How Josh Dawsey Downplays Paul Manafort’s Ties to Alleged Russian Spies

Josh Dawsey’s report that Trump plans to hire convicted money launderer and former business partner of an alleged Russian spy Paul Manafort to work on his campaign — possibly to help fundraising!!! — makes all the years of shitty coverage of the Russian investigation an urgent problem again.

The job discussions have largely centered around the 2024 Republican convention in Milwaukee in July and could include Manafort playing a role in fundraising for the presumptive GOP nominee’s campaign, according to these people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private deliberations.

Dawsey gets big and little things wrong in his report. For example, he claims that Manafort was sentenced to around four years in prison after which he was released under COVID protocols.

Manafort was found guilty of hiding millions he made lobbying on behalf of pro-Russian Ukrainian politicians in overseas bank accounts, then falsifying his finances to get loans when his patrons lost power. He was originally sentenced to about four years in prison but was released early to home confinement due to the coronavirus before he was pardoned by Trump.

In reality, Judge Amy Berman Jackson sentenced Manafort to 73 months (60 months concurrent with his EDVA sentence, and 13 months consecutive to that; his release to home confinement did not adhere to the priorities for release at the time).

 For the reasons stated on the record in open Court Defendant’s 540 Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. Count 1ssss: Sentenced to Sixty (60) months incarceration. The sentence is to run concurrent to Thirty (30) months of the sentence previously imposed by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia which has already accounted for the credit defendant is due for time served. Special Assessment of $100.00 was imposed. Count 2ssss: Sentenced to Thirteen (13) months incarceration, to be served consecutively to the sentence on Count One (1).

Predictably, though, it is in downplaying the import of Manafort’s ties to Russian spies where Dawsey really fails.

During the 2016 campaign, Manafort also allegedly shared Trump campaign polling data with Konstantin Kilimnik, a Russian who the U.S. government said had ties to Russian intelligence. The special counsel accused Manafort of lying to the FBI about his interactions with Kilimnik, even after Manafort had said he would cooperate and provide truthful information.

Manafort also allegedly worked with Kilimnik to spread Russian disinformation that it was actually Ukraine who interfered in the 2016 U.S. election.

In a report issued in 2020, the Senate bipartisan committee that investigated Russian interference found that “Manafort’s presence on the Campaign and proximity to Trump created opportunities for Russian intelligence services to exert influence over, and acquire confidential information on, the Trump Campaign.”

First, there is absolutely no dispute that Manafort sent campaign data to Kilimnik to share with his Ukrainian backers and Oleg Deripaska. Manafort simply maintained that he only instructed Rick Gates to share public data (Kilimnik’s other business partner, Sam Patten, said Manafort shared internal data). But the polling data has never been the key point. They key point was, weeks before the Russians started stealing Hillary’s internal modeling, Manafort told Kilimnik how he planned to win the race in the swing states — Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and also Minnesota — where Trump ultimately did win it.

Dawsey of course is silent about the other two undisputed aspects of the August 2, 2016 meeting. Kilimnik pitched Manafort on a plan to carve up Ukraine (Manafort ultimately admitted that Kilimnik did; he just claimed he didn’t buy into the plan at that point). And Manafort talked about how to get paid by his Ukrainian backers and get his debt with Oleg Deripaska relieved.

That is, the meeting at least maps the outline of a quid pro quo: a commitment to carve up Ukraine in exchange for millions and help winning the election.

And Robert Mueller didn’t just accuse Manafort of lying during the period when he was supposed to be cooperating. Judge Amy Berman Jackson ruled that he had.

Paul Manafort lied to cover up what really happened between him and Konstantin Kilimnik, and Donald Trump pardoned Manafort to reward those lies.

Finally, it’s not that, “U.S. government said [Kilimnik] had ties to Russian intelligence.” In 2021, after Kilimnik allegedly interfered in a second US election, Treasury stated as fact that Kilimnik was Russian intelligence.

Konstantin Kilimnik (Kilimnik) is a Russian and Ukrainian political consultant and known Russian Intelligence Services agent implementing influence operations on their behalf. During the 2016 U.S. presidential election campaign, Kilimnik provided the Russian Intelligence Services with sensitive information on polling and campaign strategy. Additionally, Kilimnik sought to promote the narrative that Ukraine, not Russia, had interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. In 2018, Kilimnik was indicted on charges of obstruction of justice and conspiracy to obstruct justice regarding unregistered lobbying work. Kilimnik has also sought to assist designated former President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych. At Yanukovych’s direction, Kilimnik sought to institute a plan that would return Yanukovych to power in Ukraine.

Kilimnik was designated pursuant to E.O. 13848 for having engaged in foreign interference in the U.S. 2020 presidential election. Kilimnik was also designated pursuant to E.O. 13660 for acting for or on behalf of Yanukovych. Yanukovych, who is currently hiding in exile in Russia, was designated in 2014 pursuant to E.O. 13660 for his role in violating Ukrainian sovereignty. [my emphasis]

We also know, from the Charles McGonigal sentencing materials, that by 2017, the Intelligence Community had judged Oleg Deripaska to be “associated” with a Russian intelligence agency, too.

Among other things, in May 2017, McGonigal received a then-classified email stating that Deripaska was associated with a Russian intelligence agency, and possibly involved in that agency’s coup attempt in another country. (PSR ¶ 19).

By context, the agency must be GRU and the attempted coup must be Montenegro, a country implicated in McGonigal’s other prosecution — one where Manafort had an extensive history with Deripaska and one mentioned in Andrew Weissmann’s Team M report.

Donald Trump is considering hiring the former business partner of two alleged Russian spies, admitted money launderer Paul Manafort, to help with fundraising.

Way back in 2021, Avril Haines committed to declassifying parts of the SSCI Report that remained then, and still remain, redacted. It’s time to unseal those details describing why the spooks were so convinced that Kilimnik was, himself, a Russian spy.

Related posts

Deza: Oleg Deripaska’s Double Game

The Ongoing Investigation into Paul Manafort’s Handlers

Four Stories about Paul Manafort from Andrew Weissmann’s Team M

Paul Manafort Remains a Bigger Scandal than Hunter Biden

 

image_print
175 replies
  1. Peter_18MAR2021_0904h says:

    Trump did not win MN in 2016.

    [Welcome to emptywheel. Please choose and use a unique username with a minimum of 8 letters. We are moving to a new minimum standard to support community security. Because your username is far too short and common (there are multiple Pete/Peter here, including a contributor) it will be temporarily changed to match the date/time of your first known comment until you have a new compliant username. Thanks. /~Rayne]

      • Rugger_9 says:

        Also, he’s unrepentant and currently beyond any sort of control due to the pardon he got from Defendant-1. I would hope the DoJ / FBI has him under 24-hour surveillance until the inevitable deep state screeching starts. However, as a private citizen not under any warrant / probation (AFAIK) / release order there isn’t much the feds can do without violating the 4th Amendment. That leaves a lot of room for backroom dealing by a notoriously unscrupulous guy.

        That’s a very bad combination for the political health in the USA.

      • Ginevra diBenci says:

        Stone made a show in late January 2021 of anger at Trump for not coming through with a pardon for all the J6-related stuff. It was a very performative show, for a documentarian’s camera, intended to “reveal” a schism between Stone and Trump.

        The ensuing years of investigations have been largely silent to date where Stone is concerned. To me, he and his current affiliations exist within a black box. Jack Smith must have other shoes to drop, in the form of indictments for Trump’s co-conspirators, which have to include Stone–at least Stone himself seemed to think so back in 2021.

        If Stone never left, he’s playing his ongoing relationship close to the vest.

