"Seeking liberty and truth above suppression and mendacity!"
Some of the legal issues of Donald J. Trump (aka Don the Con). Here you will find a short list of the lawsuits against Donald J. Trump. We may never know all of Donald J. Trump legal issues because he hides them with Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs), threats, false names and fixers. The more you know the better informed you will be to make your own determination on Donald J. Trump.
A Short List of Legal Issues of Donald J. Trump:
We don’t know what Mueller will find, but here’s an overview of the president’s other legal woes.By Andrew ProkopNo matter what special counsel Robert Mueller finds, it won’t be the end of the president’s legal woes — because he, his business, and his family are in jeopardy from many other investigations and lawsuits. The Justice Department is digging into the Trump Organization’s role in hush money payments and the Trump inaugural committee’s finances. Congressional committees are probing everything from how Trump’s son-in-law and daughter got security clearances to Trump’s taxes. State investigators are looking into Trump’s foundation and business. There have also been several high-profile lawsuits against the president that could surface damaging new information. In particular, a defamation suit by a former Apprentice contestant could result in Trump’s deposition under oath about sexual assault accusations. So it’s worth looking at all the legal threats to Trump and organizations close to him that aren’t run by Mueller — the ones we know about, at least. This isn’t an exhaustive list — I’ve left out the investigations into his donors or his former aides’ lobbying associates. The list is long enough already.The hush money investigation: What’s it about? The probe focuses on hush money payments made on Donald Trump’s behalf before the 2016 election — payments that prosecutors say violated campaign finance law. Prosecutors have outlined two such payments for women who alleged affairs with Trump. First, American Media Inc. (the parent company of the National Enquirer) gave $150,000 to Karen McDougal. Second, Michael Cohen gave $130,000 to Stormy Daniels. Trump later repaid Cohen for the money in 2017. Who’s in charge? The US Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York (SDNY). SDNY’s US Attorney Geoffrey Berman has recused himself, so Deputy US Attorney Robert Khuzami has oversight over the probe. What’s happened so far? In August 2018, Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to two violations of campaign finance law (and other crimes related to his own finances). He later received a three-year prison sentence. In December 2018, SDNY announced that they’d reached a non-prosecution agreement with American Media Inc. As of February 2019, SDNY continued to have an “ongoing investigation” related to the hush money payments. What could be next? Prosecutors have already stated that in making the payments, Cohen acted “in coordination with and at the direction of Individual-1”: Donald Trump. That’s a sign that Trump himself may face legal risk. The roles of the Trump Organization and its top-level executives in the payments are reportedly under scrutiny too.The Trump inaugural committee investigations: What’s it about? In short, money. Federal prosecutors are scrutinizing a host of matters related to the Trump inaugural committee’s finances. They are looking into potential corruption involving favors for donors, whether foreign funds were illegally given through “straw donors,” how the committee spent the money it took in, and how it accounted for that spending. What’s happened so far? In August 2018, Republican lobbyist Sam Patten struck a plea deal in which he admitted to helping steer $50,000 from a Ukrainian oligarch client to the inaugural committee, and agreed to cooperate with investigators. In February 2019, SDNY prosecutors sent a sweeping subpoena to Trump’s inaugural committee, demanding extensive documents on the company’s donations and spending. Also in February, the attorney general offices for New Jersey and the District of Columbia sent their own civil subpoenas to the inaugural committee.The top congressional inquires threatening Trump: Since Democrats retook the majority in the House of Representatives, their committees in the chamber have launched a number of investigations into Trump and his administration. There are too many to list them all here, but a few stand out already as seeming particularly dangerous to Trumpworld. The House Russia and obstruction probes: Special counsel Robert Mueller is widely believed to be nearing the end of his investigation into Russian interference with the 2016 election and obstruction of justice. But House Democrats aren’t waiting for that — they’ve already launched their own probes, led by Rep. Adam Schiff’s House Intelligence Committee and Rep. Jerry Nadler’s (D-NY) House Judiciary Committee. Full story
New York Times: New York attorney general subpoenas two banks related to Trump Organization projectsBy Veronica Stracqualursi, CNNWashington (CNN)The New York attorney general's office issued subpoenas on Monday to two banks for records relating to the funding of several Trump Organization projects, The New York Times reported. Citing an unnamed source briefed on the subpoenas, the Times reported that the office of New York Attorney General Letitia James opened a new inquiry based on the testimony of Donald Trump's former lawyer Michael Cohen before Congress last month. The inquiry is a civil investigation, not a criminal probe, the Times said, adding that its scope and focus were unclear. Cohen testified that Trump inflated his assets and presented copies of financial statements he said were provided to Deutsche Bank. Investigators requested financial records from the German lender related to the Trump International Hotel in Washington, the Trump National Doral outside Miami, the Trump International Hotel and Tower in Chicago, and an unsuccessful effort to buy the NFL Buffalo Bills, the Times reported. Investors Bank, based in New Jersey, "was subpoenaed for records relating to Trump Park Avenue" in Manhattan, the Times said. CNN has reached out to the New York attorney general's office and Investors Bank. Deutsche Bank declined to comment. Deutsche Bank is already the subject of a joint investigation between the House Financial Services and Intelligence Committees into Trump's businesses and money laundering involving Russia.
