Below is my column in The Messenger on the recent testimony of bankers in the Trump fraud trial. The testimony put the controversial demands of New York Attorney General James into sharp relief. The issue is not whether it is appropriate to fine businesses for under or over valuing property, but rather the nuclear option pursued by James in seeking effective dissolution of the company and a quarter of a billion dollars in penalities.
Here is the column:
“Curiouser and curiouser.” Those words from Alice in Wonderland seem the only apt description of the case unfolding in the New York courtroom of Justice Arthur F. Engoron over the alleged fraudulent practices of former president Donald Trump, his family and his business.
The charges brought by New York State Attorney General Letitia James were curious from the start. James had run for office on the pledge that she would hunt down Trump, a promise that apparently thrilled many New Yorkers. However, she brought a civil case based on Trump over- and under-estimating the values of his properties.
As some of us have previously stated, there do appear to have been assets that were inflated or deflated in value. That may be a common practice in New York real estate, but it is not a good practice. Indeed, I believe a penalty is warranted for such practices, but those should be uniformly imposed and would be a fraction of the fortune sought by James in this case.
The evidence shows that banks made money on these loans, which were paid off either early or on time. In fact, none of the banks complained about the Trump organization’s estimations, which were accompanied by a warning that the banks should not rely on those estimates.
Moreover, James is seeking to kill a corporation once viewed as iconic in New York, not just by denying the certificates for the Trumps to do business in the city but by imposing $250 million in penalties for money that no one actually lost.
That all became curiouser this week when two bankers were called by the defense. Rosemary Vrablic and David Williams worked on Deutsche Bank loans to the Trumps for years, and they testified that the banks made millions and viewed Trump as a much-sought-after “whale” client — what Vrablic described as a “very high net-worth individual.”
Williams testified that net worth is “subjective” in such documents as property valuations and are offered as mere “estimates.” It is not uncommon for a bank’s estimates to differ from a client’s.
Vrablic wrote emails at the time about the benefits to the bank in dealing with the Trumps, as well as pitches to the family that the bank was happy to extend conditions which allowed added benefits of “flexibility, rate and service” to get the business relationship.
Justice Engoron seemed irritated by the testimony, however, and when Trump counsel asked why the bank was so eager to secure future loans, Engoron snapped back: “They’re trying to make money. Why wouldn’t they be interested?”
The real question here is James’ overriding interest in killing the company. Engoron has already declared that Trump is guilty of fraud, and he is now weighing the massive penalties sought by James — and eagerly supported by many New Yorkers.
That eagerness could prove the court’s undoing, however. Some of Engoron’s earlier orders are currently under review. Yet it is James’ demand for the effective dissolution of the corporation and $250 million in penalties that could push this case beyond the curious to the unconstitutional.
It is relatively rare for civil damages to trigger constitutional review, and it is still far from clear that this case will rise to that level. The New York law is unique in allowing massive penalties without the loss of a single dollar by a bank. However, James wants dissolution and crippling damages, and that could trigger a higher-court review.
In 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court decided a case, BMW of North America v. Gore, striking down a punitive damage award. The case involved the practice of the company to repair and repaint cars damaged in transit without telling the customers. The jury in the original trial awarded $4,000 in compensatory damages for the lost value to the car in not having a factory paint job and other damage; it then imposed $4 million in punitive damages for the company’s dishonesty. Even though the Alabama Supreme Court previously reduced the punitive award by half, the U.S. Supreme Court still found that the award violated the Due Process Clause as “grossly excessive.”
While the High Court agreed on the need for punitive damages to deter future misconduct, it found the ratio between compensatory and punitive damages to be too great.
One distinction between that case and the Trump proceeding is that the Supreme Court found no intentionally false statements by BMW — but effective dissolution of Trump’s business and a quarter-billion dollars in damages may raise analogous concerns over excessive penalties.
In the Trump case, the banks made money. It would be akin to the car owner’s value going up with the paint job but still hitting BMW with punitive damages.
James is known for her embrace of nuclear options when it comes to political opponents or groups. She previously sought to persuade a court to force the dissolution of the National Rifle Association. The question is, what happens if she finally has found an enabling judge in Engoron?
