• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump’s lawyers seek to delay fraud case — until after he is sworn into office

Cardinal

Respected On All Sides
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
111,874
Reaction score
109,296
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Well this should be interesting. I don't know if there's a precedent for a President-elect going on trial immediately after the election. Republicans and the media made so much of Clinton going into the White House with her alleged crimes dragging behind her that not much attention was paid to Trump's own legal problems dealing with when he conned students out of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

SAN DIEGO — Attorneys for President-elect Donald Trump went to court Thursday to ask that a civil fraud suit against Trump scheduled to begin in less than three weeks be delayed, a reminder of the unusual complications facing Trump as he shifts from businessman to commander in chief.

Trump’s attorneys said he will be too busy with the presidential transition to participate in the Nov. 28 trial involving his defunct real estate seminar program, Trump University. They asked that the trial be postponed until February or March, after he has taken office.


They made their request before Judge Gonzalo Curiel, the jurist Trump harshly criticized during the campaign as biased because of his Mexican heritage.


Curiel expressed concern about the wisdom of a delay given that Trump will assume the presidency Jan. 20. Curiel said he will probably issue a ruling by Monday.

I agree with the lawyer. It makes much more sense to delay the trial until his Presidency when, you know, his schedule won't be so hectic.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...1c109e-a784-11e6-ba59-a7d93165c6d4_story.html
 
Well this should be interesting. I don't know if there's a precedent for a President-elect going on trial immediately after the election. Republicans and the media made so much of Clinton going into the White House with her alleged crimes dragging behind her that not much attention was paid to Trump's own legal problems dealing with when he conned students out of hundreds of thousands of dollars.



I agree with the lawyer. It makes much more sense to delay the trial until his Presidency when, you know, his schedule won't be so hectic.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...1c109e-a784-11e6-ba59-a7d93165c6d4_story.html

Allegedly conned students.
 
Allegedly conned students.

Not alleged. Confirmed. And the details of how he scammed the students has been covered to death. I'm more interested in the logistics of a civil trial against a president elect in such circumstances.
 
Not alleged. Confirmed. And the details of how he scammed the students has been covered to death. I'm more interested in the logistics of a civil trial against a president elect in such circumstances.

I don't suppose a POTUS can pardon anyone in a civil case. Interesting.
 
I don't suppose a POTUS can pardon anyone in a civil case. Interesting.

I don't know. That sort of thing was never covered in Damages, Suits or Judge Judy.
 
Not alleged. Confirmed. And the details of how he scammed the students has been covered to death. I'm more interested in the logistics of a civil trial against a president elect in such circumstances.

If it's confirmed then why do we need a trial at all?

Don't like to get into the other guy did it, but the details of Hillary's problems have been covered to death. Are they also confirmed?
 
I don't suppose a POTUS can pardon anyone in a civil case. Interesting.

They can't nor or they immune from civil suits. Slick Willy already tried that
 
Well this should be interesting. I don't know if there's a precedent for a President-elect going on trial immediately after the election. Republicans and the media made so much of Clinton going into the White House with her alleged crimes dragging behind her that not much attention was paid to Trump's own legal problems dealing with when he conned students out of hundreds of thousands of dollars.



I agree with the lawyer. It makes much more sense to delay the trial until his Presidency when, you know, his schedule won't be so hectic.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...1c109e-a784-11e6-ba59-a7d93165c6d4_story.html

^^^A polite way to say he's my man. He's committed no crime. Give him a break. He's an angel.
 
If it's confirmed then why do we need a trial at all?

Don't like to get into the other guy did it, but the details of Hillary's problems have been covered to death. Are they also confirmed?

I imagine it's to quantify the nature of his fraud and how much he's liable for.

However, it should be noted that this is in front of a Jury, and jury nullification is not at all outside the realm of possibility here.
 
Well this should be interesting. I don't know if there's a precedent for a President-elect going on trial immediately after the election. Republicans and the media made so much of Clinton going into the White House with her alleged crimes dragging behind her that not much attention was paid to Trump's own legal problems dealing with when he conned students out of hundreds of thousands of dollars.