By Sharon LaFraniere and Maggie HabermanWASHINGTON — The attorney general for the District of Columbia has subpoenaed documents from President Trump’s inaugural committee, the third governmental body to delve into how the fund raised $107 million and spent it to celebrate Mr. Trump’s swearing in. The latest subpoena follows similar demands for documents by federal prosecutors in Manhattan and by New Jersey’s attorney general. The attorney general in Washington is a local official who enforces statutes governing the operation of nonprofit organizations like the inaugural committee. No other recent inaugural committee has generated such intense scrutiny of its finances. Typically short-lived, the committees are charged with staging balls, concerts and black-tie dinners in the nation’s capital during inauguration week. Mr. Trump’s inaugural committee raised and spent at least twice as much as its predecessors, but it ended in acrimony amid allegations of misspent funds. Federal prosecutors are examining whether foreigners illegally contributed to events using Americans as straw donors, a possible violation of criminal law. New Jersey authorities appear to be examining whether the committee obeyed civil statutes governing how nonprofit organizations raise funds, among other matters. Karl A. Racine, the Washington attorney general, appears to be looking for any evidence of self-dealing. His subpoena said investigators are seeking to determine whether funds “were wasted, mismanaged and/or improperly provided private benefit, causing the committee to exceed or abuse its authority or act contrary to its nonprofit purpose.” It seeks documents showing payments to the Trump International Hotel or the Trump Organization, including any communications related to “the pricing of venue rentals.” The committee paid Mr. Trump’s hotel $1.5 million for rooms, meals and the use of a ballroom.
Former campaign staffer alleges in lawsuit that Trump kissed her without her consent. The White House denies the charge.By Beth Reinhard and Alice CritesA staffer on Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign says he kissed her without her consent at a small gathering of supporters before a Florida rally, an interaction that she alleges in a new lawsuit still causes her anguish. In interviews and in the lawsuit, Alva Johnson said Trump grabbed her hand and leaned in to kiss her on the lips as he exited an RV outside the rally in Tampa on Aug. 24, 2016. Johnson said she turned her head and the unwanted kiss landed on the side of her mouth. In a statement, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders dismissed Johnson’s allegation as “absurd on its face.” “This never happened and is directly contradicted by multiple highly credible eye witness accounts,” she wrote. Two Trump supporters that Johnson identified as witnesses — a campaign official and Pam Bondi, then the Florida attorney general — denied seeing the alleged kiss in interviews with The Washington Post. As recently as May 2017, Johnson spoke glowingly of Trump in a radio interview. “He is more incredible in person than I think you would even think as you see him on TV,” she told the Alabama-based program “Politics and Moore.” “He’s just the nicest guy . . . He treats everyone as if they are a part of his family.” She also said she expected to be given a job as the “second-in-command” at the U.S. Embassy in Lisbon. “I will at some point be heading over to Portugal to work in the embassy,” she said. The Post found the recording of the show after the first version of this story was published.
By Asawin Suebsaeng, Erin BancoThe president has made private admissions that federal investigations bedeviling his first term in office will be haunting him for possibly years to come. Donald Trump has signaled to his inner circle that even he knows Special Counsel Robert Mueller finishing his investigation will be a new beginning, not a dramatic end, for Trumpworld’s eclectic legal hellscape. The president made clear to his outside legal team, which includes Rudy Giuliani and Jay Sekulow, that he didn’t want his lawyers going anywhere—even after the Mueller probe ends. The conversations served as a private admission that federal investigations bedeviling his first term in office will be haunting him for possibly years to come. The president broached the topic of keeping his team together starting late last year, according to two sources familiar with the exchanges, by discussing other legal woes he might face after the Special Counsel’s Office submits its report to the Department of Justice. Trump’s focus at the time? The Southern District of New York. The jurisdiction, known as SDNY, is currently looking into matters involving the president. Those cases have long been considered by Trump’s close allies as a far graver potential threat than the Mueller investigation. Details about Trump and his family business could be laid bare for public scrutiny as Michael Cohen, Trump’s former personal lawyer and self-described fixer, heads to the Hill to testify this week. He is set to answer questions regarding Trump’s debts and payments, compliance with federal disclosure requirements, tax laws, campaign finance laws, and potentially fraudulent practices by the Trump foundation. Cohen’s appearances come at a time when members of Trump’s former inner circle are facing increased scrutiny by federal prosecutors. Earlier this month, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said she had been interviewed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team. And Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort is set to be sentenced Friday in Virginia for tax and bank fraud charges. He could face decades in prison not only for those charges, but also for conspiring against the U.S. and a conspiracy to obstruct justice.