  2. boloboffin says:

    Is anyone in the media thinking about asking Trump about why he’s hiring someone who shared campaign polling data with the Russians last time?

    Silly me, of course they aren’t. In their favor, they probably already know what Trump would answer: “That didn’t happen, more RussiaRussiaRussia.”

    • emptywheel says:

      Again, the point is not JUST the polling data. It’s that he shared campaign strategy, in the context of an apparently quid pro quo.

      • Rugger_9 says:

        Though IANAL, isn’t that 2016 exchange a clear case of tangible foreign support for a campaign that would violate the law prohibiting foreign interference in elections?

        Doesn’t this also make Manafort a foreign agent under FARA?

        BTW, LGM gave you a hat tip, noting that it’s time to bring on more laptop stuff, and perhaps the ballyhooed ‘referral’ from the Comer Clown Committee leadership was intended to mask this pretty damning report.

    • Bugboy321 says:

      “…who shared campaign polling data”
      “Excuse me, that’s “ALLEGEDLY shared”. We’re gonna both sides this one if it kills us, but also in the interest of ‘fairness’, infer that it hasn’t been proven in a court of law, even though it has been proven in a court of law.” – Sincerely, MSM

      • Mary Teagle says:

        He did plead guilty

        [Welcome back to emptywheel. Please use the same username and email address each time you comment so that community members get to know you. You commented last as “58Gretsch” last June; please pick a name and stick with it on future comments. /~Rayne]

  3. MsJennyMD says:

    My work in Ukraine ceased following the country’s parliamentary elections in October 2014.
    Paul Manafort

    I’ve never dealt with the Russian government, I’ve never had a relationship with the Russian government.
    Paul Manafort

    I’m always careful what clients I take.
    Paul Manafort

      • David F. Snyder says:

        That’s the tell, him tripping over that silver tongue of his. “abba-da-abba-da … whatever he said”.

        More irritating is Manafort in follow up expressing concern about Hillary’s server, which now even more obviously meant nothing to him, seeing as how Trump has actually distributed/scattered intel across the world in the broad open. Eau de hypocrisy!

  4. Mike Stone says:

    Putin needs a win in Ukraine and will stop at nothing to get it. He will do any and everything possible to get Trump elected since once Trump is in, Ukraine will not get any more support from the US. Further, the Baltics will be next up for grabs.

    I wonder what Manafort’s fee will be for the Baltics?

  5. BobBobCon says:

    The abuse of “alleged” and “accused” is one of the ongoing problems with coverage of Trump and his crew. On the one hand, there is an absolute requirement according to standard rules of journalism that terms like this be used while a court case is pending.

    But once a court decision has been made, the justification for using these terms shrinks enormously. You can sometimes argue some version is still valid, for instance when someone is convicted despite extensive DNA evidence to the contrary. But a reporter must demonstrate the evidence which justifies this choice.

    Dawsey is clearly breaking the standards of journalism, and he’s doing it with the compliance of his editor too. Using these terms in reference to a convicted person like Manafort would raise a red flag for any competent editor, in the same way that failure to use them would be a red flag pre-trial. But when it comes to political reporting in particular, these kinds of standards have fallen by the wayside.

    • Ginevra diBenci says:

      I will not defend Dawsey, who probably did use “allegedly” in his draft. But it is also possible that his editor, far from being merely compliant, was the one who insisted on it.

      Politics editors at our major outlets have been employing this kid-gloves treatment of Trump and the GOP for years, as a way to maintain access and generate clicks. It’s easy (and often correct) to blame the journalist, but none of this would happen without a significant push from their section editors, whose continued employment in their roles depends on keeping their own higher-ups happy.

      This dumbing-down of our “most trusted” news outlets is like termites destroying the foundation of a shared democracy. They’re not throwing bombs. They don’t have to.

      • BobBobCon says:

        That’s why my last paragraph raised the issue of the editor. Dawsey’s enough of a hack that I think there’s good reason it’s his formulation, but it’s with his editor’s signoff.

      • Sussex Trafalgar says:

        Well said! Excellent points! Reminds me of Marty Baron’s latest book describing his time as editor of the Washington Post and dealing with Trump and Bezos. It’s about access and clicks.

        • BobBobCon says:

          If Barron was after clicks, he did a terrible job. The Post chased a formula that left them sinking in circulation and online traffic.

          Critics of the press really need to ask themselves how to reconcile the incredible inertia of the press and their unwillingness to change formulas, against the backdrop of the objective failure on financial grounds from 2015 to present.

          A lot of other things were at work. I think it’s OK to say at the most micro level there was a decision to maximize clicks, but there really is no way that makes sense at a larger level.

          • Sussex Trafalgar says:

            Marty Baron coveted reporter independence, good access and good writing. In the beginning, he wasn’t concerned about clicks.

            Bezos, however, has coveted clicks from the beginning of his ownership, and more so in the last few years.

            In my opinion, Empty Wheel’s website/blog is the model that best suits today’s media environment.

            Her research and analysis is second to none. To me, that’s the most important ingredient for creating a viable product in this particular field.

    • Rugger_9 says:

      Well, that is indeed interesting. No bond means the appeal dies there and Leticia James can start collections. However, I would not be surprised if another actor steps in, such as (in no particular order):

      Elno Musk fresh off his visit to M-a-L.
      Vlad Putin fresh off his ‘re-election’, including his cadre of oligarchs.
      MBS because he can and he still needs stuff from us.
      Rupert Murdoch in the glow of his honeymoon.
      Some other US oligarch (maybe Big Pharma or Thiel) tossing in some cash.
      Erik Prince for future considerations.
      Someone else from the Panama Papers.

      None of these options would do the loan altruistically, so the pro quo for the quid becomes important. I doubt banks under effective board of directors control (especially if subject to SEC or NYS regulations) would cover this payout either.

      • Terry Salad says:

        “None of these options would do the loan altruistically, so the pro quo for the quid becomes important.”

        And what safeguards are there for the American people if he is elected President? We just have to accept that a President is owned by someone? Are there any disclosures that must be made?

        • Rugger_9 says:

          The short answer is ‘no’ regarding required disclosures. Recall how we were supposed to get the taxes (never provided), the full details on Helsinki (never happened), etc., et al.

          In normal times such secretive behavior would be suspicious and cost votes. The MAGA tribe thinks it’s really eleven-dimension chess.

          I also see no chance that Congress would pass such legislation nor the current SCOTUS uphold it. So, the old Watergate dictum of ‘follow the money’ becomes very useful now.

        • Buzzkill Stickinthemud says:

          Mohammed bin Salman: Here’s two billion.
          Jared: Your um generosity will be reciprocated.
          … later…
          Trump: Jared, help me out. I need 600 million.
          Jared: Do doo dooot – the number you have reached has been disconnected. Please hang up and try again.
          Trump: *ketchup bottles launched at high speeds*

          • pH unbalanced says:

            It’s important to remember that the Saudis didn’t *give* Jared $2 billion, they gave him a contract to manage *their* $2 billion.

            Now that gives him a lot of financial power, and the ability to extract a percentage as fees, but it doesn’t give him the actual big pool of money to give away without recourse.

            (Not particularly aimed at your humorous comment, but this is something that so many people seem to misunderstand I wanted to mention it.)

            • Savage Librarian says:

              Investments like his plans with Rick Grenell to develop high end real estate in Albania and Serbia. Hmm, who else had contacts in Albania. Oh, Charles McGonigal and, possibly, George Santos. And Trump’s ambassador to Albania didn’t leave until June 2023. She is from Guam, as is Walt Nauta, coincidentally.

              • Konny_2022 says:

                And, according to the NYT article on these plans neither Kushner nor Grenell knew of Trump’s pre-election (2013) plans with Belgrade.

