Below is my column in The Hill on the $355 million verdict against Trump and his corporation in New York. The damages in my view are excessive and absurd after the court acknowledged that no one lost a dime in these exchanges. Indeed, the “victims” wanted to do more business with Trump and made handsome profits. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul has rushed to assure businesses that there is “nothing to worry about” after the corporate public execution of Trump and his company. The assumption seems to be that you have nothing to fear from confiscatory actions unless you are Trump in New York. That is precisely why the New York Court of Appeals should act to redeem the integrity of the legal system by setting aside or drastically reducing this award.
Here is the column:
In laying the foundation for his sweeping decision against former President Donald Trump, Judge Arthur Engoron observed that “this is a venial sin, not a mortal sin.” Yet, at $355 million, one would think that Engoron had found Trump to be the source of Original Sin.
The judgment against Trump (and his family and associates) was met with a level of unrestrained celebration by many in New York that bordered on the indecent. Attorney General Letitia James declared not only that Trump would be barred from doing business in New York for three years, but that the damages would come to roughly $460 million once interest was included.
That makes the damages against Trump greater than the gross national product of some countries, including Micronesia. Yet the court admitted that not a single dollar was lost by the banks from these dealings. Indeed, witnesses testified that they wanted to do more business with Trump, who was described as a “whale” client with high yield business opportunities.
Undervaluing and overvaluing property is a longstanding practice in New York real estate. The forms submitted by the Trump organization cautioned the banks to do their own estimates and the loans were paid in full and on time. Yet, the New York law used by James is a curiosity because it does not actually require a victim. Indeed, everyone can make ample profits and still allow for an investigation into “repeated fraudulent or illegal acts.”
Having campaigned on bagging Trump on any basis, James turned the law into a virtual license to hunt him down along with his family and his associates.
Engoron proved the perfect judge for the case. The opinion itself seems almost cathartic for the jurist who struggled with Trump inside and outside of court. In the judgment, Engoron fulfilled Oscar Wilde’s rule that the only way to be rid of temptation is to yield to it. He ordered everything short of throwing Trump into a wood chipper.
The size of the damages is grotesque and should shock the conscience of any judge on appeal. Even if the Democrat-appointed judges on the New York Court of Appeals were to ignore the obvious inequity and unfairness, the United States Supreme Court could intervene.
State courts tend to get a significant amount of deference in the interpretation of their own laws. After all, if New York wants to turn Wall Street into a remake of “The Hunger Games,” it has only itself to blame as other businesses flee the state.
The impact on New York business is likely to be dire. New York is already viewed as a hostile business environment, with the top end of its tax base literally heading south as taxes and crime rises. This draconian award is only going to deepen concerns over the arbitrary application of the law by figures like James, who previously sought to disband the National Rifle Association. (She has shown less interest in cracking down on liberal organizations like Black Lives Matter or the National Action Network of Al Sharpton despite their own major financial scandals.)
As James gleefully uses this law to break up a major New York corporation, it is hard to imagine many businesses rushing to the Big Apple. This follows Democratic politicians such as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.) campaigning against Amazon seeking to open new facilities in the city. After this week, drawing new businesses to the city is going to be about as easy as selling country estates during the French Revolution.
The one hope for New York businesses may be the U.S. Supreme Court. Despite the deference afforded to the states and their courts, the court has occasionally intervened to block excessive damage awards.
For example, in 1996, the justices limited state-awards of punitive damages under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In that case, BMW was found to have repainted luxury cars damaged in transit without telling buyers.
An Alabama jury awarded $4,000 in compensatory damages for the loss of value in having a factory paint job, but then added $4 million in punitive damages. Even when the Alabama Supreme Court reduced that to $2 million, the U.S. Supreme Court still found it excessive. Even liberals on the Court such as John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer agreed that such “grossly excessive” awards raise a “basic unfairness of depriving citizens of life, liberty, or property, through the application of arbitrary coercion.”
The court may find almost half a billion dollars in damages without a single lost dollar from a victim to be a tad excessive.
That prospect will not dampen the thrill-kill environment in New York this week. In electing openly partisan prosecutors such as James and District Attorney Alvin Bragg, voters have shown a preference for political prosecutions and investigations.
In “Bonfire of the Vanities,” Tom Wolfe wrote about Sherman McCoy, a successful businessman who had achieved the status of one of the “masters of the universe” in New York. In the prosecution of McCoy for a hit-and-run, Wolfe described a city and legal system devouring itself in the politics of class and race. The book details a businessman’s fall from a great height — a fall that delighted New Yorkers.
