Trump going to lose his shirt in NY

[godzilla]

Trump slams New York AG in unexpected courtroom remarks at fraud trial: Live updates

i had a relative once that was just like Trump. he had numerous family court conflicts where he had a tonne of opportunity except that he just refused to get a lawyer and refused to not make it a personal matter in front of judges... and judges ruled against him every time because he clearly had beefs with everyone and could not be trusted to act fairly.

this is why Trump is such a bad candidate whose base is made up of rural non-college voters.

in the New York case all he had to do was have his lawyers argue that there were some systemic problems in company accounting that caused these errors over a long period of time, that the company has taken every measure to correct and has put oversight in place to ensure that this never happens again. all they had to do was take a slap on the wrist and go about their business like nothing ever happened.

but no! this is Trumps legal idiocy! everything is personal to him. he's unhinged.

[Rebound]

Trump’s put up one of the worst legal defenses in history in this case. No question. 
 

Trump’s  lawyers waived the right to a jury trial, and then Trump continually claimed that it amounted to “taking away his rights.” He answered his deposition questions very poorly.  I had to do a deposition in a divorce case once; I insisted on sitting down with a lawyer to understand how to best answer questions and anticipate possible questions. When your money is at stake, you don’t “wing it.”

[robosmith]

2 hours ago, godzilla said:

Trump slams New York AG in unexpected courtroom remarks at fraud trial: Live updates

i had a relative once that was just like Trump. he had numerous family court conflicts where he had a tonne of opportunity except that he just refused to get a lawyer and refused to not make it a personal matter in front of judges... and judges ruled against him every time because he clearly had beefs with everyone and could not be trusted to act fairly.

this is why Trump is such a bad candidate whose base is made up of rural non-college voters.

in the New York case all he had to do was have his lawyers argue that there were some systemic problems in company accounting that caused these errors over a long period of time, that the company has taken every measure to correct and has put oversight in place to ensure that this never happens again. all they had to do was take a slap on the wrist and go about their business like nothing ever happened.

but no! this is Trumps legal idiocy! everything is personal to him. he's unhinged.

Doubt ^this would work. Engoran has already stated WHY he knows it's INTENTIONAL.

[Legato]

If found guilty of fraud he will appeal. The appeal will be heard in another jurisdiction made up of normal people and the charges tossed out. Case closed.

[Yakuda]

1 hour ago, Legato said:

If found guilty of fraud he will appeal. The appeal will be heard in another jurisdiction made up of normal people and the charges tossed out. Case closed.

This is absolutely right. Trump will never get a fair shake in a NY courtroom 

[CdnFox]

5 hours ago, Rebound said:

Trump’s put up one of the worst legal defenses in history in this case. No question. 
 

Trump’s  lawyers waived the right to a jury trial,

No, they didn't. As i already mentioned to you a trial jury is NOT allowed in these cases, it was never an option.  This isn't a criminal trial.

Why do you guys always feel the need to lie and make shit up? Are you honestly telling me that if you told the truth, there just wouldn't be anything to critisize trump about? Like you can't find ANYTHING legit that's bad to say about him? Really?

There was never any trial to determine if he broke the law or not - this is more like a traffic ticket. He wasn't allowed to defend himself on that front. The court case is not to determine guilt but rather to determine what a suitable fine will be.  The prosecution is asking for 350 million and to ban trump from doing business in new york. We'll see what the judge decides is fair.

[Rebound]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

No, they didn't. As i already mentioned to you a trial jury is NOT allowed in these cases, it was never an option.  This isn't a criminal trial.

Why do you guys always feel the need to lie and make shit up? Are you honestly telling me that if you told the truth, there just wouldn't be anything to critisize trump about? Like you can't find ANYTHING legit that's bad to say about him? Really?

There was never any trial to determine if he broke the law or not - this is more like a traffic ticket. He wasn't allowed to defend himself on that front. The court case is not to determine guilt but rather to determine what a suitable fine will be.  The prosecution is asking for 350 million and to ban trump from doing business in new york. We'll see what the judge decides is fair.

The law is the law.  Judge Engoron applied the law. Not because true trial was civil, however. The E. Jean Carroll defamation case is a civil trial with a jury, for example. 