                That’s at least what they claim. I doubt it.

              • pH unbalanced says:

                Exactly. Self-dealing expensive boondoggles are fine, as long as you’ve got some sort of prospectus to put into the file.

                And with that seed money, you can grift way more than the $2 billion, if you structure it right.

            • Marinela says:

              Sure.
              So MBS gives Jared 2b to manage, to someone that has no proven skill in the financial area.
              What is Jared promising / giving MBS that is more valuable than 2b, so MBS is willing to take a loss on the 2b?
              I think people understand this much…

      • BobBobCon says:

        This kind of bailout may happen, but it’s worth asking why hasn’t it happened already?

        It’s certainly possible Trump is feeling overconfident and refuses to bargain, and potential lifelines think he won’t pay his debts in money or other services. It’s also possible that the odd behavior on the campaign trail is a sign that he’s just not able to focus, and this statement is some kind of last ditch effort by his team to make him do something.

        There may be a concern about the old saw that “If you owe a bank enough money you own it.”

        It’s possible every one of them is playing brinksmanship to extract maximum results, but it’s typically hard to manage when there only needs to be one defection in a group – that puts pressure on someone to crack early.

        It may be the case that they have reasons we don’t know about to be concerned about the risks of being exposed for backing it.

        But the lack of a deal already is worth thinking about.

          • BobBobCon says:

            Sure, but that wouldn’t have stopped some oligarch from stepping in a long time ago with a sweetheart deal that defied normal economics.

            Trump had a strong hint when Engoron made his initial rulings last year that this would be a nine figure deal, and should have been on alert as early as 2022 that he faced a significant risk.

            Something got in the way of having this sewed up before it got to this point. I’m curious what it was.

            Maybe Manafort was the issue, but it’s not clear to me why Trump wouldn’t have just hired him already and spared himself the drama.

            • dopefish says:

              BobBobCon wrote:

              Trump had a strong hint when Engoron made his initial rulings last year that this would be a nine figure deal, and should have been on alert as early as 2022 that he faced a significant risk.

              Not only that, but Trump’s legal strategy in the case seemed to be, to antagonize Judge Engoron and try to make him angry enough to commit a reversible error that they could get overturned on appeal. I suspect this “ooh, no one will help me post such a large bond to stay execution of the judgement while I appeal” routine will leave Engoron singularly un-moved, considering Trump’s and his lawyers’ conduct during the trial.

              Therefore, maybe the true purpose of this filing is for the sympathy play in the court of public opinion? We know Trump loves to play the victim, and seems to be making his various legal travails a part of his reelection campaign. His lawyers’ performative outrage in a lot of their filings in the various cases has been striking, and Habba’s antics in front of Judge Engoron were obviously some kind of red meat for Trump’s base.

              Trump wants to tell a clear narrative to his potential voters about how the big bad NY AG is coming to seize all his real estate assets because they are CORRUPT and RADICAL LEFTIST whatever-mumbo-jumbo. Oooh, the poor harassed billionaire!

              If only his voters would see him for the unrepentant criminal fraud that he is, and stop threatening the future of their country and the world by trying to return him to the White House.

      • bidrec-gap says:

        Part of his problem is that many of his rich friends are dead; Sheldon Adelson, Sam Zell, Marvin Davis. Jeffrey Epstein.

        Merv Griffin said that Trump’s finances did not make sense to him. And, Merv invented “Jeopardy” so he ought to know what makes sense.

        • Rayne says:

          That just gave me an AHA! moment.

          I thought it seemed odd that Mark Cuban would allow purchase of a chunk of his Mavericks, and especially to someone I really hadn’t thought of as a sports investor. Casinos? sure…and then the hotel development angle fit and it made sense.

          And perhaps the Widow Adelson now is tied up too deeply in active development projects to offer a bailout. Heh.

      • ShallMustMay08 says:

        What about several bonds and/or “deals”? I don’t rule out anyone for favors and/or hard dollars and add to any list – Leonard. The tentacle of networks and like minded folks would be hard pressed -not- to find a way to help their nominee in exchange for all of their wants. Hide in regular dark political money and legal instrument’s used to get him bond(s) then find a tax loss. If/when caught it will be neatly buried and tied up in the courts for years while he does their bidding. Nothing will be prevent Trump from making a deal with any of these or any other character(s), nor would I think otherwise b/c and the more chaos the better. Democracy is a hinderance for these people and their interests are fungible

    • Peterr says:

      I’m shocked, shocked, I tell you:

      Attorneys for Trump and his co-defendants in the fraud case argued that it was “impossible” for them to secure a complete appeal bond, which would “effectively” require “cash reserves approaching $1 billion.”

      ″Defendants’ ongoing diligent efforts have proven that a bond in the judgment’s full amount is ‘a practical impossibility,’” the lawyers wrote, quoting an affidavit in the filing with the Appellate Division of Manhattan Supreme Court.

      They said they have approached roughly 30 surety companies through four separate brokers, and that they have spent “countless hours negotiating with one of the largest insurance companies in the world.”

      So Trump’s lawyers are admitting to the court that their client has been judged by banks and insurers to be too much of a risk to default that no one will touch him? I wonder what ever gave them that impression?

      • Rugger_9 says:

        Defendant-1 went through a lot of them to try and find one that might. Something like 30 said ‘no’. Wow.

      • Rugger_9 says:

        The alternative explanation given how much Defendant-1 loved leveraging is that all of the properties are hocked up to their figurative eyeballs and there is not enough equity to accept the risk. Also, the ‘brand’ also seems to make convenient stage entrances to goose values when it’s needed for cash but it disappears when the tax man comes around. It’s a puzzlement.

        I’d say the financial institutions are aware that the ‘brand’ is a fiscal dumpster fire.

        • David Brooks says:

          Or they are stirring into the risk/reward math the possibility of a Trump/Republican trifecta in November, resulting in legislation canceling all of his debts. So I’ve heard. From somebody even more conspiracy-minded than me. Of course.

    • Matt Foley says:

      “I’m really rich. I don’t need anybody’s money.”
      –some guy who got cut from Forbes 400

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      LOL. The judgment is now for about $466 million, owing to accumulated interest (which automatically becomes part of the judgment itself). The amount of an appeals bond would be 120% of that, so nearer $550 million. That’s not a function of what bond issuers would require, as CNBC reports: it’s what the courts require to keep the winner whole through a lengthy appeals process. And it’s not just “Trump” who has to pay the lion’s share of that judgment. It is Trump and the Trump legal entities.

      The focus on “cash reserves” of $1 billion or more seems incorrect. The reason is made clear later in the article, where that number is what Trump would require to secure the bond dollar-for-dollar and to cover his operating costs. The latter isn’t obviously relevant to the court. Besides which, his operating costs seems grossly inflated.

      Few companies not named Apple have a billion in cash or liquid assets. If they did, they would have no trouble obtaining a bond. What’s implied, then, is that Trump’s net worth is barely a billion, if that, regardless of the leveraged assets he has an interest in.

        • SteveBev says:

          So 120% is closer to $561 million.

          The numbers are getting very much bigger very quickly

          Which serves to underline your basic point that Trump is already underwater on this, in ways that MSM is struggling to report.

          • Rugger_9 says:

            It’s been my opinion for a while that Defendant-1’s power is directly proportional to the perception of his wealth. No one pays any attention to the bum on a corner spewing conspiracy theories, but as Tevye noted in Fiddler on the Roof, when you’re rich, people think you really know.

            Also, Defendant-1 has a long history of trying to buy his way out of problems. Hard to do that if he has to put his hand out to cover the bills.

