann. "The risk is that if Trump loses his appeal and he can’t pay the $454M judgment, then taxpayers lose."
In response to ProPublica's piece, former Trump campaign aide A.J. Delgado said, "Looking more and more like Trump did not, in fact, post the bond (at least not a proper one)."
Speaking to MSNBC on Sunday, former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti also said the lawyers involved have a "duty" to correct their statement. He noted that attorneys have additional obligations to be honest to the court.
In the comments on the post from Mills, ProPublica's readers weighed in on the subject.
"Of course they 'neglected' to do this," Barbara Levitan, @BarbaraLevitan, wrote. "There are no accidents with Trump, only deliberate deception."
Mary Miller, @eaglzfan1967, said, "THEY LIED – THEY HAD A DUTY TO CURE THEIR FALSE STATEMENTS."
Two public school principals in North Texas have been indicted for allegedly using their school email accounts to urge staff to vote for certain political candidates in the March Republican primary election.
The two Denton principals, who are married, are accused of violating state election law and could face up to one year in jail and a fine of up to $4,000 if convicted of the misdemeanor charges, which a Denton County grand jury handed down on Tuesday.
Lindsay Luján, Denton Independent School District’s director of special programs and principal of Alexander Elementary School, allegedly sent an email to school staff on Feb. 5 encouraging them to vote for Republicans who oppose school voucher programs, which would divert money away from public schools and give families taxpayer dollars to pay for their children’s private schooling. The email, a copy of which is included in court documents, includes a link to a scorecard detailing each candidate’s position on public school funding.
Jesus Luján, principal of Borman Elementary School, sent a similar email to his staff in February.
“Vote for candidates who support public education and school funding in the Republican primaries, no matter what your party affiliation is, Republican or Democrat,” the email states.
School voucher programs were Gov. Greg Abbott’s top legislative priority last year, but Democrats and rural Republicans blocked voucher legislation from passing. The Legislature is expected to revisit the issue next year.
Texas law prohibits school districts from using state or local funds or school district resources to electioneer for or against any candidate. The Education Code also prohibits the use of public funds and internal email systems for political advertising.
In February, Attorney General Ken Paxton sued Denton ISD for illegal electioneering, arguing that the staff members’ emails constitute political advertising and violate state law.
“It is absolutely improper for publicly funded entities like school districts to engage in electioneering as Denton ISD has done,” Paxton said. “Government officials everywhere are on notice that I will use every legal remedy available to me to stop school districts from influencing or coercing their employees to vote any particular way, especially when a district uses taxpayer resources and money to do so. Our elections must be completely protected from any illegal interference.”
Paxton’s office obtained an injunction against Denton ISD in March, ordering the district to not use any funds or resources to engage in illegal electioneering. Paxton obtained a similar injunction against Castleberry ISD as well as a restraining order against Frisco ISD.
In a statement, the Texas American Federation of Teachers, a teachers union, defended the principals.
“This latest escalation in the campaign against educators and school employees fulfilling their duty to promote civic engagement and using their voices to highlight the high stakes for public education in our elections threatens to have a profound chilling effect in communities across the state,” the statement said.
Denton ISD officials did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
In a statement to the Denton Record-Chronicle, Julie Zwahr, a district spokesperson, said she could not comment on the principals’ employment status.
“As stated previously, we agree that election laws should be followed,” she said. “Our Board of School Trustees adopted board policies in 2018 and 2021 regarding elections and campaign ethics, and we train all trustees and administrators on these policies annually. It is our expectation that these policies be followed.”
We can’t wait to welcome you to downtown Austin Sept. 5-7 for the 2024 Texas Tribune Festival! Join us at Texas’ breakout politics and policy event as we dig into the 2024 elections, state and national politics, the state of democracy, and so much more. When tickets go on sale this spring, Tribune members will save big. Donate to join or renew today.
This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune at https://www.texastribune.org/2024/04/07/texas-denton-principals-indictment-electioneering/.
The Texas Tribune is a member-supported, nonpartisan newsroom informing and engaging Texans on state politics and policy. Learn more at texastribune.org.
When the Mifepristone case came before the Supreme Court, Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito bizarrely brought up their desire to see the Comstock Act again enforced.