It is doubtful Trump will end up as the same solitary figure wearing worn-out clothes before the Bronx County Criminal Court clutching a binder of legal papers. But you do not have to feel sorry or even sympathetic for Trump to see this award as obscene. The appeal will test the New York legal system to see if other judges can do what Judge Engoron found so difficult: set aside their feelings about Trump.
New York is one of our oldest and most distinguished bars. It has long resisted those who sought to use the law to pursue political opponents and unpopular figures. It will now be tested to see if those values transcend even Trump.
Jonathan Turley is the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University Law School.
Small excerpt from James Kunstler this morning:
In New York City, the Woke lunatics did a victory dance after Judge Arthur Engoron, beaming his Joker smile, laid a $350-million fine on Mr. Trump for conducting a set of normal real estate transactions with a bank that profited from doing business with him. Many are still trying to figure out how that amounts to a crime of any sort. Don’t suppose that the check is in the mail, though. There is an appeals process that leads, you may be sure, to a dismissal of that inane judgment and the puerile hypotheticals that the case derived from. And, by and by, you also might expect a countersuit for malicious prosecution when all that smoke clears. New York Attorney General Letitia James, lacking impulse control, is for the moment enjoying the fulfillment of her campaign promise to “get Trump.” Waiting to see how much she enjoys losing her law license in the days to come.
Government power is constrained only when prosecutors and courts stay tightly within the laws passed by legislators. Novel uses of legislation against current or former politicians destroys the limits on government power and also infringes protected speech. The Constitution must be found to prevent prosecutors from using the law in unforeseen ways against candidates for office. Otherwise we will lose all our civil liberties.
“…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”
“…men…do…what their powers do not authorize, [and] what they forbid.”
“[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
– Alexander Hamilton
Being a candidate for office does not and should not protect the person if s/he acts illegally.
Being a human being should protect the person from malicious persecution based on ridiculous charges that fail to adhere to legal norms and make no sense except to demented clowns suffering from some kind of political derangement syndrome. But we live in clown world in which the TDS patients are running the circus.
I’m going to guess that you haven’t read the rulings (finding fraud and for the disgorgement) and don’t know the actual evidence.
JT discussed the “actual evidence.” Deutsche Bank testified apparently that it did not rely on Trump’s valuations, that it did not lose any money, and that it valued Trump as a client. Do you dispute those statements?
Analymous, stop throwing out “you haven’t read the full decision…” as some sort of badge or cudgel, it does not make you a legal scholar and in fact most of us doubt you even understood it at all. many of us went to law school, passed the bar and some even practiced for many years, so stop pontificating, patronizing and making a fool of yourself. Watching L A Law does not make you F. Lee Bailey.
PS. Or learned Hand.
They are referred to as decompensating parasitic megalomaniacal communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs, AINOs).
Really?? Then why aren’t Joe Biden, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in prison then??
“IT’S OK TO BE [A FREE AMERICAN].”
– Rasmussen
_______________
Only 53% of [communists] agree while 47% disagree.
__________________________________________________________
“[Communists] are a hate group.”
“As you know, I’ve been identifying as [communist] for a while – years now – because I like – you know, I like to be on the winning team.”
“The best advice I would give to [actual American] people is to get the hell away from [communist] people.”
“Just get the f*** away.”
“Wherever you have to go, just get away because there’s no fixing this.”
“You just have to escape, so that’s what I did.”
– Scott Adams, “Dilbert”
IMH Questioning: Is NYC and NY state trying to balance their budget? What other businessman in the state has as much, more, or almost as much as Trump? They want the rich to pay more. Everyone complains of “loopholes”; but Congress made the tax laws. Did they do it for themselves, not thinking that anyone else would use those same tax rules? Yes, Pres. Trump is a big mouth. If he had only kept quiet, backed out of the 2016 race and let Hillary win, none of these cases would be in court. They would not have looked twice at him.
What New York Governor Kathy Hochul said: “Law abiding and rule following New Yorkers who are businesspeople have nothing to worry about because they’re very different than Donald Trump and his behavior.”
What New York Governor Kathy Hochul meant: “If you run a business with any connection to New York, don’t even look sideways at the Democrat party or we will f*** you eight ways to Sunday.”
Epstein didn’t kill himself.
Responding to your moniker there is this: https://dailycaller.com/2024/02/10/jeffrey-epstein-mark-releases-autopsy-photos-megyn-kelly
Dig in and you can see Epstein’s neck wound as he lay on the autopsy table. It is level, as if he were killed with a garrote. Hanging would likely have left a slanted wound. Of course the feds can explain that Epstein first killed himself with a garrote and then strung himself up for the visuals. Not any more implausible than most of the information coming from Biden’s DC.