By Mark Joseph SternThe Trump administration’s attempt to deny citizenship to the children of binational same-sex couples suffered a setback on Thursday when a federal court ruled these children are American citizens. U.S. District Judge John F. Walter of California rejected the State Department’s startling assertion that a married gay couple’s son was born “out of wedlock” and thus is ineligible for citizenship. But his decision applies only to these plaintiffs—meaning Secretary of State Mike Pompeo may continue to enforce an anti-gay policy on other binational couples. Somehow, nearly two years after the U.S. Supreme Court guaranteed equal rights to same-sex parents, the U.S. government is still trying to discriminate against their children under immigration law. Thursday’s decision in Dvash-Banks v. Pompeo revolves around a married couple, Andrew and Elad Dvash-Banks, and their sons, Ethan and Aiden. Andrew is an American citizen; Elad is Israeli; and the couple’s children were conceived through surrogacy and born in Canada. Under U.S. law, a child born abroad receives citizenship at birth if his parents are married and at least one is an American citizen. Ethan and Aiden’s birth certificates list Andrew and Elad as their parents. Because Andrew and Elad are married, and Andrew is an American citizen, both children would appear to have a right to U.S. citizenship.
Lawsuits challenging Trump's national emergency declaration use his words against him - Tucker HigginsPresident Trump's words are already being used against him in a slew of lawsuits challenging his declaration of a national emergency at the southern border. In at least three federal court lawsuits, lawyers have seized on the president's remark during the press conference he "didn't need to" declare a national emergency. President Donald Trump's words are being used against him in a slew of lawsuits challenging his declaration of a national emergency at the southern border. In at least three federal court lawsuits filed, lawyers have seized on the president's remark during Friday's press conference announcing the declaration that he "didn't need to" declare a national emergency. In suits brought by the Center for Biological Diversity, Public Citizen and 16 U.S. states, the challengers have argued that the president's comments show that his national emergency declaration is a matter of personal preference or a negotiating tactic — not a true emergency requiring the use of American armed forces, as the White House has claimed. The American Civil Liberties Union, which has said it will file a lawsuit against the administration this week, has featured the president's comment in news releases. The president's remarks on Friday came after a protracted battle with Congress over his demands for billions of dollars in funding for his proposed border wall. The tussle led to a partial government shutdown that stretched through December and January — the longest in American history. The issue appeared to be resolved last week only after the president agreed to sign a spending bill without funding for the wall, while simultaneously declaring a national emergency to bypass Congress and unlock already appropriated Department of Defense funds. "I didn't need to do this. But I'd rather do it much faster," Trump said of the national emergency declaration, speaking from the White House Rose Garden, according to an official transcript. "And I don't have to do it for the election. I've already done a lot of wall, for the election — 2020."
A former White House communications aide who wrote a tell-all book about working in the Trump administration has filed a lawsuit against President Trump alleging that he sought to “silence” former employees by using his campaign organization as a “cutout.” Team of Vipers author Cliff Sims filed the lawsuit Monday after the Trump campaign filed an arbitration claim against him last week, claiming he had violated a non-disclosure agreement by publishing his book. Sims has accused Trump of violating his First Amendment rights—with the campaign serving as an “illegitimate cutout” to enforce NDAs and seek retribution against former employees. In the document, Sims said he “cannot definitively recall” if he signed an NDA drafted by the White House Counsel’s Office—but did acknowledge that he signed one when he joined the campaign that barred him from “disclosure of ‘confidential’ information or the disparagement of the Trump Campaign, President Trump, or his family.” The complaint further claimed the campaign was “acting at the President’s behest”—as evidenced by Trump’s public disapproval of Sims’ book—and “concealing” Trump’s official involvement to silence Sims “in a manner that would otherwise be unavailable under existing First Amendment case law.”
Two years after Donald Trump won the presidency, nearly every organization he has led in the past decade is under investigation. Trump's private company is contending with civil suits digging into its business with foreign governments and with looming state inquiries into its tax practices.