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        Trump can’t simply assert that he doesn’t have the cash and cannot get a bond. He and his legal entity co-defendants need to provide financial statements to support his claim and their efforts at seeking a bond. Hence, the 5000 pages of exhibits. I haven’t seen a link to the filing, but the page number seems like padding and a distraction.

        For starters, the objectivity of third parties attesting to Trump’s money and the effort he put into finding a bond is open to question. One consultant said appeals bonds in this amount are unheard of. Sure, but Trump could obtain several bonds, not one. True, few bond issuers accept real estate as collateral. But Trump could obtain one or more letters of credit. Banks take real estate collateral all the time.

        Trump’s problems here are of his own making. He’s bragged for half a century that he’s as wealthy as Croesus. He’s not. He has run his family company as a piggy bank, with no internal controls and no auditing, and he routinely grossly inflates the value of his assets – the main reasons the NY AG sued him.

        That makes lending to Trump extremely high risk. Most banks decided long ago not to lend to Donald Trump. In response, he didn’t change his business practices, he went to creepier lenders.

        The big problem, of course, is that Trump is more than likely to lose. Collecting from Trump has always been a pain in the ass. He plays dirty, no one knows how many competing creditors there might be, and how financially and politically powerful they might be, which would disrupt collection. And there’s the headache of trying to collect from a sitting president. If bankruptcy court looms – again – for Donald Trump, it’s because he’s been asking for it for decades.

        • RipNoLonger says:

          Guess they should think about them Apples before they need to come home to be pressed. Off-shore tax havens may have some unexpected consequences.

        • bmaz says:

          Sure they could. You don’t post in all cash, you pay a vig to a bonding agent and then post sufficient collateral to cover the bond amount. The collateral does not necessarily need to be liquid, just have intrinsic value that satisfies the bonding agent. This is not that hard if you actually have appropriate assets.

            • earlofhuntingdon says:

              Trump, of course, is pushing a view of the facts that overwhelmingly favors him. Two examples Trump ignores. If one bond is too big for any issuer to put up, he could obtain several, spreading the risk.

              If bonding companies won’t accept real estate owned by Trump’s companies as collateral, banks might. They wouldn’t issue appeals bonds, but their irrevocable letters of credit, easily reducible to cash, could be used as collateral instead of the real estate.

              The basic problem is that Trump is illiquid, he has fewer assets and they are worth less than he claims. Nearly all of them already have loans against them. He would have to renegotiate or pay off those loans in order to use the underlying assets as collateral, whether for a bond or a bank l/c. Not to mention these two major court losses, if affirmed, would reduce Trump’s net worth by over half a billion dollars.

              It seems increasingly likely that current lenders won’t agree to renegotiate their loans or allow further liens to be put on the underlying real estate. And they and prospective new lenders are probably refusing to rely on Trump’s management of the businesses that own those real estate assets, not least because the NY AG just established that he is a serial financial fraud.

              • Peterr says:

                And we’re talking about someone found guilty of falsifying business records. That makes going to any bank or bonding company and asking for them to cover the bond very, very difficult. When you add in the past history of corporate bankruptcies (plural), it’s even worse.

                “How can we trust that you will be good for it, when you’ve already been found repeated untrustworthy in financial matters?”

              • Narpington says:

                I doubt his indebtedness is so bad he can’t pay but if upheld it will have a huge effect on his businesses and his reputation so he’s going to try everything he can. Wouldn’t you? And he *hates* to lose and he just doesnt want to face up to it, just like in 2020.

              • fatvegan000 says:

                I heard on TV a guest say that the state can only come after assets that are free and clear. I’ve learned here that maybe I shouldn’t trust TV lawyers, so can someone tell me if this is true?

                And if true, it seems highly unlikely Trump has any free and clear assets doesn’t it? If he doesn’t, what happens then? How would the state collect?

            • dopefish says:

              I wonder if the bonding companies would only accept real estate properties as collateral for a conservative estimate of its sale value, and Team Trump insisted on claiming they were worth absurd multiples of that value?

              After all, that seems to be their MO anytime they aren’t filling out tax forms about them.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          Like most large corporations, Apple has a global cash management program.

          It’s multi-billion dollar cash horde is only outside of the US for accounting and tax purposes. The money is readily available for use within the Apple system. Typically, it would be used as cash collateral for a loan, the proceeds of which could be used in the US and most other countries.

        • WhisperRD says:

          “Also even Apple couldn’t pay that in one lump. ”

          Apple isn’t in the financial services industry.

          Chubb has the resources to issue such a bond. They simply didn’t want to.

          It’s long been alleged that Trump’s net worth is far lower than his public claims. His casinos went bankrupt multiple times and, to all appearances, the only product he’s successfully marketed is his personal image.

          And that’s taken a beating in recent years.

          Claiming poverty to resist a court settlement is not something that will help Trump win the November election. If he’s going broke, his profascist movement will start to look openly pathetic.

          [Welcome back to emptywheel. Please use the SAME USERNAME and email address each time you comment so that community members get to know you. You inserted an extra S in your username for this comment and the one at 11:59 pm; I have fixed them this once but please make a note of it and clear your browser’s cache and autofill. Thanks. /~Rayne]

      • bidrec-gap says:

        It is probably apocryphal but when McGraw Hill suggested a leveraged by-out of West Publishing the latter responded by threatening a cash by-out of the former.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Here’s Trump’s filing with Judge Engoron. It’s 4919 pages. The first 40 pages of the .pdf document include the 29 page memorandum. The balance are exhibits. The principal attorneys signing the memorandum for Trump were Habba, Robert, Kise, and Sauer.

      Trump had months to prepare plans to deal with having to post bond for a several hundred million dollar adverse judgment. It appears, as is typical with him, that he just threw the dice, betting he wouldn’t need the money. Sad.

      https://eddsa.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/public/2024_01134_doc_11.pdf

      • person1597 says:

        Honest Don at the Crossroads…”You can run, you can run, tell my friend Willie Brown
        You can run, you can run, tell my friend Willie Brown
        That I got the crossroad blues this mornin’, Lord, baby, I’m sinkin’ down”
        https://youtu.be/r8gUpvllN5Q

      • Rugger_9 says:

        Meidas did a couple of hot takes, but what made me more interested is that every one of those rejections and valuations will be documented formally yet none of them made it into the filing as far as I know (I’m willing to be corrected on this).

        So, if my theory is correct, then Defendant-1 tossed in yet another bit of fraud for Engoron to punish. The defense has to show its cards for any claim it makes here.

    • RitaRita says:

      The simple solution is to file a Chapter 11, with a plan that says he will win on appeal.

      He gets a stay of execution on the judgement.

      • David and Jeannie Brooks says:

        Others are insisting that a bankruptcy does not relieve him of this obligation. Or is there a subtlety in the order of events?

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          Typically, intentional torts are not dischargeable in bankruptcy. That applies, for example, to his loss to E. Jean Carroll. It should apply to his intentional financial fraud loss to the NY AG.

          If Trump is in as much financial trouble as it seems, he might need bankruptcy court protection. It would stop his and his legal entities’ creditors from seizing his properties in a first come, first served basis, and allow for an orderly liquidation or reorganization.

          Bear in mind that much the largest part of the NY AG’s award is against Trump personally and his legal entities. They are jointly and severally liable, which means they could each be liable for the whole amount or any part of it. So, all defendants would need to enter bankruptcy.

      • bmaz says:

        Yeah, there is, of course, more subtlety. But the general rule is that intentional tort judgments are not dischargeable through BK.

        • RitaRita says:

          He gets the benefit of the automatic stay while he appeals, without having to post a bond.

          He may not be able to discharge the fraud judgement but he can stave off liquidation while appealing.

