Trump fights release of video testimony in fraud case

[RandomGuy]

NEW YORK, June 13 (Reuters) - Lawyers for Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump on Monday filed court papers opposing the release of video showing him being questioned under oath about his Trump University series of real estate seminars.

They argued that making public the videos, for which written transcripts are already available, would prejudice Trump's case. The video is "unnecessary, irrelevant and unjustified," lawyers for Trump wrote in court papers filed in federal court in San Diego.

In legal proceedings, evidence is considered prejudicial if it may interfere with a judge or jury's objective consideration of the facts. Such evidence can still be presented if it is considered highly relevant to the case.

The Republican candidate has already claimed the federal judge overseeing the case is biased against him because of the judge's Mexican heritage.

Trump may also have concerns about the impact the videos could have outside the courtroom. On Friday, CNN, CBS, the New York Times, and other media outlets asked for the complete deposition transcripts and videotapes to be made available. If released, the videos could provide fodder for campaign commercials against Trump.

In lawsuits in California and New York, Trump has been accused of bilking students who paid as much as $35,000 for an opportunity to learn the businessman's real estate investment strategies. Former Trump University students suing the billionaire claim that they learned little and that their instructors, supposedly hand-picked by Trump, had few qualifications.

During deposition, Trump has admitted that he did not select instructors. His lawyers have argued the "hand-picked" claim amounted to mere sales "puffery" rather than fraud.

In court papers arguing for the videos' release, lawyers for the students argued the images presented nuances not available in the transcripts. "Trump's tone, facial expressions, gestures and body language... speak volumes to... Trump's complete and utter unfamiliarity with the instructors and 'instruction' that student-victims received," they said.

Trump has said the claims over Trump University are baseless and that students highly rated the programs.

The case is Art Cohen v Donald J. Trump, 13-cv-2519, U.S. District Court, Southern District of California. (Reporting By Karen Freifeld; Editing by Anthony Lin and David Gregorio)

----------------------------------------------

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/presidential/20160613_Reuters_L1N1950U8_Trump_fights_release_of _video_testimony_in_fraud_case.html


Insulting the judge... then asking him for a favor...


Let's see how that goes. :lol

[hater]

They are attacking the Donald from all sides. He will prevail and become our (insert #)th president.

All hail Trump

[Winehole23]

the lawsuit predates his candidacy. characterizing civil action against DJT as politically motivated is bullshit.

[z0sa]

Trump allowing this unrelated civil case to run amok while Hillary's under an FBI probe will go down as one of the all time major boneheaded decisions.

[Aztecfan03]

Trump allowing this unrelated civil case to run amok while Hillary's under an FBI probe will go down as one of the all time major boneheaded decisions.
Republican voters have him beat by picking him when this election should have been heavily in our favor.

[DMX7]

They are attacking the Donald from all sides. He will prevail and become our (insert #)th president.

All hail Trump

I wonder if he can somehow use his presidential pardon powers once he's in office to conjure up a scenario where this all just goes away.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Trump allowing this unrelated civil case to run amok while Hillary's under an FBI probe will go down as one of the all time major boneheaded decisions.

Well it had been sealed until he foolishly started casting aspersions at the presiding judge. It seems to be his go to tactic in everything. Attack attack attack. He learned it from that Cohn guy in the 1980s. Cohn was one of McCarthy's guys.

I loathe Hillary but she's not nearly as dangerous to liberty as he is.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I wonder if he can somehow use his presidential pardon powers once he's in office to conjure up a scenario where this all just goes away.

I don't think you can pardon a civil judgment.

[CosmicCowboy]

There is a pretty clear precedent of incoming Presidents in both parties firing selected federal judges and prosecutors as soon as they take office. Clinton and Bush both did it. Apparently, never say never.

[DMX7]

I don't think you can pardon a civil judgment.

I know.

[boutons_deux]

Presidents ... firing selected federal judges

link? :lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

There is a pretty clear precedent of incoming Presidents in both parties firing selected federal judges and prosecutors as soon as they take office. Clinton and Bush both did it. Apparently, never say never.