The testimony of the bankers highlights how out of proportion this effort has become. One would expect the banks to have sought action as the aggrieved parties if they had suffered losses as a result of Trump misconduct. They did not. While they discontinued working with the Trumps after the start of the New York criminal and civil actions, they have remained silent.
It all reminds one of another great work. In Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s story, The Adventure of Silver Blaze, Sherlock Holmes investigated the disappearance of a racehorse. Holmes noted to the local inspector “the curious incident of the dog in the nighttime.”
When the inspector objected, “The dog did nothing in the night-time,” Holmes replied: “That was the curious incident.”
The lack of any barking by the banks is just another curious element in a case against Trump that gets curiouser and curiouser.
Jonathan Turley, an attorney, constitutional law scholar and legal analyst, is the Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law at The George Washington University Law School.
Massey Coal is another case on point.
The only party that could have been injured due to Trump’s evaluation of his property would be the Banks. The Banks have testified that they were not injured in any way but actually benefited by doing business with Trump. The only purpose of this prosecution is a blatant attempt to keep Trump off the ballot. This action against Trump should be considered an in kind contribution to the Democratic Party made by the state of New York. Hey all you New Yorkers, millions of your tax dollars are being spent on a lost cause. I get it. You like it. My daddy used to say, one hand rubs the other under the table.
Trump org’s been effectively dead since Vanks took off. The way Spanky makes money now is through political donations. You people give him $ in other words.
Eb
In Trump’s NY trial there is no jury in a case involving more than $25,
How can this be reconciled with our Constitutional Amendments 7 & 14, Sect. 1?
It’s not a federal case, and 7A has never been incorporated to the states.
The 14th Amendment Due Process clause incorporates the Bill of Rights, including the 7th Amendment, into state court.
No, it doesn’t.
This is not a debatable proposition. It’s clear, black letter law. The 7th amendment is not incorporated. If you think it is, you’re wrong.
OK, unfortunately I’m wrong. Instead, Trump’s lawyers will have to argue on appeal that the 8th Amendment forbids excessive fines in civil lawsuits. Otherwise, political prosecutors will use civil proceedings in state courts to bankrupt opposing party politicians. This loophole is yet another Democrat threat to democracy.
Granted, nothing stops Republicans from using similarly crafted civil law to upset political opposition. Perhaps state laws making conspiracy to deprive political parties of their right to vote on election day a civil tort, with a preponderance of evidence burden of proof, would work. It sure would make lawsuits against places like Maricopa County, AZ, a lot easier to win. Equitable remedies could be permanent removal of election officials, and forced change of voting machine vendors.
In case you missed it, half the voting machines in Maricopa County (Phoenix), AZ failed to work on Election Day, 2022. Waits went over 4 hours to vote. Maricopa County is a big GOP county, and Republicans tend to vote overwhelmingly on Election Day. Democrats won the 2022 election in Arizona by voter suppression in Maricopa County.
Professor Turley is playing the role of a ponderous law professor walking a thin line between his social standing within elite circles and reality. The unique law being used against Trump was created to prosecute Trump.
No, it wasn’t. It was created before Trump was even born.
That’s true, but James never met her burden of proof.
Engoron accepted this, and granted a summary judgement.
The whole thing smells.
It will be appealed on multiple counts. And if the appellate court doesn’t overturn, SCOTUS will.
Turley has been kind to James in that he states that the charges don’t need a ‘victim’ and that merely inflating one’s estimate is enough to be guilty of a crime.
Yet 63(12), while vague, has its own definition of fraud.
James hasn’t shown where fraud occurred.
Not only did Trump include a caveat, the bank did their own due diligence. They didn’t rely on Trump’s estimate except to identify the properties where he claimed ownership. If Trump lied about ownership, then it would be material and fraud. He didn’t.
The bankers also testified that he was given preferential treatment because he was a ‘whale’. That the follow on business would be more than enough to justify any risk.
Read 63(12) the statute used. Show me how Trump runs afoul of their definition.