Edited January 12, 2024 by Rebound

[Michael Hardner]

Should be easy to check that.

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-no-jury-bench-trial-ny-fraud-case-paperwork-2023-10

[Rebound]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

Should be easy to check that.

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-no-jury-bench-trial-ny-fraud-case-paperwork-2023-10

Yes, it has been widely reported that Trump’s attorneys failed to respond to the motion for no jury trial which the AG filed.

However, Judge Engoron has recently explained that, even if Trump’s attorneys requested a jury trial, he wouldn’t have permitted it, because, according to CBS News:

”Engoron said the punishment being sought by the state is an "equitable" remedy, as opposed to a "legal" remedy.

A legal remedy is an award for damages, which can be determined by a jury. Earlier this year, a federal jury awarded the writer E. Jean Carroll $5 million in damages after finding Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation. The damages were not an amount Trump took from her, but rather a sum the jury concluded might remedy the emotional, physical and reputational harm Trump had caused.

In the ongoing New York fraud case, the state is seeking $250 million in disgorgement, a kind of equitable remedy that is a clawback of ill-gotten gains — the amount of benefit that the state says Trump and the co-defendants personally received from alleged fraud. Authorities cannot ask a jury to make that kind of calculation.“

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/trump-trial-no-jury-fraud-new-york-judge-arthur-engoron/

[Caswell Thomas]

4 hours ago, Legato said:

If found guilty of fraud he will appeal. The appeal will be heard in another jurisdiction made up of normal people and the charges tossed out. Case closed.

Completely unlikely. Factual paper trail evidence never disappears in cases valued over $250,000, the IRS you see has a stake in this also and their records are Iron clad. 

[Rebound]

4 hours ago, Legato said:

If found guilty of fraud he will appeal. The appeal will be heard in another jurisdiction made up of normal people and the charges tossed out. Case closed.

The appeal will be a NY State Appellate Court. On what basis will the appeal overturn the verdict?

Trump didn’t get a jury trial? Nope. 
Trump’s complaint that the charges are political? Nope. 
The failure of the DA or Judge to properly apply the law? Yes, if such a failure occurred.  

[Legato]

26 minutes ago, Caswell Thomas said:

Completely unlikely. Factual paper trail evidence never disappears in cases valued over $250,000, the IRS you see has a stake in this also and their records are Iron clad. 

All the rivets just popped out

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Rebound said:

The law is the law.  Judge Engoron applied the law. Not because true trial was civil, however. The E. Jean Carroll defamation case is a civil trial with a jury, for example. 

Sigh. You can't have a jury trial for this type of civil case. Anyone who knows anything knows this

Here's an explanation. 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-trial-no-jury-fraud-new-york-judge-arthur-engoron/

From the judge:

Judge Arthur Engoron addressed an issue that had been the subject of speculation on social media and by Trump himself, saying it "keeps coming up," even though he doesn't "read the papers or go online to read about" the trial.

Former President Donald Trump did not request a jury for his New York civil fraud trial, but even if he had asked for one, the answer would've been "no," a judge said Wednesday.

It would not have helped to make a motion. Nobody forgot to check off a box," Engoron said.

In the ongoing New York fraud case, the state is seeking $250 million in disgorgement, a kind of equitable remedy that is a clawback of ill-gotten gains — the amount of benefit that the state says Trump and the co-defendants personally received from alleged fraud. Authorities cannot ask a jury to make that kind of calculation.

"That leaves it up to the judge," Engoron said.

 

As i said many times - this is a trial to determine how much trump should owe.  It is not a trial to determine his guilt, they assume his guilt from the get go.  This is a CIVIL FRAUD trial.  There cannot be a jury.

So all that stuff about how trump refused a jury and such - that is all complete nonsense that left wing sites keep passing around and nobody on the left cares to actually verify or learn about.

No. Trump did not refuse a jury. No, cases like this where the purpose is to calculate the amount owed NEVER have a jury, they cannot.  Nobody waived the right.

Yeash.

