New York judge finds Donald Trump liable for fraud
- Thread starter gwb-trading
- Start date
Attorney Alan Dershowitz dismissed the New York attorney general’s civil fraud lawsuit against former President Donald Trump Wednesday as “political.”
The Harvard Law School professor emeritus also argued those allegedly defrauded were large banks who, if they feel defrauded, can go after Trump on their own.
The Harvard Law School professor emeritus also argued those allegedly defrauded were large banks who, if they feel defrauded, can go after Trump on their own.
Fortunately this is not how justice works. Leaving enforcement to banks would obviously be an advantage for the rich and well connected to commit fraud while Joe Sixpack has to play by the rules or suffer the consequences.
Donald Trump loves talking about a banana republic while what him, Dershowitz and @Buy1Sell2 argue for is the definition of banana republic treatment for Trump. You might want to work on that one a little bit buddy.
Sorry guys. This is still America. Trump must pay for his fraud.
Many have liken Trdump to a Mafia Don, especially John Gotti - also born and raised in Queens, NY (me too lol) - and like Gotti it was his mouth that is taking him down.
Once asked what does his middle initial J stand for, he replied .... genius. Haha
Well the jenius only has himself to blame. Not prosecutors, not judges, not the "fake" news press and most of all not the Dems. They just get to take advantage as much as they can till the Maga follow their leader down nearest sewerhole.
Once asked what does his middle initial J stand for, he replied .... genius. Haha
Well the jenius only has himself to blame. Not prosecutors, not judges, not the "fake" news press and most of all not the Dems. They just get to take advantage as much as they can till the Maga follow their leader down nearest sewerhole.
Ahhhh------now there's the rub innit? ---There was no fraud. In fact, the supposed victims testified that there was no fraud. What will be interesting is if one of the "defrauded" banks provides the bond for Trump.
What would be interesting is if the banks tell the courts that there is no fraud and they were not defrauded. That would be hilarious. On appeal, that might happen.
whats interesting is no legal scholars are saying the case or the judge's rulings are unreasonable. even right wing ones.
only uninformed magatards are.
only uninformed magatards are.
Donald Trump Can Reverse Judge Engoron's Ruling—Here's How
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-judge-arthur-engoron-fraud-trail-new-york-appeal-1871190
Donald Trump may be able to overturn the $355 million fine imposed on him in a fraud trial, a New York attorney has said.
Litigation attorney, Colleen Kerwick, told Newsweek that Judge Arthur Engoron was trying to "sidestep" the need to apply all the elements of fraud, as there was no real victim in the case.
"The court went to criminal statutes and case law, ordinarily applied under a 'beyond reasonable doubt' standard, in an effort to sidestep the need for damages as an essential element of fraud," Kerwick said.
Kerwick said Judge Engoron's judgment makes clear that Trump always made his loan repayments, so there was no real victim.
"The decision concedes that 'despite the false financial statements, it is undisputed that defendants have made all required payments on time.'"
"The only conceivable damages are the bank's hypothetical application of [different] interest rates than would have been applied if the assets were more conservatively evaluated," she said.
Kerwick added that it is not clear that Trump's inflation of his assets led to a lower interest rate, as the banks may have applied the lower interest rate simply to keep his business.
Kerwick also said that Trump has grounds to appeal the standard of law that was applied in the case.
"The damages were largely punitive damages for the defendant's 'lack of contrition,'" she said.
Kerwick also said that Trump has grounds to appeal the standard of law that was applied in the case.
"Civil fraud cases have a 'clear and convincing evidence' standard while the court in Trump's case applied the lower 'preponderance of the evidence' standard," she said, and noted that the court cited a car accident case as authority for doing so.
Trump, the current GOP frontrunner in the 2024 presidential election, has maintained his innocence and has said he will appeal the decision.
Professor Greg Germain of Syracuse University College of Law agreed that there was never a strong case for saying there was a victim in Trump's fraud case.
"The evidence of reasonable reliance [on Trump's financial statements] by the 'victims' is very weak' and may be grounds of appeal," Germain told Newsweek.
https://www.newsweek.com/editorial-guidelines