Sworn statements could potentially be used against president. Legal experts say that could be critical if investigators pursue a case over hush-money payments to women in the 2016 campaign. Sworn statements by President Trump dating back several decades indicate he has a deep understanding of campaign-finance laws, legal experts say, which could be critical if investigators ever pursue a case against him over his alleged direction of hush-money payments in the 2016 campaign. Trump’s statements were made as part of a 2000 regulatory investigation into his casino company and in 1988 testimony for a government-integrity commission. They contrast with the portrayal by some of the president’s allies that he is a political novice with little understanding of campaign-finance laws and therefore couldn’t be charged with violating them. In 2000, the Federal Election Commission investigated allegations that Trump Hotels & Casinos violated the law related to a fundraising event for a Senate candidate. Trump’s sworn affidavit “indicates that Trump had a very thorough understanding of federal campaign finance law, especially regarding what he could and could not legally do when raising money for a federal candidate,” said Brett Kappel, an election-law lawyer at Akerman LLP. In the four-page affidavit that Trump signed, he stressed he had a particular familiarity with laws governing corporate contributions to candidates. Trump said he was acting in his “individual,” not corporate, capacity when he hosted the event, that he had paid for the reception costs “from my personal funds,” that he “took no action, of any nature, kind or description, to compel or pressure” any employee to donate to the campaign ahead of the event and that he wasn’t reimbursed for any of the costs.
"Commingling of personal funds and charitable contributions is always known to be investigated in a criminal way" A veteran criminal trial attorney told MSNBC the publicly available evidence strongly suggested the Trump Foundation would soon fall under criminal investigation. The charitable foundation set up and operated by President Donald Trump and his children was ordered Tuesday to dissolve under court supervision, and former New Jersey prosecutor Robert Bianchi said criminal prosecution seemed inevitable. “It is going to become a criminal matter, I’ve been saying this for a long time,” said Bianchi, a defense attorney and former Morris County prosecutor. Bianchi said Barbara Underwood, New York’s attorney general, sent a strong signal that the lawsuit that forced the dissolution of the Trump Foundation had also uncovered criminal wrongdoing. “What she wrote in her press release yesterday talking about all of the improprieties, using it as a personal checkbook, is code word in criminal language for tax evasion, campaign finance violations, as well as fraud,” Bianchi said. He said the president should have known that holding public office would heighten scrutiny of his business and personal conduct.
The Trump Foundation is shutting down, but a lawsuit is ongoing, accusing President Trump and his three eldest children of not operating the charity as a charity at all. CNN's Randi Kaye reports. Source: CNN
The Donald J. Trump Foundation will close and give away all its remaining funds amid a lawsuit accusing the charity and the Trump family of using it illegally for self-dealing and political gain, the New York attorney general’s office announced Tuesday. The attorney general, Barbara Underwood, accused the foundation of “a shocking pattern of illegality” that was “willful and repeated” and included unlawfully coordinating with Mr. Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. “This amounted to the Trump Foundation functioning as little more than a checkbook to serve Mr. Trump’s business and political interests,” Ms. Underwood said. The closure of the foundation is a milestone in the investigation. But the broader lawsuit, which also seeks millions in restitution and penalties and a bar on President Trump and his three oldest children from serving on the boards of other New York charities, is proceeding. Ms. Underwood and a lawyer for the foundation signed the stipulation agreeing to the dissolution. The foundation’s remaining assets are to be redistributed under judicial supervision. Nonprofit foundations are supposed to be devoted to charitable activities, but the attorney general’s office, following a two-year investigation, accused the Trump Foundation of being used to win political favor and even purchase a $10,000 portrait of Mr. Trump that was displayed at one of his golf clubs. The existence of the portrait was first reported by The Washington Post. The lawsuit accused the foundation of virtually becoming an arm of the Trump campaign, with its campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, directing the foundation to make disbursements in Iowa only days before the state held its presidential nominating caucuses.
The Donald J. Trump Foundation has agreed to dissolve under judicial supervision amid an ongoing lawsuit concerning its finances, according to a document filed Tuesday in Manhattan Supreme Court by the New York state Attorney General's office. The dissolution of President Donald Trump's charity resolves one element of the attorney general's civil lawsuit against the foundation, which includes claims that the President and his children violated campaign finance laws and abused its tax-exempt status. The lawsuit will continue in court because it also seeks two other outcomes: $2.8 million in restitution, plus penalties, and a ban on Trump and his three eldest children serving on the board of any other New York nonprofit. The agreement to dissolve, signed by both the foundation and Attorney General Barbara Underwood's office, also allows the attorney general's office to review the recipients of the charity's assets. The most recent tax return filed by the foundation listed its net assets at slightly more than $1.7 million. "Our petition detailed a shocking pattern of illegality involving the Trump Foundation -- including unlawful coordination with the Trump presidential campaign, repeated and willful self-dealing, and much more. This amounted to the Trump Foundation functioning as little more than a checkbook to serve Mr. Trump's business and political interests," Underwood said in a statement Tuesday.
