NY Fraud Case Will End Trump

[Rebound]

In New York State, we will get a ruling soon on the damages Donald Trump will pay in his civil fraud trial. He has already been found guilty; the ruling is only on the amount of damages. 
 

Throughout the case, Donald Trump repeatedly and continually insulted the judge. Yes, Donald Trump thinks that the one person who will rule on his damages is someone he should intimidate an insult. 
 

Damage estimates in this case range from $150 million to $750 million, along with the dissolution of all of Trump’s New York businesses, and a ban on Donald Trump and his children from operating businesses in the state of New York.  
 

If Donald Trump is indeed a billionaire, he certainly does not have $500 to $750 million in cash, and this ruling is very likely to lead him to liquidate half or more of his assets. And there is little he can do about it — of course he will file an appeal, but the law is the law. Trump has already laid out his arguments in court, and none have been compelling.  This ruling, coming in about two weeks, is likely to bring an end to the Trump empire.  

[Queenmandy85]

4 minutes ago, Rebound said:

If Donald Trump is indeed a billionaire, he certainly does not have $500 to $750 million in cash, and this ruling is very likely to lead him to liquidate half or more of his assets. And there is little he can do about it — of course he will file an appeal, but the law is the law. Trump has already laid out his arguments in court, and none have been compelling.  This ruling, coming in about two weeks, is likely to bring an end to the Trump empire.  

I'm not holding my breath. He will get it all back after he is inaugurated next year. The kleptocracy David Frum talked about in the previous Trump administration is nothing compared to what he will rake in in his second term.

[Rebound]

10 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

I'm not holding my breath. He will get it all back after he is inaugurated next year. The kleptocracy David Frum talked about in the previous Trump administration is nothing compared to what he will rake in in his second term.

The law doesn’t work that way. He has been found guilty in a state court. The Federal government has no authority over state courts. They will seize his assets and there isn’t a damn thing he can do about it, not even if he’s President. The Congress can’t bail him out and the US Supreme Court can’t. 

[Queenmandy85]

1 minute ago, Rebound said:

The law doesn’t work that way. He has been found guilty in a state court. The Federal government has no authority over state courts. They will seize his assets and there isn’t a damn thing he can do about it, not even if he’s President. The Congress can’t bail him out and the US Supreme Court can’t. 

I am not saying he will recover those assets. I am saying he will replace them by acquiring billions under the table. He will take a leaf out of his boss's (Putin) operating manual. That former Moscow taxi driver is probably the richest man in the world.

Americans can't complain about it. They will elect him. They have been told what he will do and they will elect him anyway. All we (the rest of the free world) can do is hunker down and buckle up and look for ways to mitigate the damage he will do to us. I hope Mr. Poilievre understands what he is getting into. The carbon tax and the CBC are going to be the least of his worries.

[Fluffypants]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

The law doesn’t work that way. He has been found guilty in a state court. The Federal government has no authority over state courts. They will seize his assets and there isn’t a damn thing he can do about it, not even if he’s President. The Congress can’t bail him out and the US Supreme Court can’t. 

The Supreme Court can stop it, I don't think it will need to get that far though. The damages will go down on appeal by a ton if not completely dismissed due to the lack of any actual damage and the sheer audacity of the judge being a partisan hack. New York WILL not seize his assets.

Do you know how actual courts work?

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

In New York State, we will get a ruling soon on the damages Donald Trump will pay in his civil fraud trial. He has already been found guilty; the ruling is only on the amount of damages. 
 

Throughout the case, Donald Trump repeatedly and continually insulted the judge. Yes, Donald Trump thinks that the one person who will rule on his damages is someone he should intimidate an insult. 
 

Damage estimates in this case range from $150 million to $750 million, along with the dissolution of all of Trump’s New York businesses, and a ban on Donald Trump and his children from operating businesses in the state of New York.  
 

If Donald Trump is indeed a billionaire, he certainly does not have $500 to $750 million in cash, and this ruling is very likely to lead him to liquidate half or more of his assets. And there is little he can do about it — of course he will file an appeal, but the law is the law. Trump has already laid out his arguments in court, and none have been compelling.  This ruling, coming in about two weeks, is likely to bring an end to the Trump empire.  

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the SCOTUS just throws out the conviction ENTIRELY, based on some Constitutional issue of being unfair to Republicans, like they did overriding state law with Bush v Gore. 