-G
Professor. Turley,
This will be dismissed. From the J6 report as summarized by CNN:
“According to the report, “the lawyer had advised the witness that the witness could, in certain circumstances, tell the Committee that she did not recall facts when she actually did recall them.”
“When the witness raised concerns with her lawyer about that approach,” according to the summary, the lawyer said, “They don’t know what you know, [witness]. They don’t know that you can recall some of these things. So you saying ‘I don’t recall’ is an entirely acceptable response to this.”
“The lawyer instructed the client about a particular issue that would cast a bad light on President Trump: ‘No, no, no, no, no. We don’t want to go there. We don’t want to talk about that,'” the report said.
At the committee’s final public hearing, Lofgren said: “The witness believed this was an effort to affect her testimony, and we are concerned that these efforts may have been a strategy to prevent the Committee from finding the truth.”
Telling a witness to say “I don’t recall” when in fact she did recall is absolutely coaching the witness to lie. Telling her that she can plead the Fifth would not be. This is very clear.
This is also highly unethical.
From the J6th report… LMAO
Leticia James must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of corruption, abuse of power, malicious prosecution, color of authority et al. laws.
Leticia James must be thrown in prison, exiled, and deported for juridically-heinous, egregiously antithetical, anti-constitutional, and subversive acts.
George, you have a great sense of justice, but a questionable understanding of the law.
Wise Old Lawyer, Esquire,
I do always need a good lawyer for legal matters, it is so true; please do edify me.
I have been waiting to inquire of you regarding your recently posted position or implication that so-called “antitrust” laws are constitutional in an American environment of freedom and self-reliance, as opposed to collectivist tyranny and dictatorship. Please peruse and respond to the following:
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The American resolution is not dictatorship but free market competition; the answer is always competition. Those who resort to profanity in speech have failed; those who resort to tyranny in enterprise and industry have failed. Equity is the absence of bias and favoritism. The American thesis is freedom and self-reliance. And the answer is always competition.
I would like you to cite the Constitution, wherein Congress is provided any power to engage in central planning, control of the means of production, redistribution of wealth, and social engineering. You cannot—that “dictatorship of the hired help” does not exist in American fundamental law. You will, by contrast, find it featured prominently in Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto. His motto was and remains, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”
Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto 59 years after the adoption of the Constitution because none of the principles of the Communist Manifesto were in the Constitution. Had the principles of the Communist Manifesto been in the Constitution, Karl Marx would have had no reason to write the Communist Manifesto. The principles of the Communist Manifesto were not in the Constitution then and the principles of the Communist Manifesto are not in the Constitution now.
Government exists, under the Constitution and Bill of Rights, to provide maximal freedom to individuals while government is severely limited and restricted to merely facilitating that maximal freedom of individuals through the provision of security and infrastructure only.
The entire communistic American welfare state is unconstitutional including, but not limited to, admissions affirmative action, grade-inflation affirmative action, employment affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, minimum wage, rent control, social services, forced busing, public housing, utility subsidies, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, HHS, HUD, EPA, Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.
Article 1, Section 8, provides Congress the power to tax ONLY for debt, defense, and “…general (all, the whole) Welfare…,” omitting and, thereby, excluding any power to tax for individual Welfare, specific Welfare, particular Welfare, favor or charity. The same article enumerates and provides Congress the power to regulate ONLY money, the “flow” of commerce, and land and naval Forces. Additionally, the 5th Amendment right to private property was initially qualified by the Framers and is, therefore, absolute, allowing no further qualification, and allowing ONLY the owner the power to “claim and exercise” dominion over private property.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“[Private property is] that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”
– James Madison
To Wise Old Lawyer: Assuming argue do that AG James may have interpreted Section 63(12) of the New York Executive Law correctly in bringing this case, would you agree that the state causing the dissolution of the Trump corporations and the loss of any required permits to conduct business in NYC would be an unconstitutional “taking” of property?
@Catherine Cassidy.
You’re getting ahead of yourself.
She’s asking for the huge fine which would be unconstitutional.
It doesn’t matter.
