Judge Engoron's $355 Million Fine Against Donald Trump May Have Far-Reaching Consequences

[DeluxAuto]

NY political elites are basically picking winners and losers.

Deep State!

Drink!

The judge's rationale is weak pap for the masses.

It's a judge. You're a drunk.

They cheer the unconstitutional taking thinking, "This can only happen to Trump and he deserves it. You cannot give a dangerous man like that due process."

What can happen to thee can happen to me.

How are you not dead yet?

 

[Bn2f]

They cheer the unconstitutional taking thinking, "This can only happen to Trump and he deserves it. You cannot give a dangerous man like that due process."

What can happen to thee can happen to me.

An interestingly odd way to state that you too harbor hopes of fucking a pornstar, but won’t ever.

 

[TastySuckToy]

Just watch, without a doubt they'll try seizing Trump's properties next.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Just watch, without a doubt they'll try seizing Trump's properties next.

He was found guilty, if he doesn't appeal, or does and loses, then yes they will start taking properties. Why shouldn't they?

Lets reiterate, "he was found guilty".

 

[TastySuckToy]

Lets reiterate, "he was found guilty".

So were witches that were burned at the stake, by judges and cheering crowds.

 

[Bn2f]

Just watch, without a doubt they'll try seizing Trump's properties next.

Letitia James says she's prepared to seize Trump's buildings if he can't pay his $354M civil fraud fine​

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/letitia-james-shes-prepared-seize-trumps-assets-pay/story?id=107381482

 

[Fuzzy1975]

So were witches that were burned at the stake, by judges and cheering crowds.

Hmmm 1692, No due process back in those days, well before the US was founded and the founding fathers decided trials should have due process. Maybe Salem was one reason why eh?

Play again?

 

[LLCox]

"NEW NEWS"... They will take trumps buildings if he don't pay up.

 

[Bn2f]

Hmmm 1692, No due process back in those days, well before the US was founded and the founding fathers decided trials should have due process. Maybe Salem was one reason why eh?

Play again?

Hmmmmm.
You sir seem to know a lot about American history. Enough to school other idiot citizens. Where, pray tell, are you living and currently employed as a historian?

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Hmmmmm.
You sir seem to know a lot about American history. Enough to school other citizens. Where, pray tell, are you living and currently employed as a historian?

In Canada, we teach actual history.

 

[jomar]

A TV game show host defending a TV game show host on a network that the latter TV game show host and yourself have discredited for years.

You tried.

Not to mention O’Leary is talking about normal business practices, not trump business practices

 

[TastySuckToy]

Hmmm 1692, No due process back in those days,

Kinda like a judge declaring someone guilty of fraud without a trial, eh?

well before the US was founded and the founding fathers decided trials should have due process. Maybe Salem was one reason why eh?

Play again?

See above and educate yourself on what has actually happened here.

 

[DeluxAuto]

Not to mention O’Leary is talking about normal business practices, not trump business practices

That's the thing, isn't it? These MAGAts get hit upside the head with facts and then their best response is to deflect and deny.

 

[TastySuckToy]

The facts:

-no fraud victim or complaint
-no injured party
-no missing or lost money
-Trump and banks both testified in court agreements were mutually satisfactory and completed
-there is no objective standard of asset valuation, it can be declared anything between consenting transaction parties
-judge simply declared Trump guilty of fraud without trial

The facts show without a doubt the entire case is a complete sham and without merit.

 

[Bn2f]

The facts:

-no fraud victim or complaint
-no injured party
-no missing or lost money
-Trump and banks both testified in court agreements were mutually satisfactory and completed
-there is no objective standard of asset valuation, it can be declared anything between consenting transaction parties
-judge simply declared Trump guilty of fraud without trial

The facts show without a doubt the entire case is a complete sham and without merit.

And yet, here we are! After an inquiry, and grand jury, and trial and judgment.

Do you find yourself waking in the middle of the afternoon naked in someone’s garage struggling with large memory gaps and unable to explain how you got there? I mean, you make me havta ask.

 

[DeluxAuto]

The facts show without a doubt the entire case is a complete sham and without merit.

How many times do you have to make this defense and how many times has it worked for you or the trump crime family?

 

[TastySuckToy]

Notice how the TDS posters don't address the actual points.

 

[dmallord]

Standards of fairness for who? NY political elites are basically picking winners and losers. You just wrote a long dissertation of NY law that failed in this case to establish or identify a victim. There are many individuals like shark Tank that find James and Engoron’s aggressive behavior towards Trump’s business model as over the top. If there’s no victim then who gets this cash. I’m not wasting time digging up a lot of these legal beagles that I’ve listened, but with you *Trump haters* no sources or arguments are good enough. You lack objectivity, you only see things through the prism of Trump hatred and fail to see the long term effects this ruling will have on businesses. The big apple is rotten and businesses are migrating out of New York at alarming rates partly due to political hackery at the highest levels. You believe what you want to believe.

Victims? For the citizens of New York - fairness for all of them as victims, as the AG stated.

The cash? It goes into the state coffers - not in a judge's pocket.