[Rebound]

9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Sigh. You can't have a jury trial for this type of civil case. Anyone who knows anything knows this

Here's an explanation. 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-trial-no-jury-fraud-new-york-judge-arthur-engoron/

From the judge:

Judge Arthur Engoron addressed an issue that had been the subject of speculation on social media and by Trump himself, saying it "keeps coming up," even though he doesn't "read the papers or go online to read about" the trial.

Former President Donald Trump did not request a jury for his New York civil fraud trial, but even if he had asked for one, the answer would've been "no," a judge said Wednesday.

It would not have helped to make a motion. Nobody forgot to check off a box," Engoron said.

In the ongoing New York fraud case, the state is seeking $250 million in disgorgement, a kind of equitable remedy that is a clawback of ill-gotten gains — the amount of benefit that the state says Trump and the co-defendants personally received from alleged fraud. Authorities cannot ask a jury to make that kind of calculation.

"That leaves it up to the judge," Engoron said.

 

As i said many times - this is a trial to determine how much trump should owe.  It is not a trial to determine his guilt, they assume his guilt from the get go.  This is a CIVIL FRAUD trial.  There cannot be a jury.

So all that stuff about how trump refused a jury and such - that is all complete nonsense that left wing sites keep passing around and nobody on the left cares to actually verify or learn about.

No. Trump did not refuse a jury. No, cases like this where the purpose is to calculate the amount owed NEVER have a jury, they cannot.  Nobody waived the right.

Yeash.

Hey dum dum, you just cited the same article I cited. 
I’m not gonna let you do your usual bullshlt on this. You said that a jury wasn’t used in this type of trial because it was not a criminal trial. 

I posted the link from CBS News, which explained that, yes, Trump’s lawyers never objected to the motion to make it a non-jury trial, but the judge said it didn’t matter, he would not have allowed a jury because the damages are “disgorgement,” and not “damages.” 
 

Then you posted the same link from CBS. And said that I was wrong.  

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, Rebound said:

Hey dum dum, you just cited the same article I cited. 

Replying to your post before you cited it, where you claimed that what the article says wasn't true   LOLOL

Quote

I’m not gonna let you do your usual bullshlt on this. You said that a jury wasn’t used in this type of trial because it was not a criminal trial. 

And that's true. It's a civil fraud trial.  You don't have juries.

 

Quote

 

I posted the link from CBS News, which explained that, yes,

Then you posted the same link from CBS. And said that I was wrong.  

 

You posted that trump REFUSED a jury.  That's what you posted. And then you claimed that this kind of civvie trial CAN have a jury.   AND THAT is what i replied to.  I can't help the fact that AFTER you made that COMPLETE BULLSHIT LIE of a post where you WERE WRONG... that you then actually discovered that I WAS RIGHT AND YOU WERE A LYING SACK OF SHIT. 

I read your posts in order - if you lie first and i reply what i'm replying to is the lie.  The fact you ADMIT it was a lie in a LATER posts is your own fault.

Next time get your shit together and discover the lie BEFORE You say it.  You're still wrong, you're still a loser leftie who chose to ignore the truth, and once again you want that to be my fault. It isn't you dipshit. Get your head out of your ass.

[Caswell Thomas]

18 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Sigh. You can't have a jury trial for this type of civil case. Anyone who knows anything knows this

Here's an explanation. 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-trial-no-jury-fraud-new-york-judge-arthur-engoron/

From the judge:

Judge Arthur Engoron addressed an issue that had been the subject of speculation on social media and by Trump himself, saying it "keeps coming up," even though he doesn't "read the papers or go online to read about" the trial.

Former President Donald Trump did not request a jury for his New York civil fraud trial, but even if he had asked for one, the answer would've been "no," a judge said Wednesday.

It would not have helped to make a motion. Nobody forgot to check off a box," Engoron said.

In the ongoing New York fraud case, the state is seeking $250 million in disgorgement, a kind of equitable remedy that is a clawback of ill-gotten gains — the amount of benefit that the state says Trump and the co-defendants personally received from alleged fraud. Authorities cannot ask a jury to make that kind of calculation.

"That leaves it up to the judge," Engoron said.