James has already won. She won the moment Engoron ruled in her favor with the summary judgement.
This is just window dressing to argue for the excessive fine and loss of business licenses in NY.
Its to sink Trump.
They know that they will lose on appeal. They don’t care.
The purpose is to cause Trump damage and to give the MSM fodder to attack Trump.
This is why if Trump goes scorched earth, James is on thin ice and could be sued for malicious prosecution.
Even if you take the most favorable reading of 63(12) for James… there was no fraud as defined in the statute.
-G
Yes, just like China Joe.
And yet the show goes on…
We have a thicket of laws everyone is supposed to obey, yet if there is no justice for Trump, there is no justice for anyone it seems but democrat politicians who are ignored.
Time to clean my musket and head to the harbor.
It is time for Republicans (and fair-minded Independents) to boycott New York State and City. Cancel vacations and send letters to the Governor and the newspapers telling them why. When NY voters discover the cost of their fanaticism, they will change their voting habits.
How was it possible for the heart, mind and soul of our constitutional republic to be eroded, resulting in our current state of affairs ? A humanitarian award awaits an answer resulting in re-establishing the basic values and ideals of our constitution with free markets supported by a sound currency.
If you want to know, here is one source: Look for the YouTube video with this title:
KGB Defector Yuri Bezmenov 1985 Interview. Explains KGB Manipulation of US Public Opinion
Or maybe he was a KGB plant.
Apologies in advance for the length of this comment.
Professor Turley states, “The testimony of the bankers highlights how out of proportion this effort has become. One would expect the banks to have sought action as the aggrieved parties if they had suffered losses as a result of Trump misconduct. They did not. While they discontinued working with the Trumps after the start of the New York criminal and civil actions, they have remained silent.”
Amen. He is absolutely correct on this.
Of course, ALL claims of fraud (civil or criminal) generally involve intentional misrepresentation 1) upon which the the “victim” RELIED; and 2) causing detriment/harm to victim AS A RESULT OF THAT RELIANCE. (known in legal jargon as “detrimental reliance’)
In this case, as the professor clearly points out, there is no “victim” and no “harm,” let alone “reliance” on the property valuations submitted by the Trump Organization, et al.
In the very Northern Leasing Systems case cited by Letitia James in her complaint, as support for this present case, the state appellate court noted,
“Under Executive Law § 63(12), ‘the test for fraud is whether the targeted act has the capacity or tendency to deceive or creates an atmosphere conducive to fraud’ ( People v. General Elec. Co., 302 A.D.2d 314, 314, 756 N.Y.S.2d 520 [1st Dept. 2003] ).
[Further said the court], ‘Executive Law § 63(12) was meant to protect not only the average consumer, but also the ignorant, the unthinking, and the credulous’ ( id. [internal quotation marks omitted]). ‘[P]ublic reports and lawsuits of alleged fraud are sufficient to put a plaintiff on inquiry notice of fraud’ ( Aozora Bank, Ltd. v. Deutsche Bank Sec. Inc., 137 A.D.3d 685, 689, 29 N.Y.S.3d 10 [1st Dept. 2016] ).”https://casetext.com/case/people-v-n-leasing-sys-inc-7
Does anyone believe that the happy banks in the Trump case represent “the average consumer, but also the ignorant, the unthinking, and the credulous?”
Indeed, in the Northern Leasing Systems case, some 800+ business complaints had been filed against Northern by parties proper to lease contracts. Likewise, the General Electric case, multiple consumer complaints had been filed against GE. Accordingly, the state AG stepped in, invoking 63(12).
Further, in the above cases, the defendants had attempted to invoke (as defense) NY General Business Law § 349, under which the plaintiff must prove that the challenged act or practice “was misleading in a material way” (Stutman v. Chemical Bank, 95 N.Y.2d 24, 29), and that “the deceptive practice must be `likely to mislead a reasonable consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances” (id., quoting Oswego Laborers’ Local 214 Pension Fund v. Marine Midland Bank, 85 N.Y.2d 20, 26).