Trump is not a good person, morally, politically, or as a businessman. Hate him is too strong a description; I'll accept loathe.

If his cases are overturned in the appeals process, I'll accept those decisions because I believe the system, as constructed in my 'long dissertation,' is as fair as it gets within its constraints. I detect from your statements that you will continue not to accept the appeals decision as you believe the judicial system is contrary to your own perceptions of Trump's innocence. That's our difference - I'll accept either decision, though I'll still loathe Trump as an evil man. It's up to you - remain vitriolic if he loses and blames the 'system' or temper your view and accept justice was served.

Businesses migrate out of New York for economic reasons, enticed by states with more favorable taxing rates and those municipalities that offer tax incentives to lure them in. Partly due to hackery, as you wrote, is dubious conjecture; companies rarely ever leave because of politics - it's money. Trump claimed NY was unfair to him and left - he changed residences - he did not take his 'businesses' out of New York. They are still there. If he honestly felt NY was rotten, he would have sold out. He hasn't - it's all about him and his money, not others or country.

I'm not out to proselytize here. Just share some perspectives - different viewpoints. Let's not leave this at a 'hate' level. There is way too much of that spreading across our country.

 

[Rightguide]

Reference #120.

The counterpoint to your premise, "the law isn't supposed to be 'politically' driven," suggests that politics inevitably play a role in shaping laws and legal decisions. Consider the following:

Consider this, we are all supposed to be equal before the law. This politicized judge admitted he made up his mind before the trial began. The ruling by the Judge was unconstitutional:

8th Amendment states:

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

The fine was excessive cruel and unusual because it punished Trump for a fraud where nobody was defrauded.

“Professor Jonathan Turley called the $370 million judgment confiscatory, extreme and abusive. Professor Steven Calabresi termed it a travesty and an unjust political act. The subhead for his online commentary employed the term ‘Stalinist.’ Both law professors are right.

“Because the judgment does not relate to any loss, the $370 million is not, properly understood, violative of the prohibition against grossly excessive punitive damages. It does fall, however, directly within the excessive fines clause of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

https://www.mrctv.org/blog/craig-ba...nt-after-levin-notes-constitutional-challenge

 

[dmallord]

Just watch, without a doubt they'll try seizing Trump's properties next.

That's a possibility. That's already a given, if he is unable to pay the judgements. That happens to EVERYONE if they do not have the funds to pay.

Are you implying he should get to keep something of value if he doesn't have cash on hand?

 

[Rightguide]

Just watch, without a doubt they'll try seizing Trump's properties next.

He has to post the money or a bond before he can even appeal the case in a NY court. NYC is going to use his money to build housing for illegals. Even if the appeals court vacates the decision, he will probably play hell getting his money back. These are Communists, they don't give a shit about the law, They make up their law. This is a holdup.

He might be able to go straight to federal court to appeal on constitutional grounds.

 

[dmallord]

Consider this, we are all supposed to be equal before the law. This politicized judge admitted he made up his mind before the trial began. The ruling by the Judge was unconstitutional:

8th Amendment states:



The fine was excessive cruel and unusual because it punished Trump for a fraud where nobody was defrauded.

“Professor Jonathan Turley called the $370 million judgment confiscatory, extreme and abusive. Professor Steven Calabresi termed it a travesty and an unjust political act. The subhead for his online commentary employed the term ‘Stalinist.’ Both law professors are right.

“Because the judgment does not relate to any loss, the $370 million is not, properly understood, violative of the prohibition against grossly excessive punitive damages. It does fall, however, directly within the excessive fines clause of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

https://www.mrctv.org/blog/craig-ba...nt-after-levin-notes-constitutional-challenge

Do you know if Turley and Calabresi will file amicus curiae documents in Trump's appeal? I'd be interested in those documents.

Until the appeals play out, their views are opinions, like yours and mine, and do not carry any weight on the subject under discussion. Bystanders all.

 

[Rightguide]

Do you know if Turley and Calabresi will file amicus curiae documents in Trump's appeal? I'd be interested in those documents.

Until the appeals play out, their views are opinions, like yours and mine, and do not carry any weight on the subject under discussion. Bystanders all.

Both are preeminent Law Professors and Levin is a prominent attorney and leader of the Landmark Legal Foundation as well as a nationally recognized Constitutional scholar, so their opinions carries much more weight than mine or yours.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

NYC is going to use his money to build housing for illegals.

You don't know what the fuck NYC is going to use "his" money for.

They just cut a huge swath of funds for services in order to give cops more money on top of the billions they already use...that sort of thing should be giving you erections and nocturnal emissions.

 

[Rightguide]

Do you know if Turley and Calabresi will file amicus curiae documents in Trump's appeal? I'd be interested in those documents.

As we speak I have no knowledge of what their plans are going forward. Calabresi was part of the Ed Meese amicus curiae filed in the SCOTUS against the legality of Jack Smith's appointment by Garland. That one is well-constructed and interesting. Here is a link to that brief:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/Docket...0231220140217967_US v. Trump amicus final.pdf