I agree with the lawyer. It makes much more sense to delay the trial until his Presidency when, you know, his schedule won't be so hectic.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...1c109e-a784-11e6-ba59-a7d93165c6d4_story.html

That doesn't always work:
On May 6, 1994, former Arkansas state employee Paula Jones filed a sexual harassment suit against U.S. President Bill Clinton and former Arkansas State Police Officer Danny Ferguson. She claimed that on May 8, 1991, Clinton, then Governor of Arkansas, propositioned her. David Brock had written, in the January 1994 issue of The American Spectator, that an Arkansas state employee named "Paula" had offered to be Clinton's mistress. According to the story, Ferguson had escorted Jones to Clinton's hotel room, stood guard, and overheard Jones say that she would not mind being Clinton's mistress.

The suit, Jones v. Clinton, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Judge Susan Webber Wright, who had taken a class under then-Professor Clinton at the University of Arkansas School of Law, ruled that a sitting President could not be sued and deferred the case until the conclusion of his term (although she allowed the pre-trial discovery phase of the case to proceed without delay in order to start the trial as soon as Clinton left office).

Both parties appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which ruled in favor of Jones, finding that "the President, like all other government officials, is subject to the same laws that apply to all other members of our society."

Clinton then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, filing a petition for writ of certiorari.
The court's decision

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals.

In the unanimous opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court ruled that separation of powers does not mandate that federal courts delay all private civil lawsuits against the President until the end of his term of office.

In his concurring opinion, Breyer argued that presidential immunity would apply only if the President could show that a private civil lawsuit would somehow interfere with the President's constitutionally assigned duties.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._Jones
 
If it's confirmed then why do we need a trial at all?

Don't like to get into the other guy did it, but the details of Hillary's problems have been covered to death. Are they also confirmed?

yeah if it was confirmed, the only question of fact would be damages. Liability would be established in a successful motion for summary judgment (Fed Rule Civ Pro 56-stating that there is no dispute of fact)

this hasn't happened yet so claiming that it is "confirmed" really means squat
 
I imagine it's to quantify the nature of his fraud and how much he's liable for.

However, it should be noted that this is in front of a Jury, and jury nullification is not at all outside the realm of possibility here.

So is it confirmed or alleged? Imagining doesn't count. Neither does speculation on jury nullification.

Are you trying to make a case that if Trump is found not guilty, he's really guilty and the jury nullified the law?
 
yeah if it was confirmed, the only question of fact would be damages. Liability would be established in a successful motion for summary judgment (Fed Rule Civ Pro 56-stating that there is no dispute of fact)

this hasn't happened yet so claiming that it is "confirmed" really means squat

Squat it is.
 
So is it confirmed or alleged? Imagining doesn't count. Neither does speculation on jury nullification.

Are you trying to make a case that if Trump is found not guilty, he's really guilty and the jury nullified the law?


there generally is no finding of guilt or innocence in a CIVIL suit. its more about being found liable or not liable.
 
:shrug: I say get it done and over with. I wanted and expected the same for Hillary. I see no reason to be hypocritical and decide differently in this.
 
there generally is no finding of guilt or innocence in a CIVIL suit. its more about being found liable or not liable.

You are correct. A lot of people confuse the two, including some posters on this thread.
 
You want Trump to pardon himself?

Pardon from what? But most people smarter that I in these matters believe that's possible.
 
How much money is he being sued for?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
Well this should be interesting. I don't know if there's a precedent for a President-elect going on trial immediately after the election. Republicans and the media made so much of Clinton going into the White House with her alleged crimes dragging behind her that not much attention was paid to Trump's own legal problems dealing with when he conned students out of hundreds of thousands of dollars.


I agree with the lawyer. It makes much more sense to delay the trial until his Presidency when, you know, his schedule won't be so hectic.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...1c109e-a784-11e6-ba59-a7d93165c6d4_story.html

Did Wikileaks, help Mr. Trump the way main stream media is claimed to help Mrs. Clinton?
 
You want Trump to pardon himself?

I want him to be forced to step down, leaving Pence as President. Beyond that, I'll just sit back and think about how I Told You So.
 
:shrug: I say get it done and over with. I wanted and expected the same for Hillary. I see no reason to be hypocritical and decide differently in this.

In the end I expect this suit, like most high profile suits, will get settled rather than tried. Probably before January.

I doubt that many of those screaming foul and wanting to see Trump in jail have any idea what the suit is all about. For one thing, it's a suit against the university, not Trump specifically. For another, there is no criminal penalty involved.
 
Back
Top Bottom