 

As i said many times - this is a trial to determine how much trump should owe.  It is not a trial to determine his guilt, they assume his guilt from the get go.  This is a CIVIL FRAUD trial.  There cannot be a jury.

So all that stuff about how trump refused a jury and such - that is all complete nonsense that left wing sites keep passing around and nobody on the left cares to actually verify or learn about.

No. Trump did not refuse a jury. No, cases like this where the purpose is to calculate the amount owed NEVER have a jury, they cannot.  Nobody waived the right.

Yeash.

You are correct re the No jury in this. This was a Bench Trial and they do not have juries, only the judge presiding determines what penalties are appropriate, fines to be imposed as, etc.  Generally the larger the scam, the larger the fine. In this case it began as $250 million but it grew and at closing arguments it was up to $370 million. If this total , or a higher one is set in this financial fraud and other 8 crimes for Trump, it will cut deeply into his pockets, so deep it will likely hit his socks. 

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Caswell Thomas said:

You are correct re the No jury in this. This was a Bench Trial and they do not have juries, only the judge presiding determines what penalties are appropriate, fines to be imposed as, etc.  Generally the larger the scam, the larger the fine. In this case it began as $250 million but it grew and at closing arguments it was up to $370 million. If this total , or a higher one is set in this financial fraud and other 8 crimes for Trump, it will cut deeply into his pockets, so deep it will likely hit his socks. 

Well, it was bound to happen sooner or later but...  i can't really find fault with any of that.

We'll see what the verdict is.  I'm sure it'll be an appeal regardless and the appeals courts have signalled they'll give it serious consideration, but if the fine is more modest they might not.

I doubt it'll wipe him out anyway but guaranteed it's going to be quite a slap.  I don't really think  it was intended to wipe him out tho.  I think it was intended to mess with his fundraising and to spread the idea that he's "guilty of fraud" when that's not exactly accurate.

But i do think that this is a brutally dangerous precedent. THis was very obviously a nuisance case - there's no injured party, the 'overvaluation' claim is extremely sketchy at best and wasn't allowed to be tested in court,  i believe 100 percent if trump wasn't the political figure he is this would never have been brought forward.  Their whole thing is that he got rich because he got preferential rates on loans because he misrepresented his wealth and they didn't even have a single witness say that he got lower rates than he would have.

If trump gets to be pres again i suspect he'll be looking for payback.

 

[Rebound]

14 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Well, it was bound to happen sooner or later but...  i can't really find fault with any of that.

We'll see what the verdict is.  I'm sure it'll be an appeal regardless and the appeals courts have signalled they'll give it serious consideration, but if the fine is more modest they might not.

I doubt it'll wipe him out anyway but guaranteed it's going to be quite a slap.  I don't really think  it was intended to wipe him out tho.  I think it was intended to mess with his fundraising and to spread the idea that he's "guilty of fraud" when that's not exactly accurate.

But i do think that this is a brutally dangerous precedent. THis was very obviously a nuisance case - there's no injured party, the 'overvaluation' claim is extremely sketchy at best and wasn't allowed to be tested in court,  i believe 100 percent if trump wasn't the political figure he is this would never have been brought forward.  Their whole thing is that he got rich because he got preferential rates on loans because he misrepresented his wealth and they didn't even have a single witness say that he got lower rates than he would have.

If trump gets to be pres again i suspect he'll be looking for payback.

 

There is already a verdict: Trump is guilty of civil fraud. Thats already determined. All that remains is the amount of damages he must pay.  
 

Just because you believe the convicted fraudster doesn’t mean nobody was damaged. Deusche Bank is probably keeping a very cool public image of their relationship because it would harm them to admit that they fell for his fraudulent behavior. But the truth is that they have cut off their relationship with Trump, and it is because he defrauded them. 
 

