Welp

 

Expect it

 

Typical Trumpism draws another lawsuit

Women working at Trump National Golf Club in New Jersey were required to wear tight uniforms that were too small and told to “smile more,” as they endured “sexist remarks about their bodies and menstruation,” according to two lawsuits by former employees.

[...]

Maria Hadley, a former banquet server who worked at the private club, owned by President Donald Trump, from February until she resigned in August, says she suffered from a retaliation campaign after she reported a manager who spiked the drink of an underage employee with vodka. And Justine Sacks, who was hired as clubhouse manager in 2023, says that she was demoted and ultimately fired in May for reporting health and safety violations, including maggots and mold in the soft-serve machine.

[...]

Male managers and coworkers harassed their female peers, and called teenage guests “sexy.” When a guest inappropriately touched Hadley, a manager advised “they pay a lot of money to come here, just ignore it.”

Hadley reported in June that a bartender poured vodka into the Shirley Temple of an underage employee without the employee’s consent, saying it would give her energy.

The bartender was temporarily fired, but the club’s management launched a retaliation campaign against Hadley.

[...]

Sacks joined Trump National in January 2023 and was told from the onset to expect “gender differences” in treatment.

[...]

Sacks was also retaliated against for reporting unsanitary conditions at the club’s kitchens, which included expired and unlabeled food, and the bistro operating without running water, the complaint says.

[...]

Management told Sacks that she was new to working at golf clubs and was “wrapped too tight” when she complained about the sanitation conditions, as well as employees drinking and vaping on the job. But even Eric Trump asked the club’s management team to make sanitation a “huge focus” because a few health inspectors are “eager and politically motivated to try and embarrass us,” according to a copy of an email sent by the executive vice president in January 2024.

The clubhouse’s bistro-area became more unsanitary, and by September 2024 the soft-serve machine was filled with maggots and mold, the suit says. [...] Sacks was placed on a 90-day performance improvement plan in December 2024 for, among other issues, being “off-putting."

[...]

Schutzenhofer terminated Sacks in May, the lawsuit says, shortly after the club “failed miserably” a state health inspection.

  Inquirer

It doesn't get any more corrupt than this

 "Virtually won."   The only thing that stops this outrageous grift is if juries and judges rule against him.

Trump tax returns

Trump is suing the IRS and Treasury Department for $10 billion, as he accuses the federal agencies of a failure to prevent a leak of the president’s tax information to news outlets between 2018 and 2020.

The suit, filed in a Florida federal court Thursday, includes the president’s sons Eric Trump and, Donald Trump Jr. and the Trump organization as plaintiffs.

The filing alleges that the leak of Trump and the Trump Organization’s confidential tax records caused “reputational and financial harm, public embarrassment, unfairly tarnished their business reputations, portrayed them in a false light, and negatively affected President Trump, and the other Plaintiffs’ public standing.”

In 2024, former IRS contractor Charles Edward Littlejohn of Washington, D.C. — who worked for Booz Allen Hamilton, a defense and national security tech firm — was sentenced to five years in prison after pleading guilty to leaking tax information about Trump and others to news outlets.

  AP

So embarrassing and reputation tarnishing that they're bringing it back up to a public that, if they ever knew it happened, had long since forgotten about it.

The guy who leaked has already been punished.  The Trump family is, once again, just raiding the US treasury - your taxes.

UPDATE 06:31 pm:

Ooopsie

 

If forced to bet,

 I'd bet Trump will never be held accountable for any of his crimes beyond E Jean Carroll's case.

Cue pleading for emergency hearing with SCOTUS

A federal judge struck down President Donald Trump’s $15 billion defamation lawsuit against the New York Times, ruling that his complaint’s contents were “improper and impermissible.”

“A complaint is not a megaphone for public relations or a podium for a passionate oration,” the judge wrote.

  Democracy Docket

Trump's insane lawsuit against the New York Times

Just say gazillion. 

