Berl Falbaum
We all know that Donald Trump is no stranger to lawsuits; he was involved in about 4,000 before he even won the presidency in 2016.
But now comes one in which he is both the plaintiff and the defendant. Yes, you read that right. Again, that is absolutely correct. We’ll try to explain.
Trump, the plaintiff, has filed a claim — not a lawsuit yet — with the Department of Justice (DOJ) of which, of course, he is the boss, saying he deserves $230 million because he was a defendant in two wrongful DOJ investigations.
One involves Russian interference in the 2016 election, and the other storing classified documents in his Mar-a-Lago estate after he lost the next election.
Trump acknowledged that, in effect, he would be paying himself, stating:
“With the country, it’s interesting, because I’m the one that makes the decision.
“It’s awfully strange to make a decision where I’m paying myself. In other words, did you ever have one of those cases where you have to decide how much you’re paying yourself in damages?”
We’ll answer his question: No, never.
Then to clear things up, he added:
“I have a lawsuit that was doing very well, and when I became president I said, ‘I’m sort of suing myself.’ I don’t know, how do you settle the lawsuit, I’ll say give me X dollars, and I don’t know what to do with the lawsuit. It sort of looks bad, I’m suing myself, right?”
We think the answer is “right.”
Trump says if he wins, he will contribute the money to charity or “something.”
It is the “something” that bothers us, although his record with charities isn’t so stellar either.
If the above were not enough, there is more to this legal conundrum.
The attorneys making the decision will be former defense attorneys for Trump in both cases whom he appointed to the DOJ.
That puts them in a quandary: Should they approve the claim and hope he pays all their legal fees he may still owe them? Or, as defendants, should they tell the plaintiff — their former client — that his allegations have no merit. The latter would be very ungrateful since Trump appointed them to their posts.
If they rule against Trump, he can then sue and maybe hire them to argue the case for him.
Dear reader, are you staying with me? I am trying my damnedest to make this clear.
In the Russian interference case, Trump told us exclusively, that he may call Russian President Putin as a witness.
“He told me he did not interference in the election and I believed him. I just hope he doesn’t take the Fifth. I told him that would not look good. He told me in Russia no one takes the Fifth because, ‘We have ways to make them talk.’
“I also told him I could lend him some DOJ attorneys who would prepare him for his testimony.”
In that case, Trump is asking for $115 million and if he wins, he promised Putin several cases of the best vodka.
As to the boxes at Mar-a-Lago, Trump argues they were filled with soiled golfing outfits.
“As everyone knows I play lots of golf and go through clothes like crazy. The attorneys in the DOJ can testify to that because they played lots of golf with me,” Trump told us.
“Their problem? Should they let me win and get their fees or lose and I won’t fire them. Again, let me ask, have you ever heard of something so weird?”
We’ll answer again. Nope, never.
That case also totals $115 million, including $100 million in punitive damages apparently for trespassing.
We obtained — exclusively — a list of potential witnesses. None would talk to us, stating they were waiting instructions from Trump whether he wants them to testify for Trump the plaintiff or Trump the defense.
All of this, by the way, is decided behind-closed doors. It was the New York Times which broke the “fake news” story on the $230 million claim.
GOP Senator Thom Tillis said the case presented, “a lot of optic concerns.” Now, that’s scorching criticism. Yes, $230 million worth of optic concerns.
Trump promises he will not interfere. Indeed, he said he only heard about the claim after reading The Times.
We’re guessing you are wondering whether are any ethics officials in the DOJ. There were. Attorney General Pam Bondi fired the top official in July. She feared the official might rule against both the plaintiff and the defendant.
Another interesting thought: If the case goes to the Supreme Court would the three justices appointed by Trump recluse themselves since they were appointed by both parties in the case.
If Trump ultimately goes to trial and is sworn in as a witness, he’ll have to decide which side to lie for. If both accuse the other of lying, they are both correct.
But now comes one in which he is both the plaintiff and the defendant. Yes, you read that right. Again, that is absolutely correct. We’ll try to explain.
Trump, the plaintiff, has filed a claim — not a lawsuit yet — with the Department of Justice (DOJ) of which, of course, he is the boss, saying he deserves $230 million because he was a defendant in two wrongful DOJ investigations.
One involves Russian interference in the 2016 election, and the other storing classified documents in his Mar-a-Lago estate after he lost the next election.
Trump acknowledged that, in effect, he would be paying himself, stating:
“With the country, it’s interesting, because I’m the one that makes the decision.
“It’s awfully strange to make a decision where I’m paying myself. In other words, did you ever have one of those cases where you have to decide how much you’re paying yourself in damages?”
We’ll answer his question: No, never.
Then to clear things up, he added:
“I have a lawsuit that was doing very well, and when I became president I said, ‘I’m sort of suing myself.’ I don’t know, how do you settle the lawsuit, I’ll say give me X dollars, and I don’t know what to do with the lawsuit. It sort of looks bad, I’m suing myself, right?”
We think the answer is “right.”
Trump says if he wins, he will contribute the money to charity or “something.”
It is the “something” that bothers us, although his record with charities isn’t so stellar either.
If the above were not enough, there is more to this legal conundrum.
The attorneys making the decision will be former defense attorneys for Trump in both cases whom he appointed to the DOJ.
That puts them in a quandary: Should they approve the claim and hope he pays all their legal fees he may still owe them? Or, as defendants, should they tell the plaintiff — their former client — that his allegations have no merit. The latter would be very ungrateful since Trump appointed them to their posts.
If they rule against Trump, he can then sue and maybe hire them to argue the case for him.
Dear reader, are you staying with me? I am trying my damnedest to make this clear.
In the Russian interference case, Trump told us exclusively, that he may call Russian President Putin as a witness.
“He told me he did not interference in the election and I believed him. I just hope he doesn’t take the Fifth. I told him that would not look good. He told me in Russia no one takes the Fifth because, ‘We have ways to make them talk.’
“I also told him I could lend him some DOJ attorneys who would prepare him for his testimony.”
In that case, Trump is asking for $115 million and if he wins, he promised Putin several cases of the best vodka.
As to the boxes at Mar-a-Lago, Trump argues they were filled with soiled golfing outfits.
“As everyone knows I play lots of golf and go through clothes like crazy. The attorneys in the DOJ can testify to that because they played lots of golf with me,” Trump told us.
“Their problem? Should they let me win and get their fees or lose and I won’t fire them. Again, let me ask, have you ever heard of something so weird?”
We’ll answer again. Nope, never.
That case also totals $115 million, including $100 million in punitive damages apparently for trespassing.
We obtained — exclusively — a list of potential witnesses. None would talk to us, stating they were waiting instructions from Trump whether he wants them to testify for Trump the plaintiff or Trump the defense.
All of this, by the way, is decided behind-closed doors. It was the New York Times which broke the “fake news” story on the $230 million claim.
GOP Senator Thom Tillis said the case presented, “a lot of optic concerns.” Now, that’s scorching criticism. Yes, $230 million worth of optic concerns.
Trump promises he will not interfere. Indeed, he said he only heard about the claim after reading The Times.
We’re guessing you are wondering whether are any ethics officials in the DOJ. There were. Attorney General Pam Bondi fired the top official in July. She feared the official might rule against both the plaintiff and the defendant.
Another interesting thought: If the case goes to the Supreme Court would the three justices appointed by Trump recluse themselves since they were appointed by both parties in the case.
If Trump ultimately goes to trial and is sworn in as a witness, he’ll have to decide which side to lie for. If both accuse the other of lying, they are both correct.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://www.legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