It appears to me that the intent of 63(12) does not even expand to protect the likes of non-complaining banks that are in the business of independently making loans to desirable applicants,- after conducting their own internal assessments of risk. In this case, the banks’ silences and failures to even allege that they were defrauded is significant, -not only standing alone, but as lack of indicia of any violation under 63(12).
Thus speaketh lin (the “moron” identified by green Anonymous a few days ago)
Thanks for reading through this.
(I modify my sentence, above, “In this case, as the professor clearly points out, there is no “victim” and no “harm,” let alone “reliance” on the property valuations submitted by the Trump Organization, et al.”
to insert the word, “alleged,” as in, “there is no alleged victim and no harm, let alone reliance….”
Apologies in advance for the length of this comment.
Can we clone you? If only commenters like you were the rule and not the exception.
Me doth think the lady does NOT speaketh enuf
😜
Thus speaketh lin (the “moron” identified by green Anonymous a few days ago)
Stick around, lin. Theyve called me everything from Russian troll, wished I would kill myself (just 3 days ago by YNOT), of authoring the majority of the comments using sockpuppets, Benson has denigrated my Catholicism, cast aspersions on my knowledge of the sciences, and more. George once called me a coward for “abandoning” family in Cuba. George of all of the nucken futs on here.
the trolls are not worthy to untie the straps of your book bag, lin. I enjoy your intellectual input greatly.
Apologies in advance for the length of this comment.
Can we clone you? If only commenters like you were the rule and not the exception.
Me doth think the lady does NOT speaketh enuf
Estovir, seriously?
Although I agree with most of your comments, here, I would love to do a word count/post for the last two month on your posts. John Say and you would be ranked 1st and 2nd, I have no doubt.
I rarely get past the third paragraph.
Estovir IS the troll behind Thinkthrough, Shakadi, Upstate Farmer, Iowa2, Guy Ventner, Ralph Chappell, Edward Mahl, Hullbobby, Margot Ballhere, dogsnowden and many, many more!!
Honestly, as much as we call many of you dumber than rocks provacateurs here trolls, I am thoroughly convinced that YOU are the only troll here bugboy. There is a good chance that Dennis is a paid “troll”, but at least his garbage provides entertainment fodder. Someone pisses u off, you call them a troll, someone gives you back some of your nonsense, you call them a troll. You claim people are sockpuppets when clearly they are not. And then there is your latest childish tactice of bombing every comment with “no, it doesn’t”. Your only goal here is and always has been to disrupt and deplete any worthwhile conversation. You truly add nothing positive and are gleeful about ruining it.
We all know who the real troll is here.
Coo-coo, coo-coo.
I don’t recall that plus my posts never post. Now if one got through I am sure you will interpret it as you see appropriate. I am going to have to search for that one.
I checked on Nov. 30 th, I inferred that you are also Antonio. I can’t believe a catholic would lie.
Thanks for sharing your analysis, Lin! While I haven’t read any of the he case law under Section 63(12) of the Executive Law, your analysis makes sense to me. I have followed some of the other cases brought by AG James. I thought that the case she brought against the Securities and Exchange Commission in 2020 was nonsensical. As a New York State taxpayer and a member of the New York bar, I am outraged at the manner in which Letitia James squanders taxpayer dollars.
Jonathan: Boy, you missed a lot of the important developments in DJT’s NY civil fraud case. Like the $40 million he tried to secretly shift out of his companies. He was caught red-handed by Barbara Jones, the court monitor. Then the NY Court of Appeals this week reimposed Judge Engoron’s gag order after DJT continued to attack the judge’s law clerk–and even the judge’s wife. Small details you missed.
But let’s get to the heart of your argument–which echoes the claims of DJT. First, you admit DJT overvalued his properties to get the loans from Deutsche Bank. You say that is “common in NY real estate” but is not a “good practice.” DJT lied on his statement of financial conditions to get those loans. That’s not just bad practice it’s illegal in NY. AG James is not just targeting DJT. She has gone after other companies for the same “practice” and has shut them down.
You also endorse DJT’s defense there were no “victims”. Deutsche Bank made money. The problem with that argument is that there were “victims”–the people of NY. DJT got over $300 million in loans through fraud. That deprived other clients from getting similar loans.