Thank God for appeals.
“8 Ways We Regularly Commit Felonies Without Realizing It” (excerpted)
“You might even commit a felony or two today, who knows?”
“The fact is that we live in an overcriminalized society where vague federal laws are dangerous for everyone, lawyers, judges and police officers included. This ambiguity invites varying interpretations and could stamp a permanent criminal record on the otherwise squeaky clean slate of an unknowing, harmless individual. As attorney Harvey Silverglate argues in his book Three Felonies a Day, even the most honest and informed citizen “cannot predict with any reasonable assurance whether a wide range of seemingly ordinary activities might be regarded by federal prosecutors as felonies.” Silverglate even claims that the average American does something about three times a day that could be turned into a federal crime by an enterprising or overreaching prosecutor.”
– MIC https://www.mic.com/articles/86797/8-ways-we-regularly-commit-felonies-without-realizing-it
“AN ENTERPRISING OR OVERREACHING PROSECUTOR”
“[The] average American does something about three times a day that could be turned into a federal crime by an enterprising or overreaching prosecutor.”
Some of the J-6 prisoners are finding that you don’t have to do anything to be charged with a federal crime.
You might be a conservative if…
You think “proletariat” is a type of cheese.
You’ve named your kids “Deduction one” and “Deduction two.”
You’ve tried to argue that poverty could be abolished if people were just allowed to keep more of their minimum wage.
You’ve ever referred to someone as “my (insert racial or ethnic minority here) friend”
You’ve ever tried to prove Jesus was a capitalist and opposed to welfare.
You’re a pro-lifer, but support the death penalty.
The only union you support is the Baseball Players, because heck, they’re richer than you.
You think you might remember laughing once as a kid.
You once broke loose at a party and removed your neck tie.
You’ve ever referred to the moral fiber of something.
Duuuude, you could like totally make bank writing for colbert or that other guy. Anyone could really, but you seem like you need the gig.
Is that the attention you were craving?
You might me a liberal if you can’t meme, tell a joke or meet a woman.
Oh, and here is another thing. Somebody earlier gave a scenario where an employee took $100 from the till, bet on a horse, and won, and put the money back. The point being, even though there was no loss, there was still a victim. Technically, this is called conversion, and is, in brief, exercising unauthorized control over property, or in more detail: “Conversion is often defined as other interference of a person’s right to property without the owner’s consent and without lawful justification. ”
Here is a better scenario! Bob, an employee, asks to borrow $1,000 from the company, at interest, for his kid to get braces. The employer checks out the story, calls the Dentist, who then says the braces are only $950. The employer loans Bob $950, which Bob pays back, with interest. Here, there was no conversion, because Bob never had any control over his employer’s money, any more than Trump had control over the bank.
Here, there is no evidence even Bob lied. Bob knew, from previous experience, that his employer would check out the story.
Floyd,
Thank you very much for clarifying that nonsense that anyomorn keeps spouting and how it relates to the Trump case or more like, does not.
Thank you! They are trying to show how a “victimless” crime can be a crime nonetheless, and they are right, in general. Bob shoots off fireworks at midnite, when the cutoff time is 10:00 PM. Nobody complains, but Bob gets a ticket, nonetheless.
OK, so could over-valuing your property be a crime, of that nature, one where the mere act of over-valuing is all it takes. Sure, but such a law would be very vague, and there would have to be some nuance in its enforcement. If not, simply holding an incorrect opinion about value could be a crime. There has to be other elements to rein in the statute. (Need I remind anyone that NYC is the home of Wall Street, and there were all kinds of over-valuing going on back in the 2008 era, and still are, and people actually lost money. How many people on Wall Street did NYC go after? Maybe 1 or 2, IIRC.)
You need things like intent and deception and actual loss, etc. to make it workable. Which is why nobody else has been charged with this, nor will they be, unless they are Enemies of the Democrat State.
Floyd, I love your comment but at my age I don’t want to hear fireworks at midnight…I am the victim. As for all of your other points I am with you (and Upstate) 100%.
At what point did the lenders in this case get independent confirmation of, for example, Trump’s fraudulent representation that his Vornado limited partnership was a cash-equivalent liquid investment? The witness testified that she was unaware of the investment’s true status, and that it would have been material to her valuation had she been appraised of it.
This idea that the banks and insurers were actually aware of the misrepresentations is commonly thrown around in the course of blustery, partisan rants about how awful the opinion was. But I’ve never seen it supported with regard to the specific misrepresentations. Nor does it make much sense. Why would the Trump Org spend so much time and effort lying about its financial status if their counterparts were aware of the truth?
