Donald I, emperor of the world.

[briantrumpet]

I think whether it's UK or US, if you are claiming a financial loss, you can't just make something up on the back of a fag packet. You have to be able to demonstrate a loss.

He's probably just hoping he'll get Aileen Cannon, who has a very tenuous grasp of, erm, law. And even if she does understand it, is perfectly willing to ignore it anyway.

Not really following this one... maybe there's already a judge assigned, but Trump will be hoping whoever it is is either corrupt or incompetent (or both).

 

[Pblakeney]

He's probably just hoping he'll get Aileen Cannon, who has a very tenuous grasp of, erm, law. And even if she does understand it, is perfectly willing to ignore it anyway.

Not really following this one... maybe there's already a judge assigned, but Trump will be hoping whoever it is is either corrupt or incompetent (or both).

IIRC there has been a judge appointed but Donnie doesn't like them* so is looking for a replacement.

*Aka not in his pocket.

 

[UglyWithaSidePart]

I for a while worked in a computer forensic department of a large bank, just before the whole 'discovery' rules came in, meaning that lawyers could oblige us to provide everything about a person, or project or whatever. We all thought it would lead to absolutely loads of frivolous discovery requests, but quite the opposite as it turned out. As it's a 2 way street.
Discovery lead to less litigation, not more (at least when I worked that role).
Anyway, the BBC will know this and if their house is in order, they will (ab)use the discovery process to absolutely ruin Trump, which is why I don't think it will get that far.

 

[briantrumpet]

IIRC there has been a judge appointed but Donnie doesn't like them* so is looking for a replacement.

*Aka not in his pocket.

Figures. I assume the appointed judge either has to voluntarily withdraw, or Trump has to prove likely bias/conflict of interest. Given Trump's recent court losses, it feels increasingly less likely that a court will acquiesce to his demands in a case that commentary suggests is already very weak for Trump, and ripe for a 'summary tossing'.

Hmm, 'summary tossing'... 🤔

 

[C R]

Hmm, 'summary tossing'... 🤔

Obligatory lord of the rings meme

 

[Pinno718]

I for a while worked in a computer forensic department of a large bank, just before the whole 'discovery' rules came in, meaning that lawyers could oblige us to provide everything about a person, or project or whatever. We all thought it would lead to absolutely loads of frivolous discovery requests, but quite the opposite as it turned out. As it's a 2 way street.
Discovery lead to less litigation, not more (at least when I worked that role).
Anyway, the BBC will know this and if their house is in order, they will (ab)use the discovery process to absolutely ruin Trump, which is why I don't think it will get that far.

Would that not boil down to how much air time it all gets?
Fox news is hardly going to broadcast it unless they can come up with some victimisation/unfairness gobbledegook narrative.

 

[Beebo]

I think whether it's UK or US, if you are claiming a financial loss, you can't just make something up on the back of a fag packet. You have to be able to demonstrate a loss.

I would not put anything past this guy.

You know he just settled a case against his own government and the IRS for $1.8billion.