Judge orders Trump to pay nearly $355 million in civil fraud trial

[DBA]

The people of New York was the plaintiff, not the bank. Whether the bank made or lost money is totally irrelevant.

How were the people of NY harmed?

Why weren’t these charges made years ago, prior to Trump becoming President?

 

[DBA]

While I personally think the judgement was fair in the big picture, and while I personally think Trump deserves this and much more for what he has done, I think Engoron has run the risk of going too far on the dollar amount.

I'm assuming that these numbers are defensible, i.e., that they are the result of specific calculations based on hard facts. That's a lot of money to hold up under scrutiny in an appeal. I guess we'll find out. The way the Orange Universe™ works, they'll play any reduction in the fine as a Great Victory And Validation of the Dear Leader.

This judgement would NEVER stand in a non-partisan court. The problem is, does that even exist in NYC?

 

[forkup]

How were the people of NY harmed?

Why weren’t these charges made years ago, prior to Trump becoming President?

Read the judgement. It's explained in there. It gives a history of the specific law and the reasoning for it.

The long and short of is that NY is the financial capitol of the US if not the world. And the beyond a reasonable doubt standard of fraud statutes means proving actual fraud is to hard and the state felt it necessary to create a law that would make it possible to at least make it possible to go after fraudsters in a civil sense. They figured not playing by the rules in NY would damage their status.

The law predates Trump by the way.

 

[forkup]

This judgement would NEVER stand in a non-partisan court. The problem is, does that even exist in NYC?

I'm sure you haven't read the judgement. So what specifically do you base your assertion on?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Yes, it actually is, but this is a political stunt. These charges would have never been filed if Trump would not have run or become President.

Why didn’t they pursue these charges the many years prior to Trump becoming President? Things that make you go hmmm.

Which charges were wrong ?
Just because you dont like it doesnt negate the proven facts that he is fraudulemt.

 

[DBA]

Read the judgement. It's explained in there. It gives a history of the specific law and the reasoning for it.

The long and short of is that NY is the financial capitol of the US if not the world. And the beyond a reasonable doubt standard of fraud statutes means proving actual fraud is to hard and the state felt it necessary to create a law that would make it possible to at least make it possible to go after fraudsters in a civil sense. They figured not playing by the rules in NY would damage their status.

The law predates Trump by the way.

Why didn’t they pursue this case long ago? I think we all know exactly why. Has this law been used in the past to convict someone? There are quite a large number of large business loans that have taken place over the years in NY since this law was enacted. Have they been scrutinized in the same way?

We all know that is going on here.

 

[forkup]

Why didn’t they pursue this case long ago? I think we all know exactly why. Has this law been used in the past to convict someone? There are quite a large number of large business loans that have taken place over the years in NY since this law was enacted. Have they been scrutinized in the same way?

We all know that is going on here.

They brought the charges within the statute of limitations. This was ruled on in pretrial motions.

And yes this law is used all the time. The Powerful New York Law That Finally Brought Trump to Book
.
And I'm sure some people have gotten away with it. That doesn't mean Trump should. People have gotten away with murder. So should we release all murderers?

 

[DBA]

Which charges were wrong ?
Just because you dont like it doesnt negate the proven facts that he is fraudulemt.

Again, why did they wait until now to pursue Trump? Also, has this law been applied in the past. How often? Is NY going to go back through the multitude of very large business loans in NY to determine if a loanee over-valued their holdings? The answer to this is a hard no because unless, the banks are harmed and complain, nobody cares.

Democrats are partisan hacks. NYC is a cesspool of partisan left-wing politics. Everyone should be ashamed of the judicial system in that city. I imagine many level-headed upstate New Yorkers despise the fact that their state is represented by such corruption and hypocrisy.

 

[DBA]

They brought the charges within the statute of limitations. This was ruled on in pretrial motions.

And yes this law is used all the time. The Powerful New York Law That Finally Brought Trump to Book
.
And I'm sure some people have gotten away with it. That doesn't mean Trump should. People have gotten away with murder. So should we release all murderers?

I didn’t say that it wasn’t within the statute of limitations. What I asked was why didn’t they pursue this much earlier? We all know the answer to this.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Again, why did they wait until now to pursue Trump? Also, has this law been applied in the past. How often? Is NY going to go back through the multitude of very large business loans in NY to determine if a loanee over-valued their holdings? The answer to this is a hard no because unless, the banks are harmed and complain, nobody cares.