Uh, because of Due Diligence for one thing. DUH!
Here, learn about Due Diligence for Commercial Real Estate. About the same thing whatever state you are in.
https://www.wolterskluwer.com/en/expert-insights/due-diligence-in-commercial-real-estate-transactions#:~:text=The%20chief%20aims%20of%20real,reduce%20and%20mitigate%20financial%20uncertainties.
But there was evidence in the case that Trump lied, and the lenders relied on the lies. Do a text search on “relied” in the ruling, and you can see for yourself.
Or go read the actual testimony of the bank where they stated they did their own due diligence and gave trump’s valuation a 50% haircut, which still gave the bank $2 billion in collateral
Jonathan: The title of your column says it all about your views on Judge Engoron’s judgment awarding $364 million in damages against DJT, his sons and business associates for defrauding the people of NY. You say it was “excessive”, “absurd” and even “grotesque”. That’s not lawyer-like language we have come to expect from you.
Your argument against the award echoes DJT’s claim during the trial that there no “victims”–that DB made money from their lending to the Trump Org. What you conveniently ignore is that the predicate for AG Letitia James’ indictment was Section 63(12) of NY’s anti-fraud statute. That section doesn’t require “victims” as would be required by ordinary civil fraud statutes. As Judge Engoron points out in his decision the purpose of Section 63(12) is to protect the “interest in an honest marketplace” (at page 3).
But there were “victims” of DJT persistent and continuing fraud. They were the “people” of NY. Other borrows were deprived of getting loans because DJT cooked the books to get his loans. Let’s make it simple by way of illustration. I go to my neighbor and ask to borrow $1,000. My neighbor is sympathetic but explains that he just loaned his brother $5,000 so he has no more money to lend me. That is what other borrowers faced when they went to DB after DJT got hundreds of millions in loans–only because he intentionally committed fraud in overvaluing his properties. So when AG James eventually collects on the judgment that money will go back to the NY government, i.e., the people of NY not individual borrowers.
On appeal you say the NY appellate division should overturn Engoron because you and DJT claim the judge had some personal bias against DJT because he is an “unpopular figure” in NY. Engoron’s decision was based on the facts, exhibits, witness testimony and other evidence–not whatever personal feelings he has about DJT. I seriously doubt there is any basis for appeal on that spurious claim. The “New York legal system” is not under challenge just because DJT may be unpopular in NY. Like Judge Engoron, the appellate judges will apply the law to the facts irrespective of how they might personally feel about DJT.
Why is it that you suddenly have so little faith in the legal system–a system you swore to defend and protect when you first became a lawyer? The purpose of the legal system in NY is to protect the citizens of the state from persistent fraud. But when it comes to DJT you think there be a double standard. One for everybody else in NY but a different one for someone who is now just an ordinary citizen. That’s not how the legal system works!
But there were “victims” of DJT persistent and continuing fraud. They were the “people” of NY. Other borrows were deprived of getting loans because DJT cooked the books to get his loans
Dennis spewing stuff he lack the intelligence to understand
This is a direct quote from another commenter from earlier todaty
Way to plagerize Dennis. We are all aware you are too stupid to do your own thinking
Dennis, thank you. Here’s another point from one commentator I saw last night: New York is the financial capital of the world, not some podunk town somewhere, which is one of the reasons for the laws on fraud not requring a loss to the lender when there was fraud in the inducement for the loan.
Might be the financial capital of the world, but the city itself is a total hot mess, like many Democrat ran cities: New York City tops list as nation’s ‘worst’ municipal finances for 7th straight year
“The Big Apple’s financial condition worsened over the past year by an estimated $6.1 billion, resulting in a $61,800 per taxpayer burden and earning it an “F” grade.”
https://justthenews.com/nation/states/center-square/report-new-york-city-tops-nation-worst-municipal-finances
Gigi – Legally, the term “fraud” requires a statement of fact, reasonable reliance thereon by another person, and resulting loss to that person. If those elements do not exisit, there is no fraud. Nothing of that kind exists here. The word “fraud” is being thrown around because it sounds sinister and Trump is the target.
Please list the borrowers who were deprived and those case numbers.
Bernie Madoff
Speaking of protecting citizens from fraud, how are the aggressive fraud prosecutions going for those defrauded by Black Lives Matter? Any updates?
