NEW: A New York trial court judge has found that Trump, his adult sons, and Allen Weisselberg engaged in a persistent, years-long fraud through “fantasy world” valuations of core Trump assets, including his own residence and various golf courses and office buildings. 1/
His decision not only eliminates the need for trial on that claim, but also orders fairly dramatic relief: the cancellation of New York business certificates for all of the entities named as defendants, “as well as any other entity controlled or beneficially owned by the individual defendants found liable.” 2/
Within 10 days, the parties are required to recommend three individuals who could serve as potential receivers to manage the dissolution of those companies. 3/
And on dissolution, the assets belonging to these LLCs — which include many of the jewels in Trump’s crown—will be dispensed with on the recommendation of the appointed receiver, as approved by the court. What does that mean? 4/
That they could ultimately not only be transferred to entities outside New York but also potentially sold. And whether Trump will be able to maintain ownership after dissolution is unclear. FIN.
Indeed, one possibility is that assets will need be sold to satisfy outstanding debts, including any disgorgement of profits ordered by the judge. Remember: The AG has asked that Trump and his co-defendants hand over “at least $250 million” from their fraudulent scheme. FIN
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
NEW: Trump has filed his opposition Jack Smith’s team’s motion for limits on what Trump and his lawyers can say about witnesses and participants in the federal election interference case. And it’s a doozy. 1/
Trump—despite the Justice Department and White House’s divorcing itself from any involvement in his case—now claims “the Biden Administration” charged him and now “seeks to unconstitutionally silence” him because it is “keenly aware that it is losing that race for 2024.” 2/
Literally, they have accused the Biden Administration of filing the motion to distract from Trump’s “commanding lead in the polls” and part of a larger election interference scheme. It’s one thing for Trump himself to say this; it’s stunning to see it from his lawyers. 3/
MEADOWS: In his opening appellate brief, Meadows argues that if his job "did not include political activity, the position would cease to function altogether." 1/
"Even when the President acts in a purely personal or political capacity, the Chief of Staff still must exercise discretion to act on behalf of the President, and continues in his official capacity as the crucial conduit between the Executive branch and the President." 2/
". . . . It is, therefore, impossible to draw a bright-line distinction between a Chief of Staff’s engaging in official and 'political activity.'” 3/
TRUMP D.C.: Trump filed his reply to his motion to recuse Judge Chutkan tonight, arguing that her comments during the sentencings of two 1/6 defendants may have happened in court but were based on information acquired outside those and/or other cases. 1/
That knowledge, they argue, must have been obtained outside court and from media and/or congressional proceedings since Trump was never a defendant or named as a co-conspirator in any case before her. 2/
More importantly, however, her mentioning that Trump has not been charged reflects an implicit judgment that he should be—and that expression of bias is unacceptable, especially given the significance of the case and the divisions in our country. 3/
NEW: For more than a week, we've known the government filed a motion in the D.C. case that concerns Trump's "extrajudicial statements." But because of a dispute over its sealing, we had not yet seen its contents or understood what relief it seeks. Enter Tanya Chutkan. 1/
She has now ordered the clerk to file a public version that redacts "the names and other identifying information of certain individuals whom, it asserts, Defendant targeted with inflammatory public statements and who were subsequently subjected to threats and harassment," & "excerpts from witness interview transcripts describing the threats and harassment they received." 2/
Chutkan also reveals some of the government's argument in that as-yet-unfiled redacted brief: Trump "will continue to make similar personal attacks, knowing that they may prompt similar harassment." 3/
Judge Aileen Cannon entered a fourth order today, both summarizing her rulings on the government's protective order motion and setting up further briefing. But in a footnote, she seems to have quantified the volume of classified discovery to come.
Specifically, she says that yesterday, the Special Counsel acknowledged the classified information in this case "consist[s] of approximately 3,500 pages classified at various levels." 2/
If that's the totality of the classified information at issue, Trump's team review and analysis thereof may not exactly justify further delay. 3/
Judge Aileen Cannon did not enter any protective orders governing the disclosure of classified material in the Mar-a-Lago documents case until today. But on July 27, the government told her there were only two issues in dispute between the parties. 1/
Specifically, in its renewed motion for a CISA protective order, the government explained, those remaining issues were: "(1) Defendant Nauta objects to language that limits his personal access to classified information, as opposed to access by his cleared counsel; and (2) Defendant Trump requests that he be permitted to discuss classified information with his counsel outside SCIFs." 2/
When Trump's team responded, they narrowed the dispute even further, saying, Trump's only beef was that he wanted "to discuss the relevant purportedly classified material inside an appropriate secure facility at or near his personal residence." 3/