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        A bankruptcy petitioner claiming that he will win his appeal is not a plan, it’s a hope. A real plan would need to contemplate a loss.

        But Trump needs a stay, either through filing a bond, an unlikely exceptional court order, or bankruptcy court protection. Without it the NY AG can enforce her judgment against Trump personally and his legal entities.

        • RitaRita says:

          He delays filing the plan for as long as possible. His plan calls for reordering his debt and is filed with two contingencies: he wins on appeal or he loses on appeal. He has debt to be reorganize that is not part of the fraud judgment.

          • earlofhuntingdon says:

            “He has debt to be reorganize [sic] that is not part of the fraud judgment.”

            The issuer of an appeals bond may have taken a lien against specific assets. But non-dischargeable civil fraud judgments, easily convertible to judgment liens, are claims on any and all assets of the judgment debtor. They aren’t tied or limited to specific assets.

            If Trump and his legal entities file for bankruptcy court protection, they will have to reorganize or pay off all their debt, which would mean the sale of many or all their assets. The court would prioritize which debts get paid in what order, but mortgage holders and judgment lien creditors would be very high on the list.

            • RitaRita says:

              Yes, but he’ll have a lot of time to file a plan, which is what he wants. Eventually he’ll have to deal with debts and assets. If he lose the appeal, he is looking at liquidation of assets.

              • bmaz says:

                That may, or may not, be true. Or not correct at all. I don’t think anything is as clear cut as you make it out to be.

              • earlofhuntingdon says:

                Further to bmaz’s comment, once you file for bankruptcy, you lose control of the process and a lot of privacy. Once Trump is in bankruptcy, too, his creditors may not to let him out. His mortgage lenders, for example, if they are fully secured, might prefer to be done with him.

                Trump doesn’t have to lose his appeals to be in trouble either. He’s probably already in violation of his net worth and liquidity requirements, which would put him in default on his loans and personal guarantees.

                • RitaRita says:

                  Trump has already lost a lot of control to Barbara jones. And most of Trump’s big creditors are not hostile (except Letitia James). His mortgage lenders could have used cross-default clauses as soon as the judgement was entered. They are interested in orderly payments and liquidation.

                  Chapter 11 is a stalling tactic. It is not without risk, including reputational risk.

                  • earlofhuntingdon says:

                    Your sense of process and the way executives behave has nothing to do with mine.

                    Trump has lost no control to the monitor or compliance director. He still “manages” his companies as much as he’s ever managed them. That’s the trouble. What he has lost is secrecy and the ability to lie about his financial condition.

                    His big creditors won’t be so friendly to Donny if he imperils the value of their collateral by making gigantic holes in his net worth, and and complicates their ability to get repaid by marching them through a public bankruptcy process.

                    • RitaRita says:

                      The judgement has already poked holes in his net worth. His creditors should already be concerned about the criminal cases affecting the “brand”, the value of collateral, and his ability to repay. I’m not saying that Chapter 11 is risk free for Trump, especially politically. I’m looking at this from the point of view of a lender who has seen Chapter 11 used as a delaying tactic. Trump as DIP might even be able to remove Barbara Jones.

                    • earlofhuntingdon says:

                      Good luck trying to remove the state-appointed monitor. Her role is unrelated to enforcing collection from a debtor. It’s to help prevent the debtor from continuing his chronic, material frauds. That would be aiding the federal bankruptcy court’s purposes and those of his creditors.

              • ItTollsForYou says:

                It may just be that his plan for this is the same plan he always has — delay.
                If he can delay collection until he’s in office again, his DOJ’s OLC can issue a rule that presidents can’t be subject to financial judgments or somesuch, and tie that up in the courts for a few years. And so it goes.

        • SteveBev says:

          I have a question about whether there is a wrinkle in the issue of whether the judgement in NY AG case is dischargeable in bankruptcy.

          It arises from the fact that it was an action in equity, albeit that 6 of the counts incorporated criminal statutes and thus established the equitable frauds were committed intentionally.

          But Bankruptcy Code Section 523(a)(6) prevents a debtor from obtaining the discharge of any debt for “willful and malicious injury by the debtor to another entity or to the property of another entity”. There are two prominent interpretations as to how this provision is to be construed. The Ninth Circuit interpretation is that the debtor’s actions “must be accompanied by some form of tortious conduct which gives rise to the willful and malicious injury.” The Fifth Circuit maintains that tortious conduct is not required and that the creditor must only prove that the debtor intended to injury the other party or if the injury to the other party was substantially certain from the conduct of the debtor.
          (This is a quote from 2017 for illustration of the point)

          1 if tort is an essential element – is there a requirement of a causal element which is missing?
          2 if the element is ‘injury’ – do the findings on the counts in the NY AG case constitute injury within the meaning of the code?

          Unjust enrichment by fraud intuitively seems to be something which ought not to be dischargeable. But I could also see the points being argued.

          My research has been cursory, and if the question has been decided then I apologise.

          I have come across a consent judgment in a EL 63(12) investigation where a money sum was agreed upon amongst other things, and it was agreed the sum would not be dischargeable in bankruptcy.

          • earlofhuntingdon says:

            A Trump bankruptcy would likely be in NY, so Second Circuit cases would be most relevant. Other circuit cases would be persuasive, but not binding.

            It’s possible Trump might try to file in Florida, but the principal assets and the Trump legal entity defendants are, I believe, in NY. The defendants have joint and several liability; if there is more than one filings, the cases would need to be consolidated, which suggests NY is the better jurisdiction. It would also be a complex case, involving assets in multiple domestic and foreign jurisdictions. NY federal bankruptcy courts have the most experience managing such cases.

            The Carroll case is the most straightforward. Civil defamation is an intentional tort. The NYAG case is more complicated, but a judgment against Trump for civil financial fraud seems to be an intentional tort. Frankly, I don’t know how that plays out against legal entity defendants.

    • boatgeek says:

      Can the NYAG cause a collapse of the empire by selectively seizing assets? We are pretty sure that the Trump Org doesn’t have enough cash on hand to pay the various judgements. The judge likely has a pretty good handle on how much money they have in the bank due to the financial monitor. If the NYAG seizes most or of the liquid assets as a partial forfeiture to satisfy the judgement, that would put Trump in default on any loan agreements that require him to keep at least $XX million in liquid assets. If he’s in default, could the banks start foreclosures? If they could, it seems like a relatively small seizure by the NY AG, along with a statement that Trump only has $YYY K remaining in liquid assets, would set off a scramble among all of his remaining creditors.

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        Owing to cross-default clauses typically found in every commercial mortgage, a seizure of any Trump property would likely trigger defaults on all the real estate loans held by the Trump company defendants. It would trigger defaults on other contracts, too, such as the personal guarantees Trump has issued to back up many of those loans.

        The NYAG knows that, as would the monitor Judge Engoron appointed to oversee those same companies. Neither cares; their sole loyalty in the roles they play is to the state of NY. Like any creditor, the NYAG would seize the most liquid assets – cash and marketable securities – and the largest asset(s) that are most readily convertible to cash.

        If this is a legit filing, Trump’s bankruptcy won’t be far away.

          • dopefish says:

            Trump might be put in default if he were simply to provide a non-fraudulent Statement of Financial Condition to the banks who hold his loans (as his contract with them requires).

            From page 87 of Judge Engoron’s trial Decision:

            Moreover, the fact that the Trump Organization has refused to prepare SFCs, even though various loan covenants obligate them to do so, ever since the monitor was appointed, leads the Court to conclude that the Trump Organization cannot, or will not, prepare an accurate SFC that is GAAP compliant and that values assets at their estimated current values. That the Trump Organization has taken to manufacturing its own version of its assets, one that fails to include any valuations, is a telling admission that it simply cannot, or will not, prepare an SFC without committing fraud.