“Blind Justice or Blind Rage: New York’s Legal System Faces Ultimate Test With Obscene Trump Award”
– Professor Turley
_____________________
Merriam-Webster
OBSCENE
adjective
ob·scene äb-ˈsēn
əb-
1: disgusting to the senses : repulsive
2a: abhorrent to morality or virtue
specifically : designed to incite to lust or depravity
… the dance often becomes flagrantly obscene and definitely provocative … — Margaret Mead
b: containing or being language regarded as taboo in polite usage
obscene lyrics
obscene literature
c: repulsive by reason of crass disregard of moral or ethical principles
an obscene misuse of power
d: so excessive as to be offensive
More pathos coming from Turley, who clearly just does what he is told. Turley repeats the pro-Trump talking points: 1. “Undervaluing and overvaluing property is a longstanding practice in New York real estate; 2. The forms submitted by the Trump organization cautioned the banks to do their own estimates (so, it’s the BANKS’fault that Trump lied and got caught?); 3. and the loans were paid in full and on time.” (woo hoo!-does Trump get brownie points for simply actually doing what he agreed to do—maybe, since he stiffs everyone else he owes money to); But, contrary to the foregoing crap arguments: “Yet, the New York law used by James is a curiosity because it does not actually require a victim. Indeed, everyone can make ample profits and still allow for an investigation into “repeated fraudulent or illegal acts.”
And, there you have it. Turley knows: 1. that NY law does NOT sanction lying on loan applications or tax returns; 2. that it doesn’t matter whether other people over value property, it’s NO excuse for Trump to do so –and, claiming that other people also do it, is NO defense; 3. As AG James pointed out, there ARE victims in this situation–by lying about the value of property in order to: a. get more money than he would othewise qualify to borrow if the loan was based on the true value of his collateral; and b. at a better interest rate–there’s less money available to lend to borrowers who DON”T lie on loan applications and less profit for lenders to use to make loans to other borrowers. In other words, if Trump paid the true cost of borrowing the money based on honest appraisals of his collateral, this would mean more profit to the lenders and more available cash to loan to honest borrowers. Despite claiming that “undervaluing and overvaluing property is a longstanding practice in New York real estate”, Turley offers NO proof of either: a. the extent to which this is done–does EVERYONE cheat and lie?–I seriously doubt it; no evidence of such was offered at trial, and it wouldn’t have been admissible anyway because “everyone else does it” is not a defense–something Turley DOES know; b. even if some people have over or under valued property, has it been to the egregious degree of Trump’s lying? Look at Judge Engoron’s findings of fact–the degree of misrepresentation in some instances is shocking, something Turley doesn’t address.
Trump is simply waging war on our judicial system–just like he tried to wage war on our free and fair election system: a. by cheating, with Russia’s help to spread lies about Hillary Clinton in key districts that would sway the Electoral College; and b. trying to steal Joe Biden’s victory via the “Stop the Steal” campaign and mounting the insurrection based on the Big Lie. Turley, as a law professor, should have nothing to do with an ignominous grifter and liar who is attacking the judicial system because it caught up with him and brought him to justice, but apparently the paycheck means more than respect for the rule of law which is why, IMHO, Turley isn’t qualified to teach law at university. He doesn’t practice what he preaches–which should be respect for the rule of law and playing by the rules.
Turley even has the gall to go after Judge Engoron: “Engoron proved the perfect judge for the case. The opinion itself seems almost cathartic for the jurist who struggled with Trump inside and outside of court. In the judgment, Engoron fulfilled Oscar Wilde’s rule that the only way to be rid of temptation is to yield to it. He ordered everything short of throwing Trump into a wood chipper.” Judge Engoron displayed the epitome of judicial tolderance despite Trump’s infantile antics. Judge Engoron did NOT, but certainly could have, had Trump jailed–any one else would have gone to the graybar hotel for behaving like Trump–but Engoron didn’t take the bait. It find it stunning that Turley would dare to essentially accuse Judge Engoron of partisanship.
oh, gawd…
Yep!
NUTCHACHACHA and the gang’s next target will be Zillow where Zestimates and monthly loan payment amounts vary wildly. The valuation of one New York property just went from $250 million down to $199 million in a relatively brief period of time. Appraisals and valuations are perishable.
$195,000,000
— W –th St #PH, New York, NY
7beds
11baths
17,545 sqft
Price history
Date Event Price
9/13/2023 Price change $195,000,000 -22% $11,114/sqft
Source: ———-
–/–/2022 Listed for sale $250,000,000 $14,249/sqft
Source: StreetEasy
–/–/2022 Listing removed —
Source: —- ——- ————-
-/–/2022 Listing removed —
Source: —- ——- ————-
–/–/2021 Listing removed —
Source: —- ——- ————-
Zillow estimates mean little to nothing if there aren’t comparable properties nearby that recently sold. Zillow itself will tell you that. In any event, Trump deliberately lied on loan applications to get a bigger loan at a better interest rate than if he had told the truth. And, if you look at Trump’s tax papers for the comparable period of time, his estimates for the identical collateral are dramatically lower. One of you Trumpsters please explain to me how it’s OK for Trump to claim, for loan purposes, that his apartment at Trump Tower, which is less than 11,000 actual sq. ft. somehow jumps to 33,000 sq. ft. when it comes to borrowing money against its value. How is it NOT fraudulent to jack up the size to 3Xs its actual size?