Cons are all about states rights, until it's a Republican's ox being gored.

[robosmith]

13 minutes ago, Fluffypants said:

The Supreme Court can stop it, I don't think it will need to get that far though. The damages will go down on appeal by a ton if not completely dismissed due to the lack of any actual damage and the sheer audacity of the judge being a partisan hack. New York WILL not seize his assets.

Do you know how actual courts work?

Do you know ANYTHING about NYS LAW? Those damages won't be scaled back by NYS courts because that is what Engoran is enforcing.

MAYBE SCOTUS will dismiss it entirely.

[Fluffypants]

3 minutes ago, robosmith said:

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the SCOTUS just throws out the conviction ENTIRELY, based on some Constitutional issue of being unfair to Republicans, like they did overriding state law with Bush v Gore. 

Cons are all about states rights, until it's a Republican's ox being gored.

The Democrats were trying to override state law with Bush Vs Gore, they already had recounts but Gore wanted to keep recounting until he one. The election was certified according to state law and the Democrats didn't like that.

[robosmith]

21 minutes ago, Fluffypants said:

The Democrats were trying to override state law with Bush Vs Gore, they already had recounts but Gore wanted to keep recounting until he one. The election was certified according to state law and the Democrats didn't like that.

Nope. Gore wanted a statewide recount as required by FL state law, but the SCOTUS overrode FL state law, and even claimed that set NO PRECEDENT.

[Rebound]

2 hours ago, Fluffypants said:

The Democrats were trying to override state law with Bush Vs Gore, they already had recounts but Gore wanted to keep recounting until he one. The election was certified according to state law and the Democrats didn't like that.

Florida hadn’t finished counting all the votes.  The Supreme Court, 5-4, ordered Florida to stop counting votes. Sandra Day O’Connor later admitted it was the Supreme Court casting their vote for President.  
 

And the result was a President who ignored the threat of bin Laden and then launched a terribly managed war against Iraq for non-existent WMD’s. 

[Fluffypants]

1 minute ago, Rebound said:

 

And the result was a President who ignored the threat of bin Laden and then launched a terribly managed war against Iraq for non-existent WMD’s. 

Stop the whole "Bin Laden" lie. Clinton had the opportunity to arrest Bin Laden and chose not to and all Bush had was a briefing that said Bin Laden determined to attack US with absolutely no idea when, where or how but somehow Bush was supposed to know and personally stop it.

[Aristides]

1 minute ago, Fluffypants said:

Stop the whole "Bin Laden" lie. Clinton had the opportunity to arrest Bin Laden and chose not to and all Bush had was a briefing that said Bin Laden determined to attack US with absolutely no idea when, where or how but somehow Bush was supposed to know and personally stop it.

None of that justified invading Iraq.

[Fluffypants]

15 minutes ago, Aristides said:

None of that justified invading Iraq.

I never meant it to but honestly the world is a much better place without Saddam and his sons.

[robosmith]

3 hours ago, Fluffypants said:

Stop the whole "Bin Laden" lie. Clinton had the opportunity to arrest Bin Laden and chose not to

Really? You mean the "opportunity" when they had surveillance video  purportedly showing OBL on a training field?

Quote

"I'm just saying, you know, if I were Osama bin Laden - he's a very smart guy, I've spent a lot of time thinking about him - and I nearly got him once," said Clinton, who'd departed the White House earlier that year. "I nearly got him. And I could have killed him, but I would have to destroy a little town called Kandahar in Afghanistan and kill 300 innocent women and children, and then I would have been no better than him. And so I didn't do it."

The 9/11 Commission Report, released in the aftermath of the attacks, documented the proposed December 1998 strike on Kandahar, noting that the Joint Chiefs of Staff advised the president against launching cruise missiles at bin Laden and his associates. Officials were concerned about residual damage, including the roughly 200 to 300 civilians who could have been killed by such a strike.

There was NO ONE on the ground to "arrest" OBL. Duh

3 hours ago, Fluffypants said:

and all Bush had was a briefing that said Bin Laden determined to attack US with absolutely no idea when, where or how but somehow Bush was supposed to know and personally stop it.

And did Bush alert a massive intel search for OBL and agents they knew were working with him?

3 hours ago, Fluffypants said:

I never meant it to but honestly the world is a much better place without Saddam and his sons.

