The other point that I’ve seen is that defending litigation takes time and energy. Up to now, Trump’s litigation has been all about his business, and his Trump Org minions would handle the litigation, barring the occasional deposition by Trump.
Now, he’s facing a set of criminal charges, and he’s got the defamation case. Those are both about his personal conduct. No matter how much he delegates to his lawyers, defending those suits will take Trump’s time and energy. That’s time and energy that he can’t use in campaigning. And he’s 74, so I assume he’s got less energy than when he first campaigned, 7-8 years ago in 2015 and 2016.
I didn’t forget, but I’m on unclear on the potential impact. It’s a civil suit, not a criminal one, so the consequences aren’t the same, and it’s likely that the Orange Pervert could be represented by lawyers (unlike a criminal proceeding) and wouldn’t even have to show up. I’m anxious to see progress on the serious criminal investigations.
I’m not a jury lawyer, but I’ve heard from lawyers who run jury trials that when it’s a question of credibility and claims of personal injury, juries won’t vote for a party who doesn’t show up.
Assuming that holds for New York juries, Trump may have to book off a couple of weeks for that jury trial.
Surely he’ll recover those costs by charging a really high fee for flying his Secret Service detail with him. Extra charges if they want a drink or a tiny packet of peanuts.
Apparently the monetary damages Carroll is seeking in the civil suit is “unspecified”. The Orange One may well figure that even if he loses, it’s cheaper to pay her off (or, more likely, continue to appeal the ruling until she gives up) than even the fuel costs of his obscenely oversized personal plane or the conflict of having to make such appearances with more important activities like golf or trying to steal the presidency.
With criminal charges, he doesn’t have the option, and it pisses him off immensely!
I’m confused. From what I gather from this thread, the elevation of these charges to felonies depnds on their being tied to violations of New York state tax codes and election laws. Shouldn’t it state somewhere in the indictment specifically what laws are allegedly being violated?
Does the DA need to prove the felonies he’s not charging? It doesn’t seem right that a misdemeanor can be elevated to a felony based on just an accusation of another felony.