The trump trial according to Judge Engoron's ruling

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by Tigbitties38

What denied civil rights? Be specific. I know you'll lie or say something that's covered in the details you didn't read.
Who told you to say Trump's civil rights were violated? Or did you come up with that on your own?
The cop knows because he denied someone's civil rights. No one in the fraud case violated anyone's civil rights.

From the HHS web site:

Civil rights are personal rights guaranteed and protected by the U.S. Constitution and federal laws enacted by Congress

https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for...ct%20of%201990.

Please see Jackie's Wikipedia link above. The 8th Amendment to the Constitution, in its entirety, reads

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

So Jackie's argument is that the excessive fine imposed on Trump was a violation of his civil rights set out in the 8th Amendment. And that's what it is, a fine to be paid to the state of New York, disguised as "disgorgement."

Originally Posted by Tigbitties38

And the details are very important. 355 is what he fraudulently made. This was over the course of 10 years. Just because he took 355 million and can't pay it back now.
Trump doesn't get to keep his ill gotten gains.
He fraudulently made 128,000,ooo on the sale of the old post office and made 169,000,000 in interest saving. How is the dickhead having to pay back what he stole excessive? It's not.
Only trumpys wouldn't make trump pay back as much as he took. Are you catching on why the details matter?

If you steal a shit load of money by fraud, you pay back a shit load.
If he only took, say, a million, then his fine would have been less. Plus probably no loss of licences.
Trump and his douche-bags did this for ten years.
If he took 355 million and they fined him 800 million, that's when the 8th kicks in.

So if Trump had been fined 800 million instead of 355 million, you believe the 8th Amendment would apply?

Please see post #9 in this thread. Engoron based his fine mostly on Michiel McCarty's work. McCarty determined what interest Trump would have paid if he'd borrowed the money from Deutsche Bank's commercial lending department, using only the buildings as collateral, without a personal guarantee by Trump. He compared that to the amount of interest actually paid by Trump, on loans arranged by Deutsche Bank's private banking department, which required Trump's personal guarantee in addition to the collateral.

OK, that's all well and good. But then Engoron made the assumption that Trump's personal guarantee was worth zero, zip, nada in setting the fine, or disgorgement or whatever you want to call it. That's ridiculous. McCarty is probably laughing his ass off at how Engoron used his work. He undoubtedly would tell you that Trump's personal guarantee was worth a lot. And in fact, if he also read the testimonies of Deutsche Bank employees and press reports, as to how Deutsche Bank assumed Trump's net worth was in the range of $2.4 to $2.65 billion instead of the $4 billion to $6 billion set out on his statements of financial condition, McCarty might just say that Deutsche Bank would have charged about the same interest rate if Trump's net worth estimates had been more accurate.

I imagine McCarty would also believe that Engoron's assumption that Trump would have never bought the Old Post Office and Ferry Point properties if he had provided the lenders with better estimates in his statements of financial condition is ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Tigbitties38

To bad you don't know the details. If you knew any of them or had done your own research instead of relying on trumpy talking points, you might not look so Dunning-Krugerish.
At least try to refute facts instead of posting nonsense.

That's a little like the pot calling the wedding dress black. If you take a closer look at the decision, the parts about McCarty's testimony and Engoron's methodology for coming up with the $455 million, you might just change from a pot to a wedding dress! A wedding dress, like Jackie. Wouldn't that be grand!

Originally Posted by Tigbitties38

So you'd let him keep $335 million he made through fraudulent means?
IGG bud. Read the details Jackie claims are moot.
After you'll give trump a third of a billion dollars, your other thoughts on trump guilt don't mean much.
Plus why do I think you grant the same pass in following cases?
How funny you think lying and cheating are the American way. But then, you are a trumpy.
Allegedly? Wrong. It's been proven in court.

Well, it's hard to argue with that! Because it's incoherent. Please try again when it's not 12:32 AM. Where does $335 million come from?