[Deluge]

On 1/11/2024 at 12:18 PM, godzilla said:

Trump slams New York AG in unexpected courtroom remarks at fraud trial: Live updates

i had a relative once that was just like Trump. he had numerous family court conflicts where he had a tonne of opportunity except that he just refused to get a lawyer and refused to not make it a personal matter in front of judges... and judges ruled against him every time because he clearly had beefs with everyone and could not be trusted to act fairly.

this is why Trump is such a bad candidate whose base is made up of rural non-college voters.

in the New York case all he had to do was have his lawyers argue that there were some systemic problems in company accounting that caused these errors over a long period of time, that the company has taken every measure to correct and has put oversight in place to ensure that this never happens again. all they had to do was take a slap on the wrist and go about their business like nothing ever happened.

but no! this is Trumps legal idiocy! everything is personal to him. he's unhinged.

The Left is unhinged, you psychopath. lol

This is a ploitical witch hunt; it's ALWAYS been a political witch hunt, and it ALWAYS WILL BE a political witch hunt. Trump will beat this batshit crazy back and address it when he returns to the White House.

[Deluge]

On 1/11/2024 at 7:14 PM, Rebound said:

The law is the law. 

Not in New York. 

In New York City, it's "A political witch hunt is a political witch hunt".

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Rebound said:

There is already a verdict: Trump is guilty of civil fraud. Thats already determined. All that remains is the amount of damages he must pay. 

Oh my god - am i going to have to explain this to you AGAIN!?!?? HOW are you this stupid?!!?!

THE COURT CASE IS ABOUT THE DAMAGES - THERE IS NO "VERDICT" YET.   There has NOT ALREADY BEEN A VERDICT!

This REALLY isn't hard - the whole court proceeding was specifically for the PURPOSE  of determining the amount of the fine! That's what we're waiting on!

God - it's just painful to watch you guys struggle through this.  This is a civil proceeding to determine what fine would be appropriate - he was not "convicted' of civil fraud, there was no 'verdict' on that, theres' been no verdict in this case.

We will see what the judgment is.  In the meantime maybe stop relying on your left wing echo chambers for your information and read a little.

[Caswell Thomas]

23 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Well, it was bound to happen sooner or later but...  i can't really find fault with any of that.

We'll see what the verdict is.  I'm sure it'll be an appeal regardless and the appeals courts have signalled they'll give it serious consideration, but if the fine is more modest they might not.

I doubt it'll wipe him out anyway but guaranteed it's going to be quite a slap.  I don't really think  it was intended to wipe him out tho.  I think it was intended to mess with his fundraising and to spread the idea that he's "guilty of fraud" when that's not exactly accurate.

But i do think that this is a brutally dangerous precedent. THis was very obviously a nuisance case - there's no injured party, the 'overvaluation' claim is extremely sketchy at best and wasn't allowed to be tested in court,  i believe 100 percent if trump wasn't the political figure he is this would never have been brought forward.  Their whole thing is that he got rich because he got preferential rates on loans because he misrepresented his wealth and they didn't even have a single witness say that he got lower rates than he would have.

If trump gets to be pres again i suspect he'll be looking for payback.

 

See...there ARE injured parties....thousands actually who had to pay much higher insurance and banking fees to make up the losses in stock prices these major corporations lost when Trump lied repeatedly over decades, and over inflated his worth to gain favorable rates and pay less taxes just like his father did. And you see, that's what Trump doesn't want his followers to figure out , that actually he LIED about his wealth, he's not a billionaire .  His actual value in anything is worthless, it's only a foreign banks investments in him that make him APPEAR to gave wealth and once the State if New York Knicks out those pins from under his stacked garage of companies, the whole lot will start falling apart which , the way he set it all up, us interconnected and will fall also. Think of it this way...Trumps father gave him $400 million in assets, Trump set it.like a board on a shaky cylinder underneath, ran up the ramp abd, before it could fall down, he stuck a loaned amount under the other side to hold it up, then ran up the ramp and put a new board down at that end, again putting loaned money under its opposite end to hold it up, while again setting up another new board ( i.e. trump company) and doing the same but now in a different direction . Now his first board ( company) makes a tiny proifit, so he wants bro use that as leverage to prove to the banks his stock has value but it isn't enough to interest them in advancing him any more money, SO he over inflates it's value and borrows enough to again show ...in his books, but not in reality... more money than he actually has, because its all.on paper and he robs Peter to.pay Paul on each transaction, changes the name of that money and puts iT back to the banking institute he first borrowed from to pay what he claims are from "profits" but  actuality he has NO profits, it's all just borrowed money going into and out of shell companies he set up to.launder his and others money so they don't catch on he's running an elaborate Ponzi scheme on the bankers. But..many DO catch in and refuse to do business with him because when they sue to get their investments back because Trump is not abiding to their contracts, Trump declares bankruptcy and transfers all the money into more shell companies held by his family.  So, thousands if other investors got scammed, and the State us forcing Restitution out of Trump and may, in those transactions find other types of criminal acts he also, in another set if legal cases filed against him, end up in criminal trials also. 