Now to the testimony of Deutsche bankers Rosemary Vrablic and David Williams that was not helpful to DJT’s defense. They were the sales people, the “rainmaker’s”, who considered DJT the big “whale” that would bring lots of business to the bank. Vrablic, in particular, helped smooth over any problems the DJT loans. She cultivated her relationship with Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump. She even attended DJT’s 2016 inauguration. On cross examination Vrablic admitted she never reviewed DJT fraudulent statement of financial conditions when she was working out the terms of the loans. What is interesting about Vrablic is that at the end of 2020 she was forced to resign from Deusche Bank over a questionable 2013 real estate transaction between her and a company partly owned by Jared Kushner–a transaction she didn’t disclose. Probably another reason Vrablic’s testimony was not credible. Judge Engoron was not impressed with the testimony of either Vrablic or Williams: “The mere fact that the lenders were happy, doesn’t mean that the statute wasn’t violated”.
So what happens next in the trial? DJT’s other son Eric will testify next week followed by DJT on Dec. 11. If Don Jr’s testimony is any indication it will not go well. More of how great DJT’s companies are–the creme de la creme of NY real estate, etc., etc. All of that sales hype won’t work before Judge Engoron. The facts matter. Engoron has also found DJT guilty of persistent fraud in obtaining loans. The only Q left is how much DJT is going to have to disgorge. I expect it will be a lot. And your continued defense of DJT does become “curiouser and curiouser”.
For me, the major factor in all of this is the “two-tiered” nature of the justice enforcement apparatus. Anything to “Get Trump”, or lawyers who help him, and it is curiously disproportionate. Anyone can see this, gazing through the sea of enormous fraud in the Pelosis, the Menendez, the Bidens, the Clintons. Yes. Curious and curiouser.
I don’t bother mentioning the lies from Dennis because there are too many, and generally, they exist in each sentence, but this idiocy deserves special treatment.
“The problem with that argument is that there were “victims”–the people of NY. DJT got over $300 million in loans through fraud. That deprived other clients from getting similar loans.”
Dennis is entering the Twilight Zone with that statement unless one recognizes that Dennis is always in the Twilight Zone.
It seems to me, and about half the country, that issuing a gag order against an opposition presidential candidate, based on the judge not liking being attacked in the court of public opinion, is a gross violation of the 1st Amendment. This action makes the judge, and the Democrats, domestic enemies of the Constitution, and the real threat to democracy. The trumped up charges against Trump (pun intended) are definitely a campaign issue, and should be fair game for discussion in any free and fair election. It’s ludicrous that porn has been allowed under the 1st Amendment, but Trump speaking about political issues in a presidential campaign has been limited by court order.
At the risk of being gagged politically, I have to say that legal pot is leading to some strange judicial decisions recently. Or perhaps the judge is basing his oucomes on politics, and working backwards to a legal justification. Either way, the judge is like Achmed, The Dead Terrorist. “Silence, or I fine you and put you in jail.”
So…I present a lender a list of my assets which includes my statement of the the value of each asset….then at that bottom of the document just above my signature I include a bold print note that instructs the Lender to do its own due diligence and they do….make their adjustments….then LOAN me the money which I pay back early or on time per the Loan Agreement….and they suffer no loss of any kind….and the State of New York wants to fine me a quarter of a Billion Dollars and remove me from my businesses?
Folks, if you cannot grasp the lunacy in this…..there is no hope for you.
I don’t care how much you hate Trump the Man….what is being done here is pure evil.
Who is. next…you?
Smith as requested data on everyone that ever had any contact with Trump…..is that the kind of society we are to live in these days?
This is not made up stuff folks.
What if Trump wins the White House and the Republicans win control of both houses of Congress…..whose turn in the barrel will it be….and who started this mess?
Count on it….this agenda is not going to end well for anyone.
Thank you, Mr. Chappell.
One, the republicans won’t do a similar thing, as they can’t even get the demoncrats on actual crimes they constantly get let off the hook for, let alone made up crimes like the demoncrats do to the republicans.