It's interesting you write "How funny you think lying and cheating are the American way. But then, you are a trumpy," when I wrote, "That said, Trump deserves to be prosecuted for trying to steal an election, and he will be. And, if I were in a position to do so, there's no way I'd do business with him or loan him money, because of his past history."

[Daneskold1]

You aren’t even addressing the value he reported to the states concerning property tax base. A completely different number than the same property in the same year as listed on the asset balance sheet. I’m sorry but lifetime criminals commit crimes. That’s all the guy does. A lifetime grifter, deadbeat, Fraudster, rapist liar.
He could’ve stayed in New York and the gossip columns…. but no.

[Jackie S]

What ultra left Trump hating Democrat/Rino just got banned or quit.
It seems he is now here on another handle.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by Daneskold1

You aren’t even addressing the value he reported to the states concerning property tax base. A completely different number than the same property in the same year as listed on the asset balance sheet. I’m sorry but lifetime criminals commit crimes. That’s all the guy does. A lifetime grifter, deadbeat, Fraudster, rapist liar.
He could’ve stayed in New York and the gossip columns…. but no.

I suspect going after Trump on property taxes would make a lot more sense than this B.S. But then Leticia James couldn't have use New York Executive Law 63(12), the prosecutor's wet dream.

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Originally Posted by Tiny

I suspect going after Trump on property taxes would make a lot more sense than this B.S...

Imma say nope. Property taxes are a stacked deck. The jurisdiction decides the value and bases taxes from that. One can contest it using comparables to make the case, but the jurisdiction still has to concur or refute.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

Imma say nope. Property taxes are a stacked deck. The jurisdiction decides the value and bases taxes from that. One can contest it using comparables to make the case, but the jurisdiction still has to concur or refute.

I'm not going to argue with you about property taxes on real estate because I'd probably lose.

[Salty Again]

Originally Posted by Daneskold1

You aren’t even addressing the value he reported to the states concerning property tax base. A completely different number than the same property in the same year as listed on the asset balance sheet. I’m sorry but lifetime criminals commit crimes. That’s all the guy does. A lifetime grifter, deadbeat, Fraudster, rapist liar.
He could’ve stayed in New York and the gossip columns…. but no.

... You left out WINNING the Presidency... At least once.
And is leading to do it again... So whatever ruling
we see by Judge Engoron or the Appeals surely WON'T
change that.

Oh, and what rape did Trump commit??

#### Salty

[Tigbitties38]

Your post is wrong and off topic. Start your own thread.

"A judge has now clarified that this is basically a legal distinction without a real-world difference. He says that what the jury found Trump did was in fact rape, as commonly understood."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...ll-judge-rape/

Originally Posted by Salty Again

... You left out WINNING the Presidency... At least once.
And is leading to do it again... So whatever ruling
we see by Judge Engoron or the Appeals surely WON'T
change that.

Oh, and what rape did Trump commit??

#### Salty

[Salty Again]

... Are YOU addressing Daneskold1, W-Y-I-D, Tiny, or me-self??

The "Trial" - or lack of one by Judge Engoron has not been completed.
There's still the Appeals process. ... And we'll see how THAT
surely plays out. ... Any opinion how that's gonna go??
Seeing-as others are giving their Opinions here also?

(So the Wash Post finds a Judge to say "BASICALLY legal distinctions"
and "commonly understood" definitions?? ... In the rather
EXACT legal world of Slander and Libel, see how far THAT goes.)

#### Salty

[biomed1]

Of Guideline # 6 . . .

#6 - Respect the topics presented by those who start a thread. Attempts to derail a thread or change it's direction is referred to as thread hijack and will be discouraged. Attempts to guide a thread in the right direction are appreciated, while responses to posts which hijack a thread are not.

Members wishing to have independent discussions should do so through back channels.

[txdot-guy]

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

If people would play by the rules we wouldn’t need laws like these. Too many people think lying and cheating are acceptable in the pursuit of money and power. People like Putin and Trump depend upon it.