 

 

[CdnFox]

11 minutes ago, Caswell Thomas said:

See...there ARE injured parties....thousands actually who had to pay much higher insurance and banking fees to make up the losses in stock prices these major corporations lost when Trump lied repeatedly over decades, and over inflated his worth to gain favorable rates and pay less taxes just like his father did.

No, as we've examined that's an utter lie.

First off - interest is a tax deduction, you don't pay taxes on interest, it's an expense. So your claim that he paid lower interest to avoid taxes is just plain stupid on the face of it.  You're an !diot. 

If anything all that economic activity and jobs created would have INCREASED tax revenues.

Second, nobody paid a single dollar in higher insurance rates.  That absolutely never happened. Not a single solitary penny. 

All loans were repaid on time and in full. No insurance was involved, no insurance company would have even known the difference.  It's absolutely dumb to falsely claim they did.

And thirdly - no evidence has been presented at all to suggest that the banks relied on his claims when lending out the money or gave him lower interest rates based on the information that he provided.

 

you are wrong across the board as usual. Just like you were wrong when you claimed trump was going to jail over this.

There are no victims here in the slighest. No aggrieved parties, no witnesses to say they would have done anything different had the information been reported correctly, nothing at all.  This was a witch hunt with zero victims.

[Caswell Thomas]

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

No, as we've examined that's an utter lie.

First off - interest is a tax deduction, you don't pay taxes on interest, it's an expense. So your claim that he paid lower interest to avoid taxes is just plain stupid on the face of it.  You're an !diot. 

If anything all that economic activity and jobs created would have INCREASED tax revenues.

Second, nobody paid a single dollar in higher insurance rates.  That absolutely never happened. Not a single solitary penny. 

All loans were repaid on time and in full. No insurance was involved, no insurance company would have even known the difference.  It's absolutely dumb to falsely claim they did.

And thirdly - no evidence has been presented at all to suggest that the banks relied on his claims when lending out the money or gave him lower interest rates based on the information that he provided.

 

you are wrong across the board as usual. Just like you were wrong when you claimed trump was going to jail over this.

There are no victims here in the slighest. No aggrieved parties, no witnesses to say they would have done anything different had the information been reported correctly, nothing at all.  This was a witch hunt with zero victims.

M'lady, respectfully, spend a decade doing insurance actuarial work and subragation litigation in multiple Courts  before you tell that same person you *know* anything about how insurance and banking companies work, because, again respectfully, you wouldn't know a certificate of deposit from a piggy bank .

[Rebound]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

No, as we've examined that's an utter lie.

First off - interest is a tax deduction, you don't pay taxes on interest, it's an expense. So your claim that he paid lower interest to avoid taxes is just plain stupid on the face of it.  You're an !diot. 

If anything all that economic activity and jobs created would have INCREASED tax revenues.

Second, nobody paid a single dollar in higher insurance rates.  That absolutely never happened. Not a single solitary penny. 

All loans were repaid on time and in full. No insurance was involved, no insurance company would have even known the difference.  It's absolutely dumb to falsely claim they did.

And thirdly - no evidence has been presented at all to suggest that the banks relied on his claims when lending out the money or gave him lower interest rates based on the information that he provided.

 

you are wrong across the board as usual. Just like you were wrong when you claimed trump was going to jail over this.

There are no victims here in the slighest. No aggrieved parties, no witnesses to say they would have done anything different had the information been reported correctly, nothing at all.  This was a witch hunt with zero victims.

Does the anti-fraud law in New York State require that the victim of the fraud suffer damage?