            Recall that to get the loan agreements with low interest rates that Trump got, he had to give his lenders an “absolute personal guarantee” to make them whole, and that falling below certain net worth levels ($2.5 billion for example) or having less than a certain amount of cash on hand, would automatically put him in default. The loan agreements also required him to provide the SFCs to his lenders so they could test his compliance at any time. (Ha ha)

            Trump used to wildly inflate the values of his holdings in order to produce SFCs that the lenders were happy with; with the court-appointed monitor in place, he can’t do that anymore.

            • RitaRita says:

              Trump is probably in default on net worth covenants. Whether any lender will act on the default as long as he is paying as agreed is another question. Lenders might try to get additional security or get him to agree to other restrictions.

                • RitaRita says:

                  Not proclamations, but observations from my time working as a bank attorney. And, yes, my bank was quite successful.

                  Non-monetary defaults frequently are used as a way to get more collateral, higher interest rates or change other loan terms. Foreclosure is always an option but often not a great one.

                  • earlofhuntingdon says:

                    Trump is not a normal debtor. He’s a pariah. He has no more collateral to give. He can’t grow or negotiate his way out when his liabilities are about to quickly grow by over half a billion dollars. Too few people want to do business with him now.

                    He can’t manage and won’t hire anyone who can. The monitor and compliance director take away the traditional secrecy and lies that have enabled him to fake it this long.

                    The debtor businesses who own his assets have been judged to be serial tax and financial frauds. His entire business is at risk, not a single property. Not a recipe for the usual workout.

        • Rugger_9 says:

          One thing to consider in the legal machinations is that Defendant-1 went out of his way to piss off Judge Kaplan (EJC) and Judge Engoron (James). That would tell me that any mulligans otherwise available for legal interpretation aren’t going to be there.

          IANAL, but doesn’t the judge have to approve the terms regarding any delays for appeals (subject to the appellate level overruling him if he says no)?

    • Critter7 says:

      Trump is setting up a political play, just daring the state to sequester a piece of his real estate assets. When the state takes any step towards that, he will raise holy hell, screaming to the rafters about the Fascist state, political oppression, etc.

      Best case for Trump is if he can bluster the state into backing down – that would give him the appearance of power. If that doesn’t work, once again he can play the victim – and do so big time.

      Maybe he really has the capacity to raise the money, maybe he doesn’t. This play works either way.

  6. Sussex Trafalgar says:

    Excellent article!

    Oleg Deripaska, Semion Mogilevich, Dmytro Firtash, Paul Manafort, Roger Stone and Trump himself, they all bend their knee to the former KGB officer, Vladimir Putin.

    Long past time to destroy the Putin organized crime syndicate that is currently wreaking havoc on all three branches of the US Government.

  7. Tech Support says:

    Not saying this is either the correct approach or the correct motivation, but if Trump actually does hire Manafort, the declassification of the SCSI report seems like a negative news cycle for Trump that could drop any ole time.

      • RipNoLonger says:

        Like that “Maga Haberman”. A nice back-handed compliment.

        In fairness to both of them (the NYT and the WaPo), they really don’t expect to have such in-depth cutting analysis of their eminent publishings. I hope future college courses dealing with “Communications” will teach the new up-and-coming to be much more careful with their facts and their words.

        • WhisperRD says:

          “they really don’t expect to have such in-depth cutting analysis of their eminent publishings. ”

          Why not?

          [Moderator’s note: see note at 11:53 pm. /~Rayne]

  8. Rwood0808 says:

    I’m probably the only one here in favor of this.

    The feds already have a playbook for Manafort, so it should be that much easier to watch him dig a second hole he won’t be able to escape this time. He proved to be grossly incompetent when it came to criming last time, I doubt he learned anything new in prison.

    Following the rule of “Everything trump touches dies” I feel this will end badly for Paully Two Dumb and he’ll end up right back in prison where he belongs.

    • Marc in Denver says:

      My only question (only because of my total ignorance about FISA court and section 702 whatever the relationship is between the two) is whether Manafort is waiting for Speaker Mike to put the final stake in section 702 and not push the expiration date past April 19.

  9. -mamake- says:

    Typo of date above – extra 2 in date “2016” – begins with “Dawsey of course is silent…”

    Thanks always for your brilliant analysis.

  10. Savage Librarian says:

    Sloppy

    Reporting in the land of sloppy,
    hacks produce their photocopy,
    Some are lazy, others stroppy,
    busking news from a media jalopy.

    No wall flower or social shrinker
    gains access to the nod or winker,
    where red pretends it’s much pinker,
    with its hook, line, and sinker.

    Like worm charming in Sopchoppy,
    grunts are dancing in this sock hoppy,
    Up and up, then flip floppy,
    as if doped up from some poppy.

    They won’t confess they wear a blinker,
    and succumb to their inner stinker,
    But in the end, here’s the clinker:
    Marcy points out the sloppy thinker.

    6/28/21

      • Savage Librarian says:

        You are too kind. But, as I mentioned about 5 years ago, I am an introvert. So, I definitely would not perform it. Nor do I have the chutzpah to find someone who might be interested. But I do like to share!

        • Rayne says:

          I think we’d want somebody with experience performing and producing rap — and you’ve never hinted at any side hobbies in those arenas. LOL Your introversion doesn’t inhibit your writing, though.

          Hoping somebody else in the community with connections thinks of a good source, though our problem may be the demographics of this community.

  11. HGillette says:

    Trump hiring convicted felon Paul Manafort, whom he later pardoned, is so on brand. Maybe he’ll hire that war criminal he pardoned to be his head of security.

    • Brad Cole says:

      Montenegro has long been seen as Serbia’s connection to the sea, and would also be a non Black Sea connection for Russia.
      Renova was building an airport in Rostov (in addition to financing George Santos), these are logistics guys. Logistics don’t come and go.

      • Rayne says:

        There’s far more going on than access to the water — like gas pipelines and an LNG terminal. The Ionian-Adriatic pipeline has been an open ended question for years now. I am leery of anything I read about energy production and distribution adjacent to and through Montenegro because it is in such contention.

        Montenegro is also a fairly recent member of NATO, having acceded in 2017. Only North Macedonia, Finland, and Sweden are newer members.

        (I should add while while I was poking around looking for updated news on Montenegro I tripped on this bit which also says something – Jared Kushner’s Affinity Partners nearing billion-dollar Balkan real estate deals, 17 Mar 2024 – not Montenegro news but somebody’s snooping around for investment opportunities nearby.)

  12. Old Rapier says:

    What’s the upside of hiring Manafort? Pity? Helping out an old pal down on his luck? Nah, Trump doesn’t do pity.

    Isn’t or wouldn’t now Manafort be a legitimate target of surveillance by our spooks, and then everyone else’s too? Which gets back to the first question. I read it as a dearth of people with the slightest competence willing to work for him.

    • RipNoLonger says:

      Manafort has said he’d work for free, and that he has the connections to get billions wired from russian oligarchs to trump, jr, and the lesser. Maybe the usual means of money laundering through Deutsche Bank and others has been closed down? Of course, Don couldn’t be conned, could he?

    • Rayne says:

      I suspect the real purpose isn’t a repeat of 2016’s playbook, but using Manafort* to manipulate what’s left of the RNC now that it’s under Lara Trump’s leadership. They’ve literally taken possession of the entire party and now they need to know what to do with what’s left of it in order to win.