Originally Posted by farmstud60

Not even close to right, it smacks of blackmail by politicians to do as they say or we will bankrupt you with legal fees and excess fines. It makes Putin look honest compared to Democrats.

Originally Posted by Tiny

With New York Executive Law 63(12), it doesn't matter whether you do as "they say." If the New York Attorney General sees a politically unpopular company or individual with a big cash pile, then, with this vague statute, the AG can manufacture a case to go after it.

I see the same argument from over and over again. The problem is that a solution for the problem is never presented. Either you want to have truth on financial statements or you don’t. If you want large corporations and companies to be honest with each other and the people who invest in them then financial truth is a must. If you want to incentivize the correct behavior then there must be consequences for bad behavior. Come up with a better solution to the problem of lying deceptive greedy corporate executives and the lawyers who enable them please explain how.

Until then New York Executive Law 63(12) is a good option available to prosecutors. Both cases mentioned, Exxon and Trump, have plenty of money and power to protect their interests. In the case of Exxon the case was ruled in their favor. Why don’t we let the process work its way through the courts and stop blaming the law for Trump’s duplicitous actions.

[Jackie S]

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

I see the same argument from over and over again. The problem is that a solution for the problem is never presented. Either you want to have truth on financial statements or you don’t. If you want large corporations and companies to be honest with each other and the people who invest in them then financial truth is a must. If you want to incentivize the correct behavior then there must be consequences for bad behavior. Come up with a better solution to the problem of lying deceptive greedy corporate executives and the lawyers who enable them please explain how.

Until then New York Executive Law 63(12) is a good option available to prosecutors. Both cases mentioned, Exxon and Trump, have plenty of money and power to protect their interests. In the case of Exxon the case was ruled in their favor. Why don’t we let the process work its way through the courts and stop blaming the law for Trump’s duplicitous actions.

But then, there’s that Pesky Constitution of The United States of America, And those darned Bill of Rights.

Once again, it’s not the crime, it’s the punishment. We don’t put people in prison for 20 years for jay walking. We don’t allow Police to beat confessions out of suspects. We don’t violate a persons freedom of speech or religion.

And we don’t financially ruin a huge business conglomerate for what amounts to jay walking in the world of high end financing.

But a fine to fit the punishment would not fulfill the true aim of this entire charade, that being, keeping Donald Trump out of the White House,

As I have said. Once this crap gets out of New York's Democrat Controlled Judicial system and before the Supreme Court, this will all be rectified.

The question will then be if Trump can sue Latisha James and the State of New York fo violating his civil rights under the 8th and 24th Amendment.

[Salty Again]

... And then it WON'T be "The Trump trial according to
Judge Engoron" - it will be the Trump trial according to the Law.

#### Salty

[txdot-guy]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

But then, there’s that Pesky Constitution of The United States of America, And those darned Bill of Rights.

Once again, it’s not the crime, it’s the punishment. We don’t put people in prison for 20 years for jay walking. We don’t allow Police to beat confessions out of suspects. We don’t violate a persons freedom of speech or religion.

And we don’t financially ruin a huge business conglomerate for what amounts to jay walking in the world of high end financing.

But a fine to fit the punishment would not fulfill the true aim of this entire charade, that being, keeping Donald Trump out of the White House,

As I have said. Once this crap gets out of New York's Democrat Controlled Judicial system and before the Supreme Court, this will all be rectified.

The question will then be if Trump can sue Latisha James and the State of New York fo violating his civil rights under the 8th and 24th Amendment.

And this attitude right here is the problem. And we don’t financially ruin a huge business conglomerate for what amounts to jay walking in the world of high end financing.

Normalizing a decades long process of lying about his net worth both in statements and in print on legal documents as “jaywalking“ is a repudiation of both the economic and legal systems that underlie the American economy.

Do I think that Trump’s lies are equivalent to Bernie Madoff’s lies? I surely do not. But they are lies all the same. Should the courts “financially ruin“ Trump’s business as you suggest, that’s not up for either of us to decide.

I await the outcome of the appeals process.