NUTCHACHACHA is the very personification of fraud. But for welfare, affirmative action, etc., ad infinitum, NUTCHACHACHA would be her de facto self, a veritable cipher. NUTCHACHACHA eschews freedom and self-reliance and favors “free stuff” and “free status,” which she will never obtain of her own acumen and devices. Poor thing.
3. As AG James pointed out, there ARE victims in this situation–by lying about the value of property in order to: a. get more money than he would othewise qualify to borrow if the loan was based on the true value of his collateral; and b. at a better interest rate–there’s less money available to lend to borrowers who DON”T lie on loan applications and less profit for lenders to use to make loans to other borrowers. In other words, if Trump paid the true cost of borrowing the money based on honest appraisals of his collateral, this would mean more profit to the lenders and more available cash to loan to honest borrowers.
This assumes that the lenders relied entirely on Trumps financials and were too dumb or lazy to conduct their own due diligence. Of course this is not what happened. The lenders underwrote the loans and were obviously satisfied that Trumps representations notwithstanding they stood to make a tidy profit. And as I understand it, they did.
So Trump made money and the lender made money and the lenders employees benefited and most of that money was probably spent in NY. NY in turn decided that the best thing to do was slaughter the golden goose and scare off any other geese that might be wandering about.
As far as the AG’s hypothetical debtor, if the deal looked good enough someone would loan the money and if it didn’t no one would. The financial world at this level is not analogous to a pizza whereby if I take an extra slice, someone else goes without.
You said, “The financial world at this level is not analogous to a pizza whereby if I take an extra slice, someone else goes without.”
Amen!!! That is one of the stupidest arguments the idiots make, that there was some pool of money, and Trump hogged it all. My goodness, but the lenders were getting 1% Zirp money, and earning multiples of that off Trump.
“any one else would have gone to the graybar hotel for behaving like Trump”
Where’s Fani? Is she in the graybar hotel doing shots of Grey Goose?
“Don’t get cute with me”
“You’re a liar”
“That’s a lie”
“Stop shouting at me”
“I am NOT a hostile witness”
We found where’s Fani….
She’s back at the church podium….we kid you not….accepting the Black History Achievement award.
Told you….no one is going to step up to prosecute these criminals…
The fix is in….
During the cross of Willis I was a little disappointed at one point.
She was asked if she had gone to the White House when she visited DC and she answered that she had not.
She was not asked if she met with any White House personnel or the personnel of any federal agency and whether she discussed or coordinated her prosecution of President Trump.
I would not expect the folks behind such a seditious effort to blunder into having Willis seen going into the White House. Too many eyes and ears.
Then ask if she met or coordinated with anyone not a part of her office to commence or coordinate the prosecution of President Trump.
The lawfare against Trump is so broad and so intense that it is difficult to believe that there aren’t a few ‘generals’ and ‘colonels’ as well as Fannies involved somewhere.
THE ONGOING OBAMA COUP D’ETAT IN AMERICA IS GLOBAL
____________________________________________________________________
“Notorious B I G Fanny” and “Lil Nate” were undoubtedly “bumped” by one co-conspirator or another somewhere between Atlanta and DC.
The mysterious Joseph Mifsud, Sir Richard Dearlove, Stefan “The Walrus” Halper, Azra Turk, or perhaps Fiona Hill.
It’s all part and parcel of the Obama Coup D’etat in America.
__________________________________________________________________
“We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”
– Barack Obama
______________
“We will stop him.”
– Peter Strzok to FBI paramour Lisa Page
___________________________________
“[Obama] wants to know everything we’re doing.”
– Lisa Page to FBI paramour Peter Strzok
___________________________________
“I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office — that there’s no way he gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before 40.”
– Peter Strzok to FBI parmour Lisa Page
_________________________________
“People on the 7th floor to include Director are fired up about this [Trump] server.”