Mounting legal threats surround Trump as nearly every organization he has led is under investigationTwo years after Donald Trump won the presidency, nearly every organization he has led in the past decade is under investigation. Trump’s private company is contending with civil suits digging into its business with foreign governments and with looming state inquiries into its tax practices. Trump’s 2016 campaign is under scrutiny by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, whose investigation into Russian interference has already led to guilty pleas by his campaign chairman and four advisers. Trump’s inaugural committee has been probed by Mueller for illegal foreign donations, a topic that the incoming House Intelligence Committee chairman plans to further investigate next year. Trump’s charity is locked in an ongoing suit with New York state, which has accused the foundation of “persistently illegal conduct.”. The mounting inquiries are building into a cascade of legal challenges that threaten to dominate Trump’s third year in the White House. In a few weeks, Democrats will take over in the House and pursue their own investigations into all of the above — and more.
Another day, another known investigation into President Trump and the organizations/people around him. The Wall Street Journal: “Federal prosecutors in Manhattan are investigating whether President Trump’s 2017 inaugural committee misspent some of the record $107 million it raised from donations, people familiar with the matter said. The criminal probe by the Manhattan U.S. attorney’s office, which is in its early stages, also is examining whether some of the committee’s top donors gave money in exchange for access to the incoming Trump administration, policy concessions or to influence official administration positions, some of the people said.”. The New York Times has additional details of this investigation. “The inquiry focuses on whether people from Middle Eastern nations — including Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates — used straw donors to disguise their donations to [the inaugural committee and a pro-Trump Super PAC]. Federal law prohibits foreign contributions to federal campaigns, political action committees and inaugural funds.”
A state judge ruled on Friday that a lawsuit by the New York State attorney general could proceed against President Trump and the Trump Foundation over allegations of misused charitable assets, self-dealing and campaign finance violations during the 2016 presidential campaign. Mr. Trump’s lawyers had argued that the court did not have jurisdiction over Mr. Trump, as president, and that the statutes of limitations had expired in the case of some of the actions at issue. They also contended the attorney general’s office suffered from a “pervasive bias” against Mr. Trump. In her 27-page ruling, Justice Saliann Scarpulla disagreed. “I find I have jurisdiction over Mr. Trump,” she wrote.Donald Trump has an unprecedented number of legal entanglements compared to any previous president. Lawsuits have been brought by individuals, companies, and state attorneys general against him personally, his administration’s policies, the Trump Organization, and the president’s charity, the Trump Foundation. On Oct. 29, a lawsuit against Trump, the Trump Organization, and his three oldest children accused them of promoting get-rich-quick schemes to vulnerable investors, and receiving secret payments for their participation. The suit, filed just in advance of the midterm elections, has a connection to a Democratic donor, who funds the nonprofit that brought the suit on behalf of four anonymous plaintiffs. The Trump Organization said the allegations were meritless. The White House had no comment. Trump is also involved in several criminal investigations at the state and federal level, some of which are linked to his businesses and charity. Any charges against could trigger a confrontation over the constitutionality of prosecuting a sitting president in the judicial system.
President Donald Trump, his three eldest children and his company are accused in a class action lawsuit filed Monday in Manhattan federal court of using their brand to make millions by coaxing unsophisticated investors to participate in fraudulent schemes. Filed on behalf of four anonymous individuals, the lawsuit accuses the President and his children Eric, Donald Jr. and Ivanka Trump of promoting what they described as promising business opportunities with three companies in exchange for "secret" payments: ACN Opportunity, a telecommunications marketing company; the Trump Network, a vitamin and health product marketing company; and the Trump Institute, a seminar program that "purported to sell Trump's 'secrets to success.' "The suit claims that the Trumps in fact "deliberately misled" consumers about the likely success of their investments. The 160-page lawsuit further claims the Trumps engaged in "a pattern of racketeering activity" and "were aware that the vast majority of consumers would lose whatever money they invested in the business opportunities and training programs" offered by the three companies. None of the three companies is named as a defendant.
Trump Organization’s finances, shrouded in secrecy, bring fresh legal action. - A new pair of legal actions has shown how, roughly 19 months into Donald Trump’s presidency, the financial ties between the Trump Organization and the administration remain shrouded in secrecy. Judge Quentin L. Kopp, a former California state senator, filed suit against the U.S. Secret Service in federal court Tuesday, alleging the agency has refused to turn over details of the costs incurred when the Secret Service accompanied Donald Trump Jr. on a business trip to India in February. The lawsuit describes how Kopp in February filed a Freedom of Information Act request for financial information about the trip. The Secret Service allegedly denied the request in May, saying it was “too broad in scope,” and reportedly failed to respond when Kopp followed up with a more specific request. The lawsuit further criticizes how Trump Jr. is accompanied by agents on overseas business trips on the taxpayers’ dime, noting adult children of the president are allowed to decline Secret Service coverage.