Democrats are partisan hacks. NYC is a cesspool of partisan left-wing politics. Everyone should be ashamed of the judicial system in that city. I imagine many level-headed upstate New Yorkers despise the fact that their state is represented by such corruption and hypocrisy.

So you admit that trump is a fraudster but its ok because others allegedly do it..

 

[forkup]

I didn’t say that it wasn’t within the statute of limitations. What I asked was why didn’t they pursue this much earlier? We all know the answer to this.

He was president. Meaning prosecution is hard if not impossible. After he stopped being President he was charged. It's also simply not important.

A crime is a crime. It's telling that the arguments always carry some form of special pleading.

"It's a victimless crime."
"They waited to long."
" Other people have gotten away with it."
"The judge is biased."
" The prosecutor is biased."
"It's all political."

I've yet to see anybody on the right actually deny the factual allegations. In fact I can ask all of you to actually read what is said and I know none of you will.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

While I personally think the judgement was fair in the big picture, and while I personally think Trump deserves this and much more for what he has done, I think Engoron has run the risk of going too far on the dollar amount.

I'm assuming that these numbers are defensible, i.e., that they are the result of specific calculations based on hard facts. That's a lot of money to hold up under scrutiny in an appeal. I guess we'll find out. The way the Orange Universe™ works, they'll play any reduction in the fine as a Great Victory And Validation of the Dear Leader.

I'm assuming that these numbers are defensible, i.e., that they are the result of specific calculations based on hard facts.

LOL!
Liberal math is rarely based on hard facts.

 

[forkup]

I'm assuming that these numbers are defensible, i.e., that they are the result of specific calculations based on hard facts.

LOL!
Liberal math is rarely based on hard facts.

Actually in the judgement he took pains to explain how the calculation was done .

But then again. This would people to actually read the thing to pretend to have an informed opinion on.

 

[Flopper]

For all his complaining about being treated unfairly, he was given the longest rope by judge that I've ever seen. A person just can't do what he did. I don't know if this uncontrolled, manic behavior was just what he is, or whether it was showbiz for the campaign. Both, I guess?

Showing remorse requires some degree of inner strength, and most people AT LEAST have enough inner strength to do THAT. He does not. His mental/emotional issues are totally in control of everything he does. Not good when you have to act like a responsible adult in a courtroom.

It he wasn't running for president, he might act a bit saner but he can't escape his nature.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I told my bank my house was worth $1 trillion, they didn't loan me any money.
I told my town it was worth $100,000 and they didn't cut my tax bill.

When are the cops gonna come get me?

Why do you ask this stupid question?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I'm assuming that these numbers are defensible, i.e., that they are the result of specific calculations based on hard facts.

LOL!
Liberal math is rarely based on hard facts.

Wow, and now a mindless cult talking point?

 

[ThisIsMe]

No you havent. The injunction explains itself. You don't know what is in it. You're trying to go in circles and derail discussion.

There’s nothing in there about why they made that ruling. I’ve looked. If you have a specific link that describes the reasoning as to why they are making it had for him to move his business, post it. All the article that I find on google don’t mention it. You’d think someone would have written about it.


And no, I’m not going to read the entire 92 page ruling to find it, and I doubt anyone here has read it either

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There’s nothing in there about why they made that ruling.

Why they asked for and were granted the injunction?

Because it doesn't need to be in there. It explains itself.

They don't have to deal with internet posters being bad faith sealions for a week. The language is clear and concise and definitive.

 

[ThisIsMe]

The Judge's order and decision in the case requires the court to internally monitor Trump business operations in New York. So it is only reasonable that the judge require that Trump inform the court if they movie their business office.

I have a feeling if he tried to move his buisiness out of state, they would deny him. Like I said, they hate him, but they want his money, and what they want more than anything, is to ruin him

 

[Rawley]

He was president. Meaning prosecution is hard if not impossible. After he stopped being President he was charged. It's also simply not important.

A crime is a crime. It's telling that the arguments always carry some form of special pleading.

"It's a victimless crime."
"They waited to long."
" Other people have gotten away with it."
"The judge is biased."
" The prosecutor is biased."
"It's all political."

I've yet to see anybody on the right actually deny the factual allegations. In fact I can ask all of you to actually read what is said and I know none of you will.

Uh, This was a civil case.