Even arguably worse, they’re in part responsible for giving Trump months of delay in the case Jack Smith has brought against him for trying to overthrow our form of government. As Liz Cheney, apparently quite pissed off at the Court herself, said this week:
Actually, with a Supreme Court filled with corrupt stooges for the morbidly rich, it can be the case. It is, in fact, the case: they’ve given him as much delay as they legally can. So, what can we do about the naked corruption on this Court?
If Donald Trump wins the White House this fall, in all probability both Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito will retire to let the Federalist Society and Leonard Leo’s people pick two replacements in their 40s.
READ: 'Set things straight': Chilling poll shows how far Republicans are willing to go
But if Biden wins, Democrats should be ready to help them both out, too.
But how?By using political theater!
Richard Nixon pioneered this strategy back in the early 1970s, when the most liberal member of the Supreme Court, Abe Fortas, was a thorn in the side of the Republicans and the billionaires and big corporations who supported them.
His strategy was straightforward: launch a formal investigation into allegations of corruption against Fortas that the GOP had manufactured — yes, they were totally bogus, as time and historians have proven — that put enough pressure on him that he resigned.
In the case of Thomas and Alito, there’s no need to invent anything; there’s abundant evidence of corruption already on the public record. And there are a ton of questions about Kavanaugh. Nonetheless, the history is enlightening and can help provide a roadmap for change.
It started in the last year of LBJ’s presidency.
In June of 1968, Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren — a liberal who’d been appointed by Dwight Eisenhower — decided to resign from the Court so that President Lyndon Johnson would have a full six months to replace him with another liberal.
LBJ proposed elevating the only Jewish member of the US Supreme Court, Abe Fortas, to become the new Chief Justice (and Homer Thornberry to fill Warren’s empty seat), but racist and antisemitic “conservatives” like Thurmond — and presidential candidate Richard Nixon — saw the upcoming hearings as a grand opportunity.
They postponed Thornberry’s nomination, front-loading the hearings about putting Fortas in charge of the Court, and then ran an inquisition into Fortas over a $15,000 speaking fee he’d taken to address a college group. (Clarence Thomas has also taken $15,000 speaking fees, and more, for the record.)
With that “scandalous” payment — and his vote on the Court to legalize pornography — as the excuses, Republicans and racist Southern “conservative” Dixiecrats like Thurmond arrayed a Senate filibuster to block the liberal and Jewish Fortas’ elevation to Chief Justice.
It dragged out for months; on October 2, 1968 it became obvious the filibuster couldn’t be broken and Fortas withdrew his name from consideration for Chief Justice, although he planned to remain on the Court as an Associate Justice like his peers.
By then it was too late for LBJ to elevate another liberal to Chief Justice (Warren stayed on the Court for another half-year to provide continuity) and also too late for LBJ’s nominee Thornberry to even be considered to replace Warren’s empty seat before the presidential election four weeks later.
But that was just the beginning.
Once Nixon came into office on January 20, 1969 he put ending the Court’s “liberal” bent at the top of his agenda. That meant not only replacing Warren (who stayed on until June 23, 1969), but, to tip the Court conservative, getting rid of it’s most liberal member, Abe Fortas.
Attorney General John Mitchell ordered the Justice Department to begin an investigation into Fortas’ wife, Carolyn Agger, who was a lawyer with the DC firm that had previously employed Fortas.
Rightwing media had claimed — without evidence — that “documents that might be found in a safe in her office” might prove she was involved in a tax-evasion scheme.
There was never any evidence whatsoever, either of Fortas or his wife being corrupt. It was and is not illegal to take a speaking fee: members of the Court do so routinely today. And there was nothing incriminating in her safe.
But Richard Nixon, John Mitchell, and Abe Fortas knew the old legal saw: “A grand jury can indict a ham sandwich.”
Mitchell had also dredged up another payment that Fortas had earned, this one $20,000 a year for serving on the board of a charitable foundation (not uncommon for high-end DC lawyers then or now).
This was also totally legal (and nothing compared to the millions of dollars Ginni Thomas has taken from rightwing groups and Harlan Crow since her husband was put on the Court) but Fortas gave back the money anyway.
Not only did that not help: his returning the money was, Nixon charged, proof that it was corrupt money in the first place!