Sure. ISIS was SO MUCH BETTER. 🤮

Edited January 2 by robosmith

[Rebound]

2 hours ago, Fluffypants said:

I never meant it to but honestly the world is a much better place without Saddam and his sons.

Iraq isn’t better off.  The 3,500 dead US soldiers aren’t better off. 

[CdnFox]

5 hours ago, robosmith said:

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the SCOTUS just throws out the conviction ENTIRELY, based on some Constitutional issue of being unfair to Republicans, like they did overriding state law with Bush v Gore. 

Cons are all about states rights, until it's a Republican's ox being gored.

There's no conviction. This is not a criminal trial.

Why the hell do i have to keep explaining this to every leftie who shows up on this board?!?

THis is a FINE - this is no different than getting a ticket for jwalking except it's more expensive. Nobody can throw out the 'conviction' becuause there isn't one.

What they are much more likely to do is reduce the fine..

 

[CdnFox]

7 hours ago, Rebound said:

The law doesn’t work that way. He has been found guilty in a state court. The Federal government has no authority over state courts. They will seize his assets and there isn’t a damn thing he can do about it, not even if he’s President. The Congress can’t bail him out and the US Supreme Court can’t. 

He.. Has... not been FOUND guilty of anything. They just accept he violated a civil law that is fine-able. There was no trial or anything to 'find' him guilty.

And there is actually things that the state AND SC can do about it.  Civil powers are somewhat limited and there are constitutional elements that demand fair and equal treatment and he could very possibly pursue that depending on what the ruling is.

However  it'll never get that far. The State SC is already signalling that the judge is out of line and that an appeal is appropriate. What's been proposed so far is widely regarded as complete nonsense by legal experts.  It's insane.

It's purpose was to distract and punish trump in the lead up ot the next election and to drive investors and donors away from his business and campaign by creating instability.

There is realistically no chance of this runining his business. and by trying to do so they appear to have put him much closer to winning the next election.

[Rebound]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

He.. Has... not been FOUND guilty of anything. They just accept he violated a civil law that is fine-able. There was no trial or anything to 'find' him guilty.

And there is actually things that the state AND SC can do about it.  Civil powers are somewhat limited and there are constitutional elements that demand fair and equal treatment and he could very possibly pursue that depending on what the ruling is.

However  it'll never get that far. The State SC is already signalling that the judge is out of line and that an appeal is appropriate. What's been proposed so far is widely regarded as complete nonsense by legal experts.  It's insane.

It's purpose was to distract and punish trump in the lead up ot the next election and to drive investors and donors away from his business and campaign by creating instability.

There is realistically no chance of this runining his business. and by trying to do so they appear to have put him much closer to winning the next election.

No, you simply don’t understand this situation at all. 
Yes, it is a civil fraud trial.  You didn’t need to “mansplain” that, because I wrote that in the first sentence of the first post in the thread. 
Yes, he and his sons have been found GUILTY in this civil fraud trial.  Technically, the term is “liable,” but he’s guilty.  That much of the case is already done. The NY State Supreme Court hasn’t “signaled” anything.  

Here is the judicial order stating that Trump and sons are liable for fraud: https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet?documentId=tTcU_PLUS_uJJ8i5XjrCTSNk2eA==&system=prod

I get that you read nonsense news, but all of the facts about this case are posted public record.  You can download and read all the facts from the court’s website. Trump and his sons have already been found guilty of fraud, Trump waived his right to a jury (which he later declared was “unfair,” even though it was his choice), and in a week or two, Judge Engoron will issue his ruling which state the damages Trump needs to pay. And the damages will likely be well north of $100 million, possibly $500 to $750 million.  

Edited January 2 by Rebound

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

No, you simply don’t understand this situation at all. 

Kid - it took me 10 posts to get it through your head it wasn't a criminal trial. No matter what happens, no matter what we say or discuss - i will ALWAYS understand what's going on far better than you.  Yeash

Quote

Yes, it is a civil fraud trial.  You didn’t need to “mansplain” that, because I wrote that in the first sentence of the first post in the thread. 

Thanks to my "childsplaining' it to you 50 times until you finally got it in your head in the other thread - where you insisted he was looking at jail time over this.  You'll perhaps understand if i question if you've fully got your head around it at this point.

 

Quote

Yes, he and his sons have been found GUILTY in this civil fraud trial.  

No, they have not. They were found to be liable by the state authority and the judge has not questioned that. That is not the same as having been 'found' guilty.