There are lots of things to ridicule in this lawsuit, but this paragraph alone probably contains all of them.

Get better lawyers.  Or at least a proof reader. ("each desire for President Trump fail" and "each....subjectively wishes...and each wish")  I like that they imply his prospects are not great by using the word "worsen".  

Also, they baselessly hate him in a deranged way?  Even if true, would that be illegal or even prejudicial?

And, ask and ye shall receive...these are the lawyers on that pleading:

He can't afford a decent attorney?  

I think it's probably that there's no use paying the fee for a decent attorney for this lawsuit, since it's bullshit and guaranteed to fail in court.  The success he's looking for here is the publicity punch.  And this is Trump's MO.  Sue to make the defendant waste time and money defending.  The outcome is immaterial, and a settlement or dropped suit serves his purposes.

Perhaps he drafted the pleading himself.

This is happening to them all, and none of them seem to learn the lesson.

UPDATE 09/19/2025:

The suit apparently claims that the Times printed that Mark Burnett (Apprentice producer) discovered Trump when Trump was already famous.  Jesus.

Epstein and Trump stories will not be going away soon

 

And in related news, Trump's lawsuit filed against Murdoch, et al., in the Southern District of Florida has been randomly assigned to Judge Darrin Gayles (an Obama appointee).  Guess who else is on the judicial rotation in that district that didn't draw the case?  Yep.  Aileen Cannon.  Reminds me of the old Maxwell Smart tag line: Missed it by this much.  Sad!

Trump drew Judge Gayles in his attempt to sue Michael Cohen back in 2023.  He dropped the case in short order ostensibly so he could campaign for his second term as president.  He was scheduled for a deposition in a matter of days.  I'm thinking that might be the actual reason.  I'm going to be looking for a repeat in this case.  He's not going to want to sit for deposition.  And he's not going to want that drawing/birthday card to be produced.

This is where fascism really takes off

 Destroy the free press.

So next up...CNN...

Sad!

 

That's right. Fight.

 

Oh, Jesus Joseph and Mary

 

Again. The whiniest POS on the planet.

Pathetic.

LOL.  But, I hope she has body and house guards.

Speaking of which...

Meanwhile...

I don't suppose THIS confusion is causing him any mental anguish.  But it is the rest of the world.

Christ!

Clueless

 

He's not so much confused as he is ignorant.

He means to get use out of his judges

Donald Trump is a former president who is set to become president again on January 20 despite having faced four felony prosecutions from three different prosecutors — one of which led to conviction — relating to actions he took when seeking the presidency, while president, and after leaving the presidency.

Sam Alito is a justice who, in addition to his flag issues, held private interviews with two conservative figures for glowing narrative-setting opinion columns — including with a lawyer who had a key case before the court — in which they wrote that it is Alito’s view that Congress has no authority to pass legislation relating to judicial ethics.

Now, they’ve teamed up for everyone’s favorite new nihilistic buddy comedy, sketched out by Alito himself on Wednesday, as first reported by ABC News:

  Lawdork

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito spoke to President-elect Donald Trump by phone Tuesday to recommend one of his former law clerks for a job in the new administration, ABC News has learned. "William Levi, one of my former law clerks, asked me to take a call from President-elect Trump regarding his qualifications to serve in a government position," Justice Alito confirmed to ABC News Wednesday. "I agreed to discuss this matter with President-elect Trump, and he called me yesterday afternoon."

  ABC News

It's a cozy clique.

"We did not discuss the emergency application he filed today, and indeed, I was not even aware at the time of our conversation that such an application would be filed," Alito said.

That's funny. Everybody else in the world knew it would be.

"We also did not discuss any other matter that is pending or might in the future come before the Supreme Court or any past Supreme Court decisions involving the President-elect."

Define "discuss".