Mitchell then announced he was going to have a Justice Department lawyer named William Rehnquist convene a grand jury to look into the “crimes” that right-wingers were claiming Fortas and his wife had committed.
As Nixon’s White House Counsel John Dean, who was there and knew the players, wrote in his book on the era (The Rehnquist Choice):
But faced with the possibility of his wife being dragged through the mud and both of them spending years and a fortune defending themselves, Fortas threw in the towel. He resigned from the Supreme Court five months into Nixon’s presidency on May 14, 1969.
With their mission accomplished, Mitchell immediately dropped the threat of the grand jury. As John Dean noted:
Thus, Nixon was ultimately able to replace three liberal justices on the Court over the following two years, turning it from liberal to conservative (where it remains to this day) for the first time since 1937. They were Harry A. Blackmun (1970), Lewis F. Powell, Jr. (1971), and William Rehnquist (1971).
Which brings us to today.
Aside from Clarence Thomas’ corrupt relationship with Crow, his wife has also benefited from a half-million dollars from Crow for her political activities as well as her apparently active participation in a seditious conspiracy to overthrow the government of the United States.
This is the perfect setup for good old fashioned political theater, using the lesson Nixon left us. But, this time, doing it with integrity.
Instead of trying to impeaching Thomas — an almost impossible lift, given the composition of today’s Senate — the Biden administration and Democrats in the House and Senate would be better served investigating both the bribes he’s accepted as well as Ginni’s corruption and attempted sedition.
Sam Alito is compromised by billionaires and wealthy foundations in many ways similar to Thomas, albeit not as egregious.
And Brett Kavanaugh has so many skeletons in his closet — that could be forced into the open with a grand jury or congressional investigation — that, like Fortas, he may be unwilling to suffer the outcome of a genuine congressional or grand jury investigation.
(There’s also the $10 million Chief Justice Roberts’ wife has taken from law firms with business before the Court, although I think it unlikely he’ll be as easily taken down.)
Replacing Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh would take the balance of the Court back to where it was in 1970, before Nixon decided to drive Fortas out with bogus charges.
If they’re lucky — or strategic — we may be able to get an Abe Fortas outcome and clean up the reputation of the Court in one fell stroke.
NOW READ: Now we know how Hitler did it
Adult film star Stormy Daniels on Sunday was forced to defend herself from claims that she gave a sworn statement indicating she never had an affair with Donald Trump, an event at the heart of the former president's upcoming criminal trial happening in New York.
Early on Sunday, controversial Trump ally Laura Loomer posted the allegation on social media. Loomer has been shouted out by the former president at various rallies, and he frequently shares her reports against his critics on Truth Social.
Loomer has in the past targeted Judge Juan Merchan's daughter, but in this case she turned her sights on Daniels.
ALSO READ: A criminologist explains why keeping Trump from the White House is all that matters
"In her own sworn statement, [Daniels] admits she never had an affair with Donald Trump. People like you are what’s f—— up with our country and its people like you who made me decide I will never believe in forgiveness or grace for idiots, liars, and people who want to destroy my country," Loomer wrote to a critic asking about Trump's purported affair. "May they all rot in hell for eternity if they continue to lie when the truth is known."
But Daniels responded directly, beginning with laughter.
"Buwahaha! A one time 2 min humping because I was cornered doesn't equal an affair but also, that is not a 'sworn statement' and I didn't write it," she said. "People like you give journalists a bad rep. Luckily, I have proof and you just have…idiocracy. Be mad! Thanks for the attention, though."
Another user responded to Loomer, saying about Daniels, "She admitted in court that they never had an affair. What more do you want?"
Daniels responded to that post, too, adding, "I haven't been to court," accompanied by a laughing emoji. Indeed, the trial begins this month.
Another user pointed out that Daniels previously said she was forced to sign the statement, which she said was written by Michael Cohen.
"Exactly! But they don't like to 'check facts'…I have the messages (dated) from that time as well, proving I was made to sign it and that as soon as I was out of that room/safe, I told the truth," Daniels added.
Copyright © 2024 Raw Story Media, Inc. PO Box 21050, Washington, D.C. 20009 | Masthead | Privacy Policy | Manage Preferences | Debug Logs
For corrections contact corrections@rawstory.com , for support contact support@rawstory.com .