'Wow': Trump lawyers send 'crazy' reply after Judge Engoron asks about possible perjury – Raw Story
Kathleen Culliton is Raw Story's assistant managing editor. She's been covering local and national news for more than a decade for outlets that include the New York Post, Al Jazeera, DNAinfo New York, Bustle, the New York Daily News, WNYC, NY1, City Limits and the New York City Patch. Kathleen is a proud alumna of the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism. Here's a shocker; she is from New York City.
Attorneys for former President Donald Trump in his $370 million civil fraud trial Wednesday called Judge Arthur Engoron’s demand for information about Allen Weisselberg’s potential perjury plea deal “unprecedented, inappropriate and troubling."
Engoron Monday demanded information about a New York Times report that Weisselberg may have perjured himself during testimony given in the civil fraud trial, but attorney Clifford Robert retorted he had no reason to do so.
“The Article simply does not provide any principled basis for the Court to reopen the record or question the veracity of Mr. Weisselberg's testimony in this case,” Robert wrote in the letter, which later appeared in New York's court record database.
ALSO READ: Alina Habba is persona non grata at her Pennsylvania law school
“Indeed, we respectfully submit that the Court's request for comment on this speculative media account is unprecedented, inappropriate and troubling.”
Attorney Alina Habba told the court she conferred with her "ethics counsel" and was advised not to provide further detail.
"The New York Times article is neither admissible nor reliable," Habba contended, "and it should not be considered in Your Honor’s determination as to the merits of this case."
Political analysts at the “Mueller, She Wrote podcast dubbed Robert's reply "crazy."
"He's complaining about the court relying on news stories for the case, but Engoron asked for INFORMATION about it," the podcasters wrote. "WOW."
The New York Attorney General’s office also responded Wednesday, saying they knew nothing of Weisselberg’s reported negotiations with the Manhattan District Attorney’s office and urging Engoron to issue a ruling swiftly.
Trump, who denies wrongdoing, was found liable for fraud by inflating Trump Organization asset values before the trial began.
Now Engoron is tasked with assessing damages Trump and his co-defendants, who include Weisselberg, should pay.
Judge Cannon appears to be intentionally helping Donald Trump in his criminal case over confidential documents, and it might warrant an appeals court forcing her out, a legal expert said on Wednesday.
Former federal prosecutor Joyce Vance once again raised the issue of Cannon's behavior in the Trump documents case, calling the pattern of delay "disturbing."
"Perhaps we’d view any one of them, on their own, as a judicial aberration. But the pattern of ruling upon ruling that is out of the legal mainstream and results in delay well past the point where this case should have been ready for trial is something that shouldn’t be ignored," Vance wrote on Substack. "Judges should not put their fingers on the scales of justice either for or against a defendant or any other party. Here, it’s impossible to avoid the conclusion that the scales are being tipped."
ALSO READ: Alina Habba is persona non grata at her Pennsylvania law school
Vance goes on to say that Judge Cannon has "entered an order in the case that is worth paying attention to" on Tuesday.
"Trump and his Florida co-defendants filed a consolidated motion on January 16, 2024, asking the court to order the government to turn over more discovery to them than it had provided… The Special Counsel filed a response, opposing making information public if it revealed the identity or any personal identifying information of any potential witness for the government, or any transcripts or other documentation of statements or testimony they may have given," Vance wrote. "Most Judges would give serious consideration to protecting this type of information, at least at this stage of the proceedings. Judge Cannon decided to protect some, but not all of it."
Finally, Vance raises the potential solution.
"When Judge Cannon was first assigned this case, we discussed the standards used in the 11th Circuit for determining whether a judge should be recused based on their prior conduct in a case. The argument is not one of personal bias, or even that she should be recused because Trump appointed her. But in rare, extraordinary cases where a judge has made multiple rulings that were without a valid basis in the record, the 11th Circuit has ordered recusal, finding that 'the original judge would have difficulty putting his previous views and findings aside,'" Vance wrote. "Whether they would apply that rule to Cannon remains to be seen. Forced recusals are rare. But at this late date, even if the 11th Circuit were to move quickly, as it has in the past, and force Cannon to step aside, it would take a new judge some time to get up to speed. There are no quick fixes for the damage Judge Cannon has done."