POTUS has the power to appoint not the power to fire. And when a new AG comes in of course they are going to bring in some of their own people.

Your ignorance is showing.

[mrsmaalox]

The POTUS can "hire/fire" US attorneys at will. Federal judges can be removed only by impeachment by the House if they are convicted of an impeachable offense by the Senate.

[RandomGuy]

There is a pretty clear precedent of incoming Presidents in both parties firing selected federal judges and prosecutors as soon as they take office. Clinton and Bush both did it. Apparently, never say never.

You can't fire federal judges, any more than you can fire SCOTUS justices, unless my understanding is incorrect. (have to double check)

[RandomGuy]

The POTUS can "hire/fire" US attorneys at will. Federal judges can be removed only by impeachment by the House if they are convicted of an impeachable offense by the Senate.

Heh, there you go. thanks mrsmaalox

[spurraider21]

His lawyers would be incompetent if they didn't resist the admission of evidence. If a full transcript already exists, the video is arguably cumulative. Having a visual of somebody getting grilled by questioning arguably is prejudicial, too. But defense will need to show that the prejudice outweighs the probative value.

Taking this legal move as a sign of trump hiding something or covering something up is naive. It's a standard, expected legal move. But evidentiary rulings are largely to the judges discretion and are usually only reversed if there is a clear abuse of discretion (which isn't likely).

I think the video ultimately gets in, but having attorneys contest the admission of evidence isn't lol-worthy, it's standard operating procedure

[SpursforSix]

The POTUS can "hire/fire" US attorneys at will. Federal judges can be removed only by impeachment by the House if they are convicted of an impeachable offense by the Senate.

:pop: Don't ask me. I'm flushing away $15,000,000 per year.

[RandomGuy]

His lawyers would be incompetent if they didn't resist the admission of evidence. If a full transcript already exists, the video is arguably cumulative. Having a visual of somebody getting grilled by questioning arguably is prejudicial, too. But defense will need to show that the prejudice outweighs the probative value.

Taking this legal move as a sign of trump hiding something or covering something up is naive. It's a standard, expected legal move. But evidentiary rulings are largely to the judges discretion and are usually only reversed if there is a clear abuse of discretion (which isn't likely).

I think the video ultimately gets in, but having attorneys contest the admission of evidence isn't lol-worthy, it's standard operating procedure

Eyup.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Eyup.

I just wanted some news about the happenings in the fraud case, so I would have an excuse to put "trump" And "fraud" in the same subject line. :hat
Link to your thread of Clinton aides doing the same thing with their video testimony

[RandomGuy]

Link to your thread of Clinton aides doing the same thing with their video testimony

Sure.

Link?

I have zero problem admitting Clintons faults, because as much as you have presented, means jack shit when the alternative is Donald fucking Trump.

You do understand that right?

Whatever you bring up, NotTrump will still be better than Trump, unless you find the proverbial dead girl, or live boy.

[RandomGuy]

Trump Can’t Delay November Fraud Trial


Donald Trump failed to persuade a federal judge to postpone a Nov. 28 trial in which he’ll face former enrollees in his real-estate seminars who claim they were cheated.
U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel in San Diego on Thursday rejected the request by the Republican presidential candidate’s lead lawyer to put off the trial until January. Trump’s lawyer, Dan Petrocelli, had asked for the delay because he has another case going to trial less than two weeks before the Trump University dispute and argued he wouldn’t be able to prepare adequately.
"Defense counsel had multiple opportunities to raise the issue with the court prior to Aug. 26, 2016, but did not do so," the judge said.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-09-15/trump-university-trial-to-go-ahead-in-november-as-delay-rejected

[boutons_deux]

Trump Can’t Delay November Fraud Trial



http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-09-15/trump-university-trial-to-go-ahead-in-november-as-delay-rejected

Damn Mexicans! :lol

[Winehole23]

You can't fire federal judges, any more than you can fire SCOTUS justices, unless my understanding is incorrect. (have to double check)CC did mention prosecutors, who do serve at pleasure. where he gets the bit about federal judges getting canned I'm not so sure. I'm pretty sure they serve during good behavior.