Inside Some of Donald Trump's Most Expensive Lawsuits - Over the decades, Donald Trump has used the legal system to get what he wants. According to USA Today, Trump has been involved in at least “3,500 legal actions in federal and state courts during the past three decades. They range from skirmishes with casino patrons to million-dollar real estate suits to personal defamation lawsuits.” And these don’t even count the suits levied against Trump since his presidency. There’s simply too much to review, so we chose some of his biggest, most expensive lawsuits, including Trump’s huge legal battle involving his educational program.
USA TODAY Network: Dive into Donald Trump's thousands of lawsuits - An exclusive and ongoing USA TODAY analysis of legal filings across the United States finds that the presumptive Republican presidential nominee and his businesses have been involved in thousands of legal actions in federal and state courts over the past three decades. They range from skirmishes with casino patrons to million-dollar real estate suits to personal defamation lawsuits. Trump's 4,095 lawsuits we’ve found so far! Reporters continue to review state and federal court files. Wonder how that stacks up against Hillary Clinton? We found the former first lady, U.S. senator and secretary of State has been named in more than 900 lawsuits, mainly as a defendant. More than a third of those lawsuits were filed by federal prisoners, political activists or other citizens seeking redress from the government by suing a list of high-ranking officials.
Five things to know about the lawsuit against the Trump Foundation - New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood's (D) lawsuit against President Trump and the Donald J. Trump Foundation landed Thursday after a lengthy investigation into the charity, alleging that Trump violated both federal and state law and setting up another legal battle for the president. The 41-page petition includes allegations that Trump illegally used the foundation to support his presidential campaign. The charges of improper use go back to Trump's conduct as a private citizen. Three of Trump's adult children, who serve on the board of the foundation, were also named in the lawsuit.
What Makes the Lawsuit against Trump’s Foundation Very Different - Underwood’s suit is the latest in a series of legal actions taken at the state-level against Trump, adding yet another layer to the growing debate over whether and under what circumstances a president may be sued or deposed – to say nothing of indicted. In the cases of the Stormy Daniels and Summer Zervos suits, public debate has explored the constitutionality of a private party suing a sitting president in state court. But what happens if the plaintiff is a state? That is exactly the question uniquely posed by the New York Attorney General’s suit. While understandable, the misperception that the Attorney General’s suit is just another in the barrage of Trump litigation belies the distinct and constitutionally significant nature of this case. Some attention has been focused on the issue of suing the president in state court. Here, though, the case was brought both in state court and by a state. The Trump Foundation suit consequently raises specific “dual sovereignty” federalism concerns that do not feature prominently or at all in the other litigation against the president.
Trump has been sued more than 60 times since becoming president: A partial survey - Donald Trump is certainly no stranger to the legal system. He's been sued thousands of times during his career as a real-estate developer, and that trend appears to be continuing now that he's president — a job that already draws its fair share of litigation. More than 60 lawsuits have been filed against Trump in federal court in the three weeks since he became president on Jan. 20. Here is a list of the cases pending against him as of Friday. It doesn't include lawsuits filed against Trump in state courts or lawsuits filed against him before he became president. Most of the federal lawsuits challenge Trump's temporary ban on travel from seven predominantly Muslim countries. On Thursday an appeals court declined to lift a hold a federal judge placed on the ban.
Five legal headaches facing Trump - President Trump’s legal problems are piling up. As he faces special counsel Robert Mueller’s wide-ranging investigation, Trump is also entangled in litigation over his refusal to divest his business interests and cases stemming from an alleged affair with a porn star and the $130,000 his personal lawyer reportedly paid her in hush money. Legal experts say the number of lawsuits involving the president personally is unprecedented.
All the President Trump's lawsuits - The pace of lawsuits involving Donald J. Trump doesn't appear to have slowed much since he took on the added responsibilities of being the President of the United States.
Donald Trump has an unprecedented number of legal entanglements compared to any previous president. Lawsuits have been brought by individuals, companies, and state attorneys general against him personally, his administration’s policies, the Trump Organization, and the president’s charity, the Trump Foundation. On Nov. 19, three Democratic senators sued Trump over his appointment of former Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s chief of staff Matt Whitaker to replace Sessions as the Justice Department’s acting head. The senators claim that Trump violated the Constitution’s Appointments Clause, which mandates all principal officers of the U.S., such as cabinet officials, ambassadors, and federal judges, pass through a Senate confirmation process.