– Bill Priestap
___________
The Obama Coup D’etat in America is the most egregious abuse of power and the most prodigious crime in American political history. The co-conspirators are:
Kevin Clinesmith, Bill Taylor, Eric Ciaramella, Rosenstein, Mueller/Team, Andrew Weissmann,
James Comey, Christopher Wray, McCabe, Strozk, Page, Laycock, Kadzic, Sally Yates,
James Baker, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, Priestap, Kortan, Campbell, Sir Richard Dearlove,
Christopher Steele, Simpson, Joseph Mifsud, Alexander Downer, Stefan “The Walrus” Halper,
Azra Turk, Kerry, Hillary, Huma, Mills, Brennan, Gina Haspel, Clapper, Lerner, Farkas, Power,
Lynch, Rice, Jarrett, Holder, Brazile, Sessions (patsy), Nadler, Schiff, Pelosi, Obama,
Joe Biden, James E. Boasberg, Emmet Sullivan, Gen. Milley, George Soros, John McCain,
Marc Elias, Igor Danchenko, Fiona Hill, Charles H. Dolan, Jake Sullivan, Strobe Talbot,
Cody Shear, Victoria Nuland, Ray “Red Hat” Epps, Don Berlin, Kathy Ruemmler, Rodney Joffe,
Paul Vixie, L. Jean Camp, Andrew Whitney, Lisa O. Monaco et al.
The saga of President Trump: where the Runaway legal system of one state has wasted his rights as a citizen of the United States. The Court jesters of the New York legal system have tarred and feathered him in their pursuit to punish him with their diseased laws. They’ve used any means necessary short of placing him in a stockade or an internment camp specifically set aside for lowly republicans daring to run for the Presidency. They’ve placed all evaluations of assets in a perilous dilemma for both sides of the equation, or said in simpler terms “you’re damned” when a number is established, too much or too little can be challenged by the authorities as deceitful.
The morons that propagated this insanity had/have no idea of the long-term consequences they have fostered upon themselves and their future!
God help us ALL!!!
The question I have is whether the prestigious NY bar will step up to discipline the judges and prosecutors like James, Bragg, and Engoron in order to put an end to the outrageous persecution of an individual like Trump via questionable legal tactics and lawfare.
Sadly, they probably will not.
That is the question.
Who will step up in Georgia to prosecute Big Fani and her lover boy Mr. Wade, the personal injury lawyer she hired to prosecute a RICO case against a former president and 16 other defendants. The lawyer who told us that it was not unusual at his law firm for his clients to pay him with bags of cash. The lawyer who Miss Fani gave almost a million dollars of Georgia taxpayer money to?
Who is going to step up and prosecute these criminals? How about disbarment? Losing law licenses? How about prison time? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller? Or are Democrat DEI hires untouchable, strictly off limits?
Who is going to step up and prosecute a slam dunk RICO case against the Biden Family Organized Crime syndicate?
Or charge Hunter Biden with Contempt of Congress and send some FBI agents to arrest him at the airport, handcuff him, take him to solitary confinement, strip search him, and throw some leg irons on him — just to make a point? You know, just the way Biden’s Gestapo/FBI did to Peter Navarro? Because NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW NO MATTER HOW POWERFUL YOU ARE! Right? Wrong.
These lawless DAs keep shouting: The Law treats everyone the same, no matter who you are, or how powerful you are. No one is above the law! Gag us all, Tish. You too, Big Fani & Alvin Boast-n-Bragg. Spare us all.
Who will step up? LOL. No one. Nothing is gonna happen to any of these lawless thugs. And all of them know it. Including Joe Biden, the Big Guy himself.
We are no better than Russia. At least the Russians know Putin is their president, the man in charge.
Here in Biden’s Banana Republic, we have a senile man, shuffling around, shouting angrily or bizarrely whispering into microphones. And we have no idea who is actually in charge.
@CantaloupeNews
BREAKING: We just interviewed a trucker who said he’s boycotting NYC. He refused to give his name and asked that we refer to him as “Trucker Carlson”.
Sometimes, Professor Turley writes the siliest things, like this: “The [higher] court may find almost half a billion dollars in damages without a single lost dollar from a victim to be a tad excessive.”
That’s like saying: “The court may find that a life sentence for first-degree murder without a murder victim to be a tad excessive.”
Bad analogy-let me help- it would be like giving someone a life sentence for no murder whatsoever. Trump org broke no laws, operated within the law in every sense and committed no fraud. The corrupt judge decided Trump was guilty of fraud and announced this prior to the trial even starting. The news has perverted this immensely. This is how Stalin and Hitler did things. Using ‘courts’ to find their enemies guilty and then meeting out their punishment while sanctimoniously pointing at the fact that they were found guilty. And fools like you let it happen.
Or we could ask why he thinks no victims lost money, given the extensive factfinding that showed that Trump saved nearly $200 million in interest by using fraudulent financial statements to obtain loans on better terms than he would have otherwise. The opinion discusses the evidence for this fairly extensively. To whom, we wonder, would Trump have paid the interest he saved?