After getting cut down to size as "citizen Trump" by the three-judge appeals panel denying him absolute immunity from committing crimes — former President Donald Trump is pushing false narratives that the ruling weakens the presidency.
During an appearance on MSNBC's "The Last Word" with Lawrence O'Donnell, former federal prosecutor Barbara McQuade explained that nothing that came out to the D.C. Court of Appeals was a "surprise" because they were "simply restating a law, as we have always known it."
Earlier today, Trump beat the innocence drum on Truth Social that the decision (which he has vowed to appeal) does indelible harm to the office.
ALSO READ: Alina Habba is persona non grata at her Pennsylvania law school
"If a President does not have Immunity, the Opposing Party, during his/her term in Office, can extort and blackmail the President by saying that, 'if you don’t give us everything we want, we will Indict you for things you did while in Office,' even if everything done was totally Legal and Appropriate," Trump said. "That would be the end of the Presidency, and our Country, as we know it, and is just one of the many Traps there would be for a President without Presidential Immunity."
He then plays judge and jury to decide former presidents Obama, Bush, and "Crooked Joe Biden" are all guilty of something and "would all be in PRISON."
McQuade calls this out as another con by the Don.
"What Donald Trump is doing is engaging in disinformation," she said. "He is suggesting to the public that what the court has done is something very radical, that is now eroding a power that existed before yesterday, and that now, presidents have lost the power to be able to govern in this country without the fear and the chilling effect that it would have to now face some sort of accountability that they did not face before."
Last month, Trump declared on social media that even presidential acts that “CROSS THE LINE” must be given “TOTAL IMMUNITY” from prosecution.
In fact, McQuade points out the obvious that only one person appears to be unable to grasp: that a "president was not above the law, and that they could be charged with crimes."
"Donald Trump is the only one suggesting that this was different, and that this is something new; but for people who don't know better. they will read that, and they will fall for that con."
Watch the video below or click here.
A tense exchange occurred between CNN's Anderson Cooper and Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) over Congressional inaction to solve the Southern Border crisis, and it had the lawmaker turning on anybody who doesn't want a bill to be voted through to score political points.
"People on both sides of the aisle applaud you for that," Cooper told the Texas Republican who served the country as a Navy SEAL. "[Trump] has put his thumb on scale on this. I understand activist groups make money off this. He is making money off this. He is running an election. This is perhaps a winning issue for him. He does not want improvement despite all the talk of fentanyl, despite all the talk of national security issues. he doesn't want a deal —"
Crenshaw asked for specific evidence.
ALSO READ: Alina Habba is persona non grata at her Pennsylvania law school
Cooper then tried again. "Lots of people in the House have said that," he said. "There's Republicans in the House who supported HR.2 who are now saying, 'We don't need any border deal at all, and the only reason is because —"
H.R. 2 is the Republican bill that markedly aimed to change the way the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) would deal with undocumented immigrants and also negotiate with countries critical countries such as El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Mexico when it comes to asylum.
Crenshaw told Cooper those who aren't trying to solve the problem are missing a critical window to hash out a deal.
"They are wrong," he said bluntly. "I disagree with them."
"I disagree with them in conversations today on the floor. I said, 'Look if we didn't need new Border laws, why did we pass HR.2," he said.
He then started to praise Trump's actions during his first term before he was voted out in 2020, such as changing the laws and forging agreements with Mexico and Northern Triangle countries.
"That's what he ended up having to do," said Crenshaw.
He then accused Cooper of baiting him into a verbal beef with the 45th president who remains in the lead to become the GOP candidate to challenge to become the 47th president.
"I know you want me to get into a fight with Trump… I'm not going to do it… We need a Border deal."
Watch below or click here.
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 .