So threatening the dim dems with retaliation is something they laugh in your face about.
Even if republicans could get a conviction on real crimes the dems commit, they tend to go easy and cooperate, forgive and forget, like their Faith tells them to do, because hey, they realize they are in the hot seat and will get hammered relentlessly for any move even interpreted as possibly ethically suspect, and likely kicked down the curb and probably lawfared and penniless at the end.
IT’S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN AND THE DEMS AND EVERYONE ELSE KNOWS IT.
The trials are the punishment. They take the defendants’ time and money. The next GOP Administration should prosecute everyone in chanrge of Hunter Biden’s tax fraud investigation for obstruction of justice. Start at the bottom and work up. Any immunity deals should be conditioned on the conviction of other people, if that’s legal. Otherwise, no deals until sentencing. The prosecution is the punishment. Who cares if no DC jury will convict.
In the meantime, a Republican Commander in Chief can fire the lot of them by revoking their security clearances permanently.
What is particularly curios is Turkey’s declaration, “ As some of us have previously stated, there do appear to have been assets that were inflated or deflated in value. That may be a common practice in New York real estate, but it is not a good practice. Indeed, I believe a penalty is warranted for such practices, but those should be uniformly imposed and would be a fraction of the fortune sought by James in this case.”
Why should there be a penalty for believing your properties are worth X, when there is no criminal or fraudulent intent? Turley simply does not say. The answer is everyone is entitled to a belief, protected by the first amendment. Turley is silent on this. he believes, as does the corrupt AG crime has been committed in level of penalties deserved. However, Turley never expresses why
As the saying goes, “The process is the punishment.” Trump is already paying a “penalty”.
It’s not curious. It’s to the law and justice, what Newsom concocted in SF for Xi’s visit was to drug abuse and homelessness: Theater.
I bought and sold a number of ranches in the West over a couple of decades. Sellers have an asking price for a property but how I would view the sales price would be different — 50% different was entirely possible. Kevin Beck, early in these comments, listed three ways of trying to arrive at a valuation which encapsulates most of the issue, but which still doesn’t explain wild divergences of opinion on valuation. In my case, when it came to using earnings for making a counter-offer, a sharp pencil analysis of how a ranch could be used to earn money would never come anywhere near what the seller was asking. Comps were often comps only in a vague sort of sense; most properties are unique in many ways. The one method of valuation Mr. Beck doesn’t list is “potential”. Potential explains how a property fits with one’s current holdings to enhance the valueof all. Potential explains stock prices for public companies that on the basis of earnings look stupid. In this sense the ranches I considered had, and continue to have, potential because there is so much wealth in the U.S. that people will overpay for practically anything, especially if it grants them some social status — a psychological good; combine this with persistent inflation and the potential a property holds for merely maintaining wealth will validate the “potential” argument for seemingly outrageous prices. It seems to me that Trump is always “potential” on steroids.
How can anyone analyze this honestly? Professor, you may sincerely state you “believe a penalty is warranted for such practices” as over-valuation but this only criminalizes differences of opinion which we already suffer far too much of.
I often felt I had overpaid for the ranches I purchased, but by the time I sold the ranch or sold a portion of it, I had done just fine. In this Trump case everyone involved did just fine except utterly deranged partisans who are now hoping to get the price they really wanted long after the sale.
@Kevin,
This is a bit different, although similar.
Its not buying or selling, but in establishing your credit worthiness.
The banks have a fiduciary responsibility to vet the applicant and to determine the relevant risks.
Trump fills out the loan application and provides an estimate of his net worth to show that he has the funds to pay back the loan.
The valuation isn’t to buy or sell, but to determine if the collateral being pledged is enough to cover any potential losses.
Trump gave his estimate, the bank determined theirs which was 1/2 of what Trump estimated.
Still they gave him the loan and because of his position in the industry, they gave him extra considerations to win his business.
This is why 63(12) falls apart. No fraud, especially by the definition presented in 63(12) occurred.
The bankers’ testimony sinks James and the lawsuit.
-G