Relatively small shortfall? the difference relatively small shortfall? the difference with relatively small shortfall? the difference with this one it is a pension difference with this one it is a pension and allowance docket or voucher. pension and allowance docket or voucher. in pension and allowance docket or voucher, in this case, the vouchers were voucher, in this case, the vouchers were overstated, there s a number of different were overstated, there s a number of different types of fraud that took place different types of fraud that took place concerning vouchers and this is an place concerning vouchers and this is an overstated voucher, the value had been is an overstated voucher, the value had been increased and it was first found had been increased and it was first found and had been increased and it was first found and detected during a routine check found and detected during a routine check by found and detected during a routine check by the dwp in their branch. what check by the dwp in their branch. what you check by the dwp in their branch. what you are saying, 27 vouchers, total value of £3000. correct, yes. the court of appeal says on the 6th of september 2003 she was sentenced to six months in prison suspended for two years and as a result of the proceeding she was forced to file for bankruptcy. the post office decided to pursue criminal charges
Something that had already been decided. there are a remaining six counts with respect to insurance fraud that they have argued has not been proven and some of the paperwork involved, and that s what you see remaining on the docket. in terms of what has already been decided around the general notion of fraud and the intention to commit it, yes, that question is well settled. i think that, again, to peter s point, part of this is litigating in the court of public opinion. part of this is sort of the many times that i say this, hopefully at some point it will catch wind to somewhere, to someone, and this narrative will become true. i don t think that they realize or believe, rather, that it s going to be a successful legal strategy. i think that they are still trying to make the case that, for example, we shouldn t be here and, therefore, whatever the damages that you are going to award letitia james and the state, should be as minimal as possible, but i don t think strategically that this is the right approach and the way to do it. so strategically, let s talk a little bit about this, peter, because you have to go back and just look at the idea that donald trump decided that he was
The value of trump s assets. the judge said he ll aim to file a written decision on the docket by the end of january. so former president just wrapped his closing arguments, he s now speaking. let s listen. the judge is obviously extremely friendly with the group and we ll see what happens. i think maybe they surprise people on a positive side, we ll have to see what happens exactly. but we have proven this case so conclusively, millions and millions of pages, years of litigation and politically motivated. she campaigned on i will get trump, she has serious trump derangement syndrome, james, the corrupt attorney general of new
Pay taxes, how many more years this went on. who else in the biden family benefitted from the money he s bringing in and the money he s refusing to report on his taxes. that s what they tried to do in wilmington. they were too greedy and trying to get too good terms out of the government. so i think what will happen, neil, this is probably not going to trial. i think hunter is going to have to accent some draconian settlement terms from the government in order to take this off of the docket. neil: here s where the congressional probe weighs in to some of the issues coming up, gentleman. jonathan turley will explore this with you. obviously the issue is hunter biden and the money he made and didn t pay taxes on. better than $7 million in gross income. he failed to pay taxes on it and costing about 1.5 million. they said he funded an an extravagant lifestyle.
D.c. let s bring in washington times legal affairs reporter attorney alex. i m not the first to say this, the appeals panel seemed a bit skeptical about the former president s immunity claim. what do you think? yeah, even the g.o.p. appointees seem skeptical. i don t think the arguments went well for president trump but i do think time is on his side, given the normal trajectory of these cases. it usually takes months for an opinion, even if they were to get this out within the next few weeks. i don t know if they would be able to fit on the docket this term. that means they take it up closer to the election next term, which means we could be here months from now talking about if he were to end, can he pardon himself or drop these charges. this question could go on the