A Brief Survey of President Trump’s Biggest Personal Lawsuits - Stormy Daniels is just the tip of the iceberg. Trump’s penchant for litigation was legendary before he became president, but he’s kept it up while in office. He’s dealing with ongoing legal matters on accusations ranging from sexual misconduct to defamation to improper business dealings. Most recently, former Deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe is planning to sue Trump for wrongful termination and other civil claims. Before that happens, here’s a quick rundown of some of the president’s biggest personal lawsuits since he took office.
Legal affairs of Donald Trump - An analysis by USA Today published in June 2016 found that over the previous three decades, United States president Donald Trump and his businesses have been involved in 3,500 legal cases in U.S. federal courts and state court, an unprecedented number for a U.S. presidential candidate.
List of lawsuits arising out of Donald Trump's actions as president. - A list of notable lawsuits involving United States President Donald Trump. The list excludes cases naming the president as a matter of course, including habeas corpus requests.
The Inconvenient Legal Troubles That Lie Ahead for the Trump Foundation - Barring an unexpected change, the Donald J. Trump Foundation will be defending itself in a New York courtroom shortly before this fall’s midterm elections. The proceedings seem unlikely to go well for the institution and its leadership; President Trump and his elder children, Ivanka, Donald, Jr., and Eric, are being sued by New York’s attorney general, Barbara Underwood, for using the charity to enrich and benefit the Trump family. On Tuesday, the judge in the case, Saliann Scarpulla, made a series of comments and rulings from the bench that hinted—well, all but screamed—that she believes the Trump family has done some very bad things. The judge seemed frustrated, even confused, that the Trumps were fighting the case at all. At one point, she told a lawyer for the Trump children that they should just settle out of court and voluntarily agree to one of the sanctions: a demand by the Attorney General that they not serve on the boards of any nonprofits for one year. (The case will be tried in civil court, and the Trumps aren’t facing any criminal charges.)
New York attorney general sues Trump Foundation - Attorney General Barbara Underwood alleges a pattern of persistent illegal conduct over more than a decade that includes extensive unlawful political coordination with the Trump presidential campaign. "As our investigation reveals, the Trump Foundation was little more than a checkbook for payments from Mr. Trump or his business to nonprofits, regardless of their purpose or legality," Underwood said. The attorney general is asking a court to dissolve the Trump Foundation and wants $2.8 million in restitution plus additional penalties. Trump hasn't donated to his own charity since 2008. She seeks to ban Trump from serving as a director of a New York not-for-profit for 10 years and the remaining board members -- Ivanka, Don Jr. and Eric Trump -- from serving for one year, or until they receive fiduciary training. The suit alleges that the Trump Foundation engaged in "repeated and willful self-dealing transactions to benefit Mr. Trump's personal and business interests." The suit contends that the Trump Foundation used the tax-deductible donations in at least five instances that benefited Trump or businesses he controls.
Stormy Daniels files defamation lawsuit against Trump - The lawsuit filed by Daniels, whose legal name is Stephanie Clifford, in federal court in New York targets Trump's tweet on April 18 dismissing a composite sketch of a man who the adult film star says threatened her over her alleged affair with Trump more than a decade ago. In that tweet, Trump called the composite sketch "a total con job." The lawsuit says Daniels suffered damages in excess of $75,000. "By calling the incident a 'con job,' Mr. Trump's statement would be understood to state that Ms. Clifford was fabricating the crime and the existence of the assailant, both of which are prohibited under New York law, as well as the law of numerous other states," Avenatti wrote in the lawsuit.
Judge allows former ‘Apprentice’ contestant to sue Trump for defamation - Summer Zervos sued Trump last year after he accused her of making up claims against him. A New York judge says that defamation case can move forward.
Trump’s Company Is Suing Towns Across the Country to Get Breaks on Taxes — “Trump, Inc.” Why is Trump’s business arguing its properties are worth just a fraction of what Trump has claimed they are on his own financial disclosures? To save on taxes.
Judge finalizes $25 million Trump University settlement for students of 'sham university' - A federal judge finalized the $25 million settlement between President Trump and students of his now shuttered Trump University on Monday, with New York's attorney general claiming “victims of Donald Trump’s fraudulent university will finally receive the relief they deserve.”. Trump University was not an actual university but a for-profit seminar series, and former students waged a years-long battle claiming the course misled them with claims of teaching real estate success.