On Wednesday, Trump asked the justices to immediately halt all criminal proceedings against him in New York, including Friday's sentencing, warning that failing to do so during a presidential transition would "damage" the presidency and disrupt "national security and America's vital interests."

[...]

Late last month, Trump waded into a momentous case over the future of the video-sharing app TikTok, asking the justices to delay an impending ban on the extraordinary grounds that he "alone possesses the consummate dealmaking expertise, the electoral mandate, and the political will to negotiate a resolution to save the platform while addressing the national security concerns expressed by the Government."

[...]

The Supreme Court has asked for a response from prosecutors in New York by Thursday at 10 a.m. ET. It's expected to weigh in on Trump's request by Friday morning.

Sentencing is scheduled for Friday.

It is not unusual for a sitting justice to offer a job recommendation for a former clerk, but it is rare, court analysts said, for a justice to have such a conversation directly with a sitting president or president-elect, especially one with an active stake in business pending before the court.

It's a new day in America.

"The justices of the Supreme Court are, among other things, employers to their law clerks," said ABC News contributor Kate Shaw, who clerked for former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens. "So providing a reference for a former employee is not atypical, whatever job a former clerk may be applying for -- an academic job, private sector job, or even a government job."

[...]

Levi is being considered for various legal jobs in the incoming administration, including general counsel of the Department of Defense, sources said. Levi, who clerked for Justice Alito from 2011-2012, served in the first Trump administration as chief of staff to then-Attorney General Bill Barr.

So then, there was no need for a reference or recommendation from Alito.*  

All bullshit, all corruption, all the fucking time.

UPDATE 01/09/2025:  And, another thing...

 Jesus Christ, this guy.  

I'll be interested in what SCOTUS does on this, and Trump's request to have the sentencing in his Stormy Daniels/falsification of records lawsuit in Manhattan set aside.**

UPDATE 01/09/2025 01:51 pm:

UPDATE 01/10/2025: 

* Apparently, the problem was precisely that Levi had worked for Bill Barr....

Justice Alito was being drawn into a highly personalized effort by some Trump aides to blackball Republicans deemed insufficiently loyal to Mr. Trump from entering the administration, according to six people with knowledge of the situation.

[...]

In the first Trump administration, he served as the chief of staff to Attorney General William P. Barr, who is now viewed as a “traitor” by Mr. Trump for refusing to go along with his efforts to overturn his loss in the 2020 election.

  NYT

**SCOTUS denied the request 5-4.  

E Jean Carroll still winning

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Pathetic

They loved her and touted her for years as the most accurate pollster on the planet until Trump's ridiculous suit against her for being wrong.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

"A good family"

And still counting.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Denied

I'm sure he did.

Mehta ordered Trump to begin describing the basis for his claim that he is immune from the lawsuits because his actions on Jan. 6 were part of his official duties as president. Trump had urged Mehta to sideline the lawsuits in part because he argued that disclosing details about his claim of presidential immunity could undermine his criminal defense.

  Politico

Because why?

Mehta, however, said questions about Trump’s immunity in the context of his lawsuits can be addressed without requiring him to admit to any particular actions he took on Jan. 6 — from the drafting of his speech at the Ellipse that day to his tweets and public commentary — that might also be relevant to his criminal case.

I'm apparently too dense to understand his angle. I know it's there. I can't see it.

“[B]oth cases center on the former President’s actions in the lead up to and on January 6, 2021,” Metha [sic] agreed. “But Defendant overstates the significance of that factual overlap in the present posture of these matters.”

[...]

Only one category of evidence in the civil case might implicate Trump’s Fifth Amendment rights, Mehta continued: his tweets from Jan. 6. But Mehta said he will not require Trump to admit whether he drafted any particular tweet, alleviating the concern that he might be forced to admit to conduct that could incriminate him.

It's a shame that a person has to juggle two cases that could each incriminate him in the other.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments next week on the immunity issue in the criminal case.

They've already aided him by taking the case and delaying hearing it.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.