In fact - even in the judgement which you posted but obviously never read it doesn't say that it says that the company did it on his behalf- it doesn't even say that trump is guilty of anything. 

Quote

 

Technically, the term is “liable,” but he’s guilty. 

 

No, that is two VERY VERY VERY different things. 

Liability has nothing to do with "guilt".  liability refers to having incurred a responsibility - which can even happen entirely by accident and no ill intent in the slighest.  "Guilt" is entirely different.

You can have a liability with zero 'guilt, that happens ALL the time.

For example - in the province of bc if a roof leaks at a condo building and damages the inside of a strata unit, the unit owner is LIABLE for the repairs to his unit, but the roof is the responsibility of the strata, the owner has NO 'guilt' or responsibility for the leak. He did nothing wrong in the slighest and the leak did not occur as a result of anything he's responsible for but he still has liability.

Honestly you are SO bound and determined to turn this into something that means trump got "found guilty" of some sort of "Crime" that you're making  rediculous statements that simply aren't true.

And after i had to explain that this was not a criminal trial to you SO MANY times previously before you understood it, you pretending that it's me who doesn't understand this is one of  the more pathetic things i've seen on this board - and you should be deeply ashamed of it.  It would be one thing to say you felt at this point that this is the way things are but you take what little credibility and honour you may have left and throw it in the garbage when you pretend i'm the one who was uneducated.

Shame on you. Do better. You're not AS dumb as some of the lefties here, step up your game and make real arguments next time.

 

Edited January 2 by CdnFox

[Rebound]

9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Kid - it took me 10 posts to get it through your head it wasn't a criminal trial. No matter what happens, no matter what we say or discuss - i will ALWAYS understand what's going on far better than you.  Yeash

Thanks to my "childsplaining' it to you 50 times until you finally got it in your head in the other thread - where you insisted he was looking at jail time over this.  You'll perhaps understand if i question if you've fully got your head around it at this point.

 

No, they have not. They were found to be liable by the state authority and the judge has not questioned that. That is not the same as having been 'found' guilty.

In fact - even in the judgement which you posted but obviously never read it doesn't say that it says that the company did it on his behalf- it doesn't even say that trump is guilty of anything. 

No, that is two VERY VERY VERY different things. 

Liability has nothing to do with "guilt".  liability refers to having incurred a responsibility - which can even happen entirely by accident and no ill intent in the slighest.  "Guilt" is entirely different.

You can have a liability with zero 'guilt, that happens ALL the time.

For example - in the province of bc if a roof leaks at a condo building and damages the inside of a strata unit, the unit owner is LIABLE for the repairs to his unit, but the roof is the responsibility of the strata, the owner has NO 'guilt' or responsibility for the leak. He did nothing wrong in the slighest and the leak did not occur as a result of anything he's responsible for but he still has liability.

Honestly you are SO bound and determined to turn this into something that means trump got "found guilty" of some sort of "Crime" that you're making  rediculous statements that simply aren't true.

And after i had to explain that this was not a criminal trial to you SO MANY times previously before you understood it, you pretending that it's me who doesn't understand this is one of  the more pathetic things i've seen on this board - and you should be deeply ashamed of it.  It would be one thing to say you felt at this point that this is the way things are but you take what little credibility and honour you may have left and throw it in the garbage when you pretend i'm the one who was uneducated.

Shame on you. Do better. You're not AS dumb as some of the lefties here, step up your game and make real arguments next time.

 

First Sentence of First Post in this Thread says CIVIL FRAUD. 

Ex-President has had his NY businesses dissolved and will be fined somewhere between $100 million and $750 million. A fine on the higher end will end his business empire, as it should.

I won’t write any more cause you aren’t reading anything here.  

Edited January 2 by Rebound

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, Rebound said:

First Sentence of First Post in this Thread says CIVIL FRAUD. 

First 50 posts in the last thread when i had to explain that to you - CRIMINAL FRAUD TRUMP IS GOING TO JAIL!!!!!

I'm glad that after i posted MULTIPLE sources for you and explained it again and again till you FINALLY undestood it that NOW you've realized it's a civil trial and not a criminal one. That only took about 20 posts to get through your thick noggin

So to pretend that you understand this stuff is just you being childish. Do better.

3 hours ago, Rebound said:

Ex-President has had his NY businesses dissolved and will be fined somewhere between $100 million and $750 million. A fine on the higher end will end his business empire, as it should.