      *”using Manafort” may be nothing of the sort. All of this may be framed to look like Trump’s pulling in old friends but Manafort has manipulated public perception since Nixon. He could easily have managed to pull off the appearance of being called up by Trump, and with compensation being what it is Manafort may also have agreed to do this on behalf of unseen sponsor(s) who want to finish the job begun in 2016 or earlier.

      • taluslope says:

        “He could easily have managed to pull off the appearance of being called up by Trump, and with compensation being what it is Manafort may also have agreed to do this on behalf of unseen sponsor(s) who want to finish the job begun in 2016 or earlier.”

        Yes, yes, yes. I wanna know who approached whom? Did Trump invite Manafort back or did Manafort invite himself (representing a third party)?

        • Rugger_9 says:

          My wild speculation is that he’s Vlad’s minder, following a grand old Warsaw Pact / Soviet tradition.

  13. bidrec-gap says:

    I worked for a financial data vendor that owned the equipment that the data was displayed on. Most of our clients that went bankrupt were picked over fairly expeditiously. Drexel, E. F. Hutton, Charles Young (a financial printer), Bevill Bresler & Schulman, Kidder Peabody, and many more. I used to go on site and explain that the computers were our property and I just need a contact name and number for our truckers to pick up the equipment.

    The only comeback story that comes to mind is Mike Milken. The closest parallel to Trump that comes to mind is Biff Halloran who disappeared in a Rolls Royce after serving a prison sentence. Halloran was also “flamboyant” with his wealth. He did provide a public good, however. His purple polka dotted cement mixers used to plow the streets of Manhattan after a snow storm.

    Not much in the news but Ron Perelman lost control of Revlon after forty years. Revlon is a stone’s throw from Trump Tower.

  14. P-villain says:

    Also OT, but on the subject of accountability at last, Peter Navarro reports to prison tomorrow. ‘Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished.

  15. OldTulsaDude says:

    OT but according to the WaPo Judge Cannon is once again loosed. I’m sorry I don’t have the link. At what point would it be appropriate for SC Smith to seek her recusal ?

    • Rugger_9 says:

      This might do it. SC Smith needed an appealable order as opposed to prior calendar goosing that Cannon would have near-complete authority to manage. As I understand it, the latest order was to expose NDI to uncleared jurors which would sound like graymail to me. However, I’m biased.

    • tje.esq@23 says:

      Bradley Moss, experienced CIPA defense attorney, suggested on MSNBC tonight that a Writ of Mandamus* sought by prosecutors would be premature here, without one step in between. Moss suggested prosecutors would likely first reply to this order with a request to Cannon that she instead just grant Trump’s motion to dismiss, so prosecutors can appeal right now to the 11th Circuit. Denying THAT request, Moss argued, essentially would amount to Cannon’s dismissing the indictment (grants Trump’s Motion to Dismiss), but in a way that prejudices the government’s case, making it unappealable.

      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XPzlMsHqRwI

      So to your question, OldTulsaDude, “at what point would it be appropriate for SC Smith to seek her recusal,” Moss argues that prosecutors should first ask for Cannon to reverse her current (in essense) ‘grant of Trump’s Motion to dismiss with prejudice’ by withdrawing (? reversing ?) her “jury instructions” order, and instead issue a proper motion to dismiss withOUT prejudice. If she refuses, they then could seek a Writ of Mandamus asking the 11th Circuit to order her to do this and perhaps also asking the 11th Circuit to, essentially, remove her from the case,** if they feel such an extreme step is justified by the facts and supported by binding caselaw. Prosecutors cannot justify seeking such a drastic remedy, however, if is not supported by the facts and the law.

      Here’s a pretty good explainer in the Daily Beast about Cannon’s odd “2 option” jury instruction order issued March 18th, with its effect summarized in the headline: https://www.thedailybeast.com/mar-a-lago-judge-rules-jury-sees-top-secret-files-or-trump-wins

      Here is Cannon’s order https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652.407.0.pdf

      I’m guessing Marcy might post tommorow on how Cannon’s circumscribed OPTION A violates CIPA and/or how a jury instruction order at this juncture is improper based on CIPA, and for her possibly, or other commentariet lawyers, to discuss how Cannon’s OPTION B violates the Presidential Records Act and ignores prior caselaw (as argued at least twice by prosecutors in prior briefs). Should be fun!

      ———-
      * A Writ of Mandamus asks a higher court to tell a lower court to do something that it didn’t do or to correct an error it made.
      ** And if error is great, prosecutors could ask the appeals court to remove the judge or order her to ‘self-recuse’ under 28 U.S. Code § 455 (a) or (b)(1), which, in effect, removes her from the case. I think prosecutors could also seek her outright removal under 28 U.S. Code § 144, if they can demonstrate good cause for asking for this later than the statute normally allows.

      • dopefish says:

        Wow.. can’t wait to see how Jack Smith’s team reacts to this.

        Will it be another Motion for Reconsideration warning that either of the two hypothetical jury-instruction scenarios posed in Judge Cannon’s order would be “clear error”? Or will they just respond with the most legally-appropriate jury instruction they can craft for this circuit, accompanied by a ton of citations showing why Cannon’s hypotheticals would both lead to inappropriate jury instructions?

        Or should they go for a most aggressive Writ of Mandamus to try and get her recused from the case? That seems like an extremely high bar. An impartial review of the whole record of the case might show USA consistently citing the correct caselaw and bending over backwards to meet their discovery obligations, and Team Trump filing misleading and borderline mendacious stuff, and Cannon repeatedly evidencing bias or prejudice against USA in her rulings. But is the Court of Appeals even allowed to conduct such a review?

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Her order for jury instructions seems premature. Her order that counsel structure their response concerning “unauthorized possession” around two restrictive, pro-defense scenarios is nuts. But it illustrates for me that Cannon is being canny, not ignorant or inexperienced. There is no benign way to read her order. It forces the conclusion that she is trying to dismiss the case with prejudice.

      Under the posture of asking for jury instructions, she appears to be requiring the prosecution to reveal detailed arguments about its litigation strategy. Scenario (a) seems to completely misread CIPA. Scenario (b) completely misreads the PRA. Both misreadings entirely favor the defense.

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        Cannon seems to be improperly using the PRA to bend the prosecution over a barrel about over CIPA, whose normal procedures she is avoiding. Meanwhile, her order ignores that the crimes Trump is accused of are not violations of the PRA, but of separate criminal statutes.

        She also confuse the burden of proof. The PRA is a civil statute. The standard of proof for determining whether a record is personal or presidential should be preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt, as Cannon posits in Scenario (a). By any objective reading of the PRA, Trump wrongfully retained presidential records. But the crimes he’s accused of in the indictment are not based on the PRA.

        Whether an ex-president retained national defense information in violation of criminal statutes is discrete from whether that information was contained in a personal or presidential record.

        Cannon has cooked up a dog’s breakfast. But it’s not happenstance. It required a good deal of thought to offer up so ugly a serving.

  16. The Old Redneck says:

    It’s hard to overstate the craziness of Judge Cannon’s order. Generally, judges decide questions about what the law means, and juries decide the facts. She’s basically ruled that it’s up to a jury to decide whether a President can unilaterally and silently convert national security documents into personal documents or memoranda. That’s bad enough, but there’s more: it appears that the jurors will be allowed to see the documents (which may include nuclear secrets) in deciding this issue.
    The only good thing about this is that she isn’t even undermining the case in a smart way – which a capable judge sympathetic to Trump could do. It’s so ham-fisted that it will never succeed. But it will work in one respect: trial is almost certainly going to be after November of 24.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      We’ll have to disagree about how smart Cannon is being. I think she and probably her advisers have put a lot of thought into how to put a stick or two through the spokes of the SC’s prosecutorial bicycle.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      I think Cannon is experienced and smart enough to know that appearing to be ignorant or inexperienced results in a lesser penalty than intentionally being in the tank for a plaintiff or defendant. It’s a ruse long used by Republicans. Whether in a civil or criminal context, intentional conduct is always more costly than being negligent.