Saying there were no victims here is not a terribly serious or honest thing to say.
Are you really stupid enough to believe what you wrote? I only question this, because this is an accounting type question, and you might actually lack the necessary knowledge to understand it. As opposed to your usual basis for comments.
Look, lenders, banks, credit card companies, stores that sell on credit, all have an account set up on their books to account for Losses on Loans, or Bad Debts, or Uncollectible Accounts Receivable. That is because the principal amount of the loan, say, is booked as an Asset. The interest on that loan, is not booked until it is earned/received, and is shown as an income item.
The reserve account is set up as a “contra”-type account, so that the asset is not over-valued on the books.
There will not be a single one of Trump’s lenders taking a Tax Deduction for “Interest Income That I Would Have Received If Donald Trump Had Not Lied to Me!” That would be stupid, and the IRS would not allow it. Mechanically, any such charge would be a Debit, in the P&L area of the financial statement. Where oh where would the offsetting Credit go???
A revenue account? That would net out in zero deduction. A credit to an Asset account? What account in that section would it be contra to? What, you just lower your assets arbitrarily, for fun? Nope. Ok, how about the Liability part of the books. Nope, you don’t owe the money to anybody. OK, that leaves the Capital section of the books. Nope, when you close out the Income and Expense Accts at year-end, the above Debit would wind up in the same place, again – Net Zero.
Floyd,
Thank you for bringing facts to the table and pointing out anonamorons lack of understanding how the real world works.
You are conflating a fairly amateurish understanding of accounting with the evidence brought forth in this trial. There is a reason that no competent attorney has ever advanced such a theory in defense of Trump or any other defendant; it is a fairly inane way to distract from the testimony that Trump (a) would not have received loans and deals at all and (b) would have received loans and deals at materially worse terms had he not lied about his financial condition.
It speaks quite poorly of Professor Turley that his vanity blog attracts such poorly educated and informed commenters who, like him, see the written word primarily as an opportunity to perform their partisanship.
Thank you ShillAnon for the compliment! Let me do another scenario for you!
I was married, twice. Assume one of my wives came in and said, “Look! I found this Gooney & Dork handbag on sale at T J Maxx for $399! I saved $100!””
So, I say to her, “Terma Gail, you did not save $100. You spent nearly $400.”
Letitia James found out, and took Terma Gail to court, for cheating Gooney & Dork out of $100, for KNOWINGLY underpaying for the value of an item! James says that is no different from if Terma Jean had swapped out the price tags!
So, I being a lawyer, and having to defend Terma Gail, I argue that no, she cheated no one out of anything. That was the negotiated price, and one that all parties were happy with. T J Maxx made money, Gooney & Dork made money, and that if the price were $499, Terma Gail would have walked away, and not bought the purse.
Same with Trump. The $100 lost profit/revenue is speculative.
extensive factfinding that showed that Trump saved nearly $200 million in interest by using fraudulent financial statements to obtain loans on better terms than he would have otherwise.
That’s a lie. You are in direct conflict with the testimony of the Bank. The Bank gained business, did not lose money. Unless you have contradicting sworn statements from the Bank
Not only that, but who says that Trump was locked into any particular lender? If Deutsche Bank had charged 5%, who says that Trump would not have simply gone to a different bank? Such determinations, that lenders lost $200 Million, are completely speculative.
You have not read the opinion. Can I recommend that you do so? The relevant testimony is mostly on about pages 7-20, IIRC.
It’s also giving away your unfamiliarity with the case to talk about “the Bank.” There were multiple financial institutions involved.
Anyway, long story short, yes, the court absolutely relied on sworn statements from the banks and other deal partners. It then wrote about that testimony in detail in the opinion. I can’t blame you for forming an opinion about the matter without reading that opinion, as Turley seems to have done the same.
Which lender lost money as a result of any of Trump’s valuations? Since you read the opinion, it should be no trouble naming several.
Anonymous: Perfect analogy!
Legal System ≠ System of Justice. Never thought I would apply that to the United States of America when I was growing up. Do we deny it, or accept it? I don’t know how to work to change it.
Baron Montesquieu – “There is no greater tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield of the law and in the name of justice.”
Mr. Turley: You note how unfair all of this is and how the system is corrupted. Yet, you would expect Trump to dutifully stroke the check.
The problem with most laws are that they are so vague anyone can be found to have violated something. Our system of justice has, for a long time, been used by some in government for their own personal vendettas. Whether Democrat or Republican, Black or White, Christian or Jew. No one is safe from someone with an agenda. There is no “justice” in the legal system.