Doesn't look like that's going to happen. The appeals courts are already sending signals the ruling was out of line.  And then there's the political consideration of the thousand some odd jobs that would vanish.  Not to mention the tax revenues.

I'm sure his business will get a fine. I'm sure it'll be a decent slap in the face. I'm sure it will make him vengeful and if he wins the next election he will take it out on all kinds of left leaning people and i'm sure he's already making a list and thinking about who to recruit to do it

And if anything it seems to have improved his chances in the polls. 

But that's about it.  It was a faked up witch hunt to begin with, a nonsense charge that really is never pursued without a complainant  but they did so with him anyway, and this is painfully obviously politically motivated and now that they've weaponized the courts i would expect that there will be reprisals along the same lines for the dems.

 

 

[Rebound]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

First 50 posts in the last thread when i had to explain that to you - CRIMINAL FRAUD TRUMP IS GOING TO JAIL!!!!!

I'm glad that after i posted MULTIPLE sources for you and explained it again and again till you FINALLY undestood it that NOW you've realized it's a civil trial and not a criminal one. That only took about 20 posts to get through your thick noggin

So to pretend that you understand this stuff is just you being childish. Do better.

Doesn't look like that's going to happen. The appeals courts are already sending signals the ruling was out of line.  And then there's the political consideration of the thousand some odd jobs that would vanish.  Not to mention the tax revenues.

I'm sure his business will get a fine. I'm sure it'll be a decent slap in the face. I'm sure it will make him vengeful and if he wins the next election he will take it out on all kinds of left leaning people and i'm sure he's already making a list and thinking about who to recruit to do it

And if anything it seems to have improved his chances in the polls. 

But that's about it.  It was a faked up witch hunt to begin with, a nonsense charge that really is never pursued without a complainant  but they did so with him anyway, and this is painfully obviously politically motivated and now that they've weaponized the courts i would expect that there will be reprisals along the same lines for the dems.

 

 

Nobody in this thread has said that Trump will face jail time over this civil fraud trial. 

I said that this trial will “end Trump” because the damages will be so extreme. Trump has already lost, and he and his legal team have handled this case horribly throughout. My guess is the damages will be a minimum of $200 million and more likely $500 million. 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

Nobody in this thread has said that Trump will face jail time over this civil fraud trial. 

 

You are in this thread and you have  said it. 

Point is - lets not pretend you are knowledgeable in this area when i had to explain the basics of the law to you and had to do so many times before you got it.  That's what you get for playing the 'i know what i'm talknig about' card when you VERY CLEARLY DID NOT.

Quote

I said that this trial will “end Trump” because the damages will be so extreme.

And they probably won't be.  But even if they were it's not going to end him.

Quote

Trump has already lost, and he and his legal team have handled this case horribly throughout. My guess is the damages will be a minimum of $200 million and more likely $500 million. 

In what way did they handle it horribly?

Ohhhhh right - you don't have a clue, you just wish that were true so you say it without doing any research.

The judges errors have opened the door to appeal, we'll see what the appeal says.

[Rebound]

5 hours ago, CdnFox said:

You are in this thread and you have  said it. 

Point is - lets not pretend you are knowledgeable in this area when i had to explain the basics of the law to you and had to do so many times before you got it.  That's what you get for playing the 'i know what i'm talknig about' card when you VERY CLEARLY DID NOT.

And they probably won't be.  But even if they were it's not going to end him.

In what way did they handle it horribly?

Ohhhhh right - you don't have a clue, you just wish that were true so you say it without doing any research.

The judges errors have opened the door to appeal, we'll see what the appeal says.

Can you f-ing say anything that’s true? 
I didn’t say that this civil trial will land him in jail. Nobody said that in this thread. 
 

You’re just another sub-100 MAGA mooron. 

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Rebound said:

Can you f-ing say anything that’s true? 
I didn’t say that this civil trial will land him in jail. Nobody said that in this thread. 
 

You’re just another sub-100 MAGA mooron. 

Sure kid. you didn't say he was 'guilty' either right?  It's amazing how you lefties forget what you've said the moment someone proves you wrong

So let me sum it up for you seeing as your memory is so bad.  This isn't going to ruin trump at all. He'll get a small slap and that's it. He's not going out of business, he's not going to jail, he's not 'guilty' of anything, this was a witch hunt and they'll be forced to back down just as colorado is.  Sorry that the facts don't match with your fiction,.