      • SteveBev says:

        There appears to be a high degree of calculation by Cannon in controlling the pre-trial processes without ruling on the record, and/or by otherwise insulating herself from external review.
        The latest steps she has taken are clearly calculated to assist Trump, but it seems that despite being ‘an unusual interpretation of applicable law, practice and procedure’ (TM) it’s by no means obvious how the prosecution can address the matter, rectify it and get proceedings back on track.
        Her maverick approach is designed to disconcert and sidestep being subject to effective review.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          I think that’s right. It takes a lot of thought and skill to arrange things as Cannon has done. Ignorance and inexperience could accomplish that.

          • bmaz says:

            My view is that it is perceived feigned ignorance and inexperience, because at root, she is neither.

          • earlofhuntingdon says:

            I agree. I meant to say that Cannon’s purported ignorance and inexperience could NEVER explain this posture.

            Ignorance of the PRA, for example, could easily have been cured through her own research and that of her clerks. Ditto with CIPA.

      • The Old Redneck says:

        She’s definitely putting a stick in the spokes. But she could have been a lot more subtle about it. Federal judges can screw a litigant over in a million ways, and some of those ways can’t be appealed effectively.

        But of course, Trump doesn’t necessarily need to win outright. He may just need to push the trial past the election, and if he wins, he can just make the whole case go away.

      • SteveBev says:

        The reporting by Roger Parloff of the hearing establishes that Cannon had prepared this strategy prior to the hearing and began testing it out from her first intervention in argument shortly after Bove had begun his submissions

        https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/judge-cannon-s-thursday-hearing-on-two-trump-motions-to-dismiss

        “ Judge Cannon interrupts: Does this motion depend on resolution of any facts?

        I don’t believe so, says Bove.

        Judge Cannon is skeptical. Trump’s designation of the records as personal is not an alleged fact in the indictment, she observes. (A defendant cannot dispute facts in a motion to dismiss.) Isn’t this motion thus premature? Perhaps there is another posture, she suggests, where the court could take up such issues, like when discussing jury instructions. Why are we having this as an “as applied” discussion now?”

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          Trump’s purported designation of the records as personal is a sideshow. Trump and Cannon are skillfully using it to distract. The principal crimes charged relate to keeping and refusing to return national defense information.

          • SteveBev says:

            It’s clearly a sideshow.

            But as with the other sideshows that she has created throughout the proceedings, in addition to causing delays, they are IMHO also traps she has set for the SC, in the hope of causing some misstep by them which is (or could be presented as) injurious to the prosecution’s presentation of their case.

        • bidrec-gap says:

          Responding to Parloff’s reporting:

          Jonathan Pollard caused hundreds and hundreds of boxes of classified material to be sent to Israel. He was sentenced to prison of course but the reason he served his full term in spite of Israel’s lobbying of President Clinton is because George Tennant threatened to resign if Clinton acted to reduce Pollard’s sentence.

  17. e.a. foster says:

    Its been an interesting few days. Manafort is “back”. As some one suggested he could be back to help run things by giving the daughter in law a hand. Could be he is there to help funnel money from Russians to Trump. When I heard it on t.v. my first thing was, “what did they say”, who hires convicted individuals for positions like this and then I remembered, Trump. I’m sure we will see others joining as time goes by. Does make me nervous. Its not like some of them are known for their honesty or integrity.
    Then the t.v. advises Trump can’t get a “bond” for the other case. Could not stop laughing about that one. So the alleged billionaire doesn’t have the cash and the bond people won’t do business with him. Neither would I. He could just up and leave the country and they’d be out all that money. Perhaps the end is near for Trump and he is hoping Manafort can help him, but you have to wonder how much is he being paid or what is he being promised.

  18. earlofhuntingdon says:

    US supreme court rejects Biden request to block Texas migrant law

    Law allowing state authorities to arrest people suspected of crossing US-Mexico border can proceed pending court challenge

    That’s how this Court’s majority signals that it will decide in favor of state action, here, allowing Texas to arrest people on suspicion that they might be an undocumented immigrant. No mention of probable cause. It’s an invitation to statewide profiling and discrimination.

    Its effects will be many, which the Court has no doubt explored. It’s likely to force anyone who doesn’t look white, Anglo-Saxon and Protestant into the shadows. Those in the shadows tend to be more malleable when it comes to demanding better pay and working conditions. Coincidentally, it means fewer eligible people will vote this November.

    https://www.theguardian.com/law/2024/mar/19/us-supreme-court-texas-migrant-law

    • RipNoLonger says:

      That’s how this Court’s majority signals that it will decide in favor of state action, …

      Until they don’t like another state’s action for other reasons. And who are we to question their decisions?

      • bmaz says:

        If you are talking about the Colorado decision in Anderson, this is a bogus analogy. There is a difference between “state’s rights” as to any state, and as to territorial sovereignty issues for border states. Anderson was, even if a bit convoluted in how they got there, an absolutely necessary and proper decision. This, assuming SCOTUS continues down this path, is not and detracts from what has historically been clearly a federal issue solely.

  19. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Just to state the obvious, one reason Trump is having trouble obtaining an appeals bond in the NYAG case is that his principal assets are real estate. They are all leveraged. That is, mortgage holders have first liens on them.

    How much they are for each property the monitor would know, but I’m not sure it’s public. To borrow more money against those properties, to pay for and secure this second appeals bond, would require permission from the first lien holders. I doubt any of them are willing to say yes.

    The most important reason is that that borrowing would be outside the normal course of business. It would not relate to the management of that property or be used to fund other real estate investments, which might be lucrative and thereby improve the position of the existing mortgage holder. It would be used, ultimately and very probably, to pay civil damage claims of over half a billion dollars.

    That very much hurts the existing lien holder. The latter will eventually have to deal with competing claims stemming from Trump’s lawsuits. But they aren’t going to volunteer to give another claimant a secured position without a fight.

    • bmaz says:

      Nor obviously, a primary/superior position. These entities owe a duty to their shareholders and/or investors. That said, Trump has enough properties that it would be possible to take $40 mil here and there and get the required amount cumulatively. But that said, beyond hard to see how such a lugubrious process could get done in the limited time left.

      Suppose, however, that Kushner gave his father in law a loan for the nut? Other than people freaking of course over the fact it is Saudi blood money…

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        Anyone could lend Trump money, including Kushner. But just covering the vig would not help. Owing to the likelihood that Trump will quickly lose his appeal, a bond issuer would demand security for the full amount, because the odds of their having to pay out on the bond are very high.

        So loans to Trump would have to be in the full amount. Even that doesn’t get Trump very far, because that much added debt would likely put him well outside his net worth commitments, which would put him in default. I think the technical term for that is circling the drain.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Trump obviously doesn’t want to sell a major property, pay out the lender, and use the proceeds to pay the vig and secure his appeal bond. Sale of the property might trigger cross-default provisions; that use of his funds might put him outside his minimum net worth and liquidity requirements.

      Retaining but pledging the cash proceeds to secure the bond would put those proceeds outside the reach of remaining lenders, as would using it to pay a final civil damage award, either of which would probably violate his net worth and liquidity commitments.

    • Rayne says:

      Perhaps the whiny orange-tinted bagbaw waddles because he’s got such massively stupid stones he’s lugging around in his “outer perimeter.”

      I wish entropy was a little speedier in certain times and places, a little less evenly distributed.

Comments are closed.