Hundreds allege Donald Trump doesn’t pay his bills - among those who say billionaire didn't pay: dishwashers, painters, waiters. Donald Trump often portrays himself as a savior of the working class who will "protect your job." But a USA TODAY NETWORK analysis found he has been involved in more than 3,500 lawsuits over the past three decades — and a large number of those involve ordinary Americans, like the Friels, who say Trump or his companies have refused to pay them. At least 60 lawsuits, along with hundreds of liens, judgments, and other government filings reviewed by the USA TODAY NETWORK, document people who have accused Trump and his businesses of failing to pay them for their work. Among them: a dishwasher in Florida. A glass company in New Jersey. A carpet company. A plumber. Painters. Forty-eight waiters. Dozens of bartenders and other hourly workers at his resorts and clubs, coast to coast. Real estate brokers who sold his properties. And, ironically, several law firms that once represented him in these suits and others. Trump’s companies have also been cited for 24 violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act since 2005 for failing to pay overtime or minimum wage, according to U.S. Department of Labor data. That includes 21 citations against the defunct Trump Plaza in Atlantic City and three against the also out-of-business Trump Mortgage LLC in New York. Both cases were resolved by the companies agreeing to pay back wages. In addition to the lawsuits, the review found more than 200 mechanic’s liens — filed by contractors and employees against Trump, his companies or his properties claiming they were owed money for their work — since the 1980s. The liens range from a $75,000 claim by a Plainview, N.Y., air conditioning and heating company to a $1 million claim from the president of a New York City real estate banking firm.
FinCEN Fines Trump Taj Mahal Casino Resort $10 Million for Significant and Long Standing Anti-Money Laundering Violations - The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) imposed a $10 million civil money penalty against Trump Taj Mahal Casino Resort (Trump Taj Mahal), for willful and repeated violations of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA). In addition to the civil money penalty, the casino is required to conduct periodic external audits to examine its anti-money laundering (AML) BSA compliance program and provide those audit reports to FinCEN and the casino’s Board of Directors. Trump Taj Mahal, a casino in Atlantic City, New Jersey, admitted to several willful BSA violations, including violations of AML program requirements, reporting obligations, and recordkeeping requirements. Trump Taj Mahal has a long history of prior, repeated BSA violations cited by examiners dating back to 2003. Additionally, in 1998, FinCEN assessed a $477,700 civil money penalty against Trump Taj Mahal for currency transaction reporting violations. "Trump Taj Mahal received many warnings about its deficiencies," said FinCEN Director Jennifer Shasky Calvery. "Like all casinos in this country, Trump Taj Mahal has a duty to help protect our financial system from being exploited by criminals, terrorists, and other bad actors. Far from meeting these expectations, poor compliance practices, over many years, left the casino and our financial system unacceptably exposed.". Trump Taj Mahal admitted that it failed to implement and maintain an effective AML program; failed to report suspicious transactions; failed to properly file required currency transaction reports; and failed to keep appropriate records as required by the BSA. Notably, Trump Taj Mahal had ample notice of these deficiencies as many of the violations from 2012 and 2010 were discovered in previous examinations.
Trump Plaza fined $200,000 for discrimination - New Jersey casino regulators have fined the Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino $200,000 for catering to a high-roller by transferring black and female dealers from his table. The Casino Control Commission approved the penalty Wednesday by a 3-1 vote. The fine was twice the amount recommended by the commission's vice chairman but far less than the $900,000 sought by the state Division of Gaming Enforcement.
‘No Vacancies’ for Blacks: How Donald Trump Got His Start, and Was First Accused of Bias - Donald J. Trump assumed an increasingly prominent role in the business, the company’s practice of turning away potential black tenants was painstakingly documented by activists and organizations that viewed equal housing as the next frontier in the civil rights struggle. The Justice Department undertook its own investigation and, in 1973, sued Trump Management for discriminating against blacks. Both Fred Trump, the company’s chairman, and Donald Trump, its president, were named as defendants. It was front-page news, and for Donald, amounted to his debut in the public eye.
FBI releases files on Trump apartments' race discrimination probe in '70s - The FBI has released nearly 400 pages of records on an investigation the bureau conducted in the 1970s into alleged racial discrimination in the rental of apartments from President Donald Trump's real estate company.The files detail dozens of interviews the bureau conducted with Trump building tenants, management and employees, seeking indications that minority tenants were steered away from housing complexes. Most of those interviewed said they were not aware of any discrimination. However, some of the records recount the stories of black rental applicants who said they were told no apartments were available, while whites sent to check on the same apartments were offered leases. The records, posted on the FBI's Freedom of Information Act website, include a 1974 interview with a former doorman at a Trump building in Brooklyn.
Donald J. Trump is a threat to Democracy we are dedicated to exposing the real Donald J. Trump (aka Don the Con) and shining a light on the threat Donald J. Trump is to Democracy, America and you.
Some of Donald J. Trump's Twitter Hashtags: