Trump GUILTY of Fraud

D

Dude#1279435

Audioholic Spartan
Avoid the topic. I do not know what you are watching. But most of the news networks are running this stuff into the ground. 24-7. Both sides. Depending on what network you tune into. Both of them with completely different takes
Name me the conservative networks talking about it beyond "this is a witch hunt."
 
adk highlander

adk highlander

Sith Lord
Name me the conservative networks talking about it beyond "this is a witch hunt."
Don't try and use logic or ask for any reasonable comments from him. He has drunk the orange cool aid. No hope for him and his MAGA ass--o-ciates.
 
davidscott

davidscott

Audioholic Spartan
TRUMP 45! A whole new spin this MAGA bumper sticker after he was rated 45 (last) in a poll of historians. What a legacy this guy is leaving for himself. So Sad for his family. :(
 
lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Audioholic Jedi
TRUMP 45! A whole new spin this MAGA bumper sticker after he was rated 45 (last) in a poll of historians. What a legacy this guy is leaving for himself. So Sad for his family. :(
Well, his family is already pretty sad. :)
 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Samurai
The judge denied Trump's request to delay finalizing the fraud order. In NY, a defendant must pay the amount owed within 30 days even if an appeal is filed.

The fact that Trump asked for a delay suggests he might expect to have difficulty coming up with the money.

Trump will have 30 days come up with $450 million in cash or post bond.

>>>Once the judgment is officially entered, it will start the 30-day clock for Trump to file an appeal. During that period, Trump will need to put up cash or post bond to cover the $355 million and roughly $100 million in interest he was ordered to pay the state.<<<


This is on top of the $83.3 million he needs to pay for the defamation case. The 30 day clock on that one started on February 8.

>>>A judge has officially registered the judgment in E. Jean Carroll's defamation award against former President Donald Trump—starting the clock on Trump's attempts to lower the $83.3 million awarded.<<<

Judge Lewis Kaplan entered the judgment on Thursday, February 8, which gives Trump 30 days to post a bond pending post-trial motions to have the award lowered.<<<


It's a lot to come up with in such a short period of time, and Trump is somewhat restricted because a judge is overseeing his business so he can't cook his books to pay the judgement based on his prior book cooking. Trump also can't get a loan from any business that does business in New York for three years.*

>>>As the Guardian US’s Hugo Lowell reported on Monday: “Trump’s preference is to avoid using his own money while he appeals.” But to obtain a bond, Trump would have to find a company willing to do business with him and “would then have to pay a premium to the bond company and offer collateral, probably in the form of his most prized assets”, like his real estate holdings.

Trump is also hemmed in by the verdict’s restriction barring his company from applying for a loan from any firm that does business in New York for the next three years, potentially limiting his options to secure the money for that bond.<<<


It will be interesting to see if Trump can do it. Even if he doesn't have the cash, I suspect he would be able to post bond, but given the risk, a financial institution would charge him out the wazoo.


*The court order actually says:

>>>The Court hereby enjoins Donald Trump and the Trump Organization and its affiliates from
applying for loans from any financial institution chartered by or registered with the New York
State Department of Financial Services
for a period of three years.<<<(emphasis added)
 
GO-NAD!

GO-NAD!

Audioholic Spartan
The judge denied Trump's request to delay finalizing the fraud order. In NY, a defendant must pay the amount owed within 30 days even if an appeal is filed.

The fact that Trump asked for a delay suggests he might expect to have difficulty coming up with the money.

Trump will have 30 days come up with $450 million in cash or post bond.

>>>Once the judgment is officially entered, it will start the 30-day clock for Trump to file an appeal. During that period, Trump will need to put up cash or post bond to cover the $355 million and roughly $100 million in interest he was ordered to pay the state.<<<


This is on top of the $83.3 million he needs to pay for the defamation case. The 30 day clock on that one started on February 8.

>>>A judge has officially registered the judgment in E. Jean Carroll's defamation award against former President Donald Trump—starting the clock on Trump's attempts to lower the $83.3 million awarded.<<<

Judge Lewis Kaplan entered the judgment on Thursday, February 8, which gives Trump 30 days to post a bond pending post-trial motions to have the award lowered.<<<


It's a lot to come up with in such a short period of time, and Trump is somewhat restricted because a judge is overseeing his business so he can't cook his books to pay the judgement based on his prior book cooking. Trump also can't get a loan from any business that does business in New York for three years.*

>>>As the Guardian US’s Hugo Lowell reported on Monday: “Trump’s preference is to avoid using his own money while he appeals.” But to obtain a bond, Trump would have to find a company willing to do business with him and “would then have to pay a premium to the bond company and offer collateral, probably in the form of his most prized assets”, like his real estate holdings.

Trump is also hemmed in by the verdict’s restriction barring his company from applying for a loan from any firm that does business in New York for the next three years, potentially limiting his options to secure the money for that bond.<<<


It will be interesting to see if Trump can do it. Even if he doesn't have the cash, I suspect he would be able to post bond, but given the risk, a financial institution would charge him out the wazoo.


*The court order actually says:

>>>The Court hereby enjoins Donald Trump and the Trump Organization and its affiliates from
applying for loans from any financial institution chartered by or registered with the New York
State Department of Financial Services
for a period of three years.<<<(emphasis added)
That's a $hitton of sneakers he'll have to sell.
 
D

Dude#1279435

Audioholic Spartan
To play devil's advocate I think I need to know what the crime is, for how long did the crime go on, and why so much? As a percentage of income? I don't believe the "witch hunt" claim quite works if Trump did break the law. You'd have to say 'Well they all under report their assets', and that's the problem: you're acknowledging he broke the law. It seems like it comes back to 'Well what about Joe?', and that's why I don't believe the House is really interested in pursuing if something was going on with the Bidens. They're much more interested in the narrative that the DOJ is unfairly corrupt and partisan. You'd have to say we go after everyone, or we go after no one. But the latter can't be said out loud.

Bidens- I'd be surprised if Joe received assets from his sons gov't contracts or whatever, but maybe you could file a suit under his sons benefiting from Joe's political position. If that's an avenue being pursued.
 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Samurai
Trump is also asking for delay in enforcing the verdict in the Carroll case.

>>>Former President Trump’s lawyers asked a New York judge Friday to pause the verdict that would require him to pay columnist E. Jean Carroll more than $80 million for defamation, arguing his appeal would likely reduce or dismiss the case entirely.<<<


From the article:

>>>Trump’s attorneys called the punitive damages “plainly excessive” arguing they violate “both the Constitution and the federal common law.”<<<(emphasis added)

I have a hard time seeing how Trump can win the Consititutional argument.

The jury awarded Carroll $65 million in punitive damages and $18.3 million in compensatory damages. This is a damages ratio of 3.5:1 punitive to compensatory damages.

Some punitive damages awards have been struck down on Due Process (consitutional) grounds.

The U.S. Supreme Court has not set a strict limit, but the 3.5:1 in the Carroll case is well within the ranges that have been upheld in the past.

>>>In the past the Court has upheld ratios of 4: and 526:1 while striking down damage awards with ratios of 5:1, 500:1, 145:1, and 97:1.<<<


As discussed in the report, there are other factors in addition to the damages ratio,* but I'm not aware of any cases striking down punitive damages on Due Process grounds when the damages ratio was less than 4:1 (The court in the Exxon case trimmed a punitive award from a 5:1 ratio to a 1:1 ratio but, this decision was based on maritime law, not Due Process, so the case has little precidential value outside of maritime law).

What's interesting is that Trump's arguments are directly contrary to the views of Scalia and Thomas, two of the most conservative recent justices to consider the issue:

>>>Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia have consistently expressed their position that punitive damages can never violate substantive due process. The Constitution, in their view, simply "does not constrain the size of punitive damages awards."<<<(emphasis added).

Granted, Thomas and Scalia were in the minority so their view is not controlling law. Still, it's a bit ironic that Trump, a so-called conservative, is more than happy to make liberal legal arguments when it suits him.

In fairness, almost every defendant makes the strongest legal arguments they can, regardless of whether or not the arguments are consistent with a particular political ideology.


*From the link: >>>These five key factors include: whether the harm caused was physical or economic; whether the victim was financially vulnerable; whether the conduct represented a reckless disregard for the health or safety of others; whether the conduct was repetitive or isolated; and whether the plaintiff's injury occurred as a result of intentional malice, trickery, or deceit as opposed to mere negligence. Conduct that involves bad faith or fraud tends to suggest a high degree of "reprehensibility" as is evidenced by the Court's decision in TXO, which emphasized the "character" of the actions that led to plaintiff's injury in upholding a large 526:1 damages ratio.<<<(I doubt that any of these factors will help Trump much, if at all)
 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Samurai
And, of course, back in 2016 Trump said he wanted to "open up" libel laws to make it easier to sue for libel.

>>>"One of the things I'm going to do if I win, and I hope we do and we're certainly leading. I'm going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money. . . . "We're going to open up libel laws, and we're going to have people sue you like you've never got sued before."<<<(emphasis added)


True to form, Trump has no principles.

Note: defamation is a generic term that includes false statements whether verbal (slander) or written (libel).
 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Samurai
It will be interesting to see if Trump can do it. Even if he doesn't have the cash, I suspect he would be able to post bond, but given the risk, a financial institution would charge him out the wazoo.
The NYT says a bond company would charge up to 3%

>>>The bond is likely to be his best bet: Mr. Trump, who also faces an $83.3 million judgment in an unrelated defamation case, does not have enough cash on hand to do it all himself, according to a recent New York Times analysis of his finances. If Mr. Trump can find a bond company willing to do a deal this big, it will require him to pay the firm a fee as high as 3 percent of the judgment and to pledge collateral.<<<(emphasis added)


My best guess is that he'll have to pay more than 3%. Even if he puts up collateral, he has a long track record of stiffing people, and it's unclear what might happen if he's criminally convicted, what he might do if he does become president, etc.
 
D

Dude#1279435

Audioholic Spartan
And, of course, back in 2016 Trump said he wanted to "open up" libel laws to make it easier to sue for libel.

>>>"One of the things I'm going to do if I win, and I hope we do and we're certainly leading. I'm going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money. . . . "We're going to open up libel laws, and we're going to have people sue you like you've never got sued before."<<<(emphasis added)


True to form, Trump has no principles.

Note: defamation is a generic term that includes false statements whether verbal (slander) or written (libel).
I think it amounts to with Trump: if you say unkind things about me (even if true), I'll sue you.
 
cpp

cpp

Audioholic Ninja
I think it amounts to with Trump: if you say unkind things about me (even if true), I'll sue you.
the old I'll Sue You sounds like a Sat NIght Live skit. Maybe the courts finally get smart and call his bluff, and rule against him on all cases.
 
Last edited:
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Samurai
the old I'll Sue You sounds like a Sat NIght Live skit. Maybe the courts finally get smart and call his bluff, and rule against him on all cases.
Kind of like this one?

>>>July 29 (Reuters) - A federal judge has thrown out Donald Trump's $475 million defamation lawsuit against CNN, in which the former president claimed the network's description of his election fraud as the "big lie" associated him with Adolf Hitler.
In a ruling late on Friday night, U.S. Judge Raag Singhal, who was nominated by Trump in 2019, said CNN's words were opinion, not fact, and therefore could not be the subject of a defamation claim.<<<


Back in 2016, Trump was complaining about the New York Times v Sullivan case, which held that a public figure needed to prove actual malice to win a defamation lawsuit against a news organization.

>>>The Court, in a unanimous 9-0 decision, established that statements under such circumstances involving a public official plaintiff must be false and made with “actual malice,” that is, “with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” Upending the common law tort rule, the Court placed the burden of proof on the public official plaintiff, stating that the plaintiff must demonstrate actual malice with “convincing clarity which the constitutional standard demands.”<<<


Of course, even after he was elected, Trump didn't have the power to unilaterally toss a Supreme Court case.

It's interesting that Fox settled the Dominion lawsuit despite the actual malice requirement.

>>>By the time the trial was set to begin on Tuesday, the only question remaining about whether Fox was liable was if it had broadcast those claims with “actual malice” — that is, whether it knew the statements were false when it made them, or acted with reckless disregard for their falsity.<<<


Fox obviously thought they'd lose at trial (i.e. Fox thought that there was sufficient evidence to show actual malice).

If Trump would have somehow succeeded in making it easier to sue news outlets for defamation, the Dominion lawsuit against Fox would have been much easier to prove, and Dominion may have gotten an even larger settlement (or win at trial).
 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Samurai
Trump has a long history filing losing lawsuits, at least in part to harass people. No, I'm not making that up. Here's Trump himself:

>>>Trump has long boasted about his penchant for filing lawsuits. The president and his businesses have reportedly filed over 2,000 lawsuits. After losing a 2006 defamation lawsuit against the journalist Tim O’Brien, Trump told the Post that he knew he couldn’t win, but he sued anyway. “I spent a couple of bucks on legal fees, and they spent a whole lot more,” Trump said. “I did it to make his life miserable, which I’m happy about.”<<<(emphasis added)

https://www.propublica.org/article/2020-trump-inc-podcast-the-trump-campaigns-legal-strategy-includes-suing-a-tiny-tv-station-in-northern-wisconsin

The Propublica article mentions several defamation lawsuits filed by Trump, including a tiny TV station in northern Wisconsin that ran an ad he didn't like:

>>>This year, President Donald Trump’s reelection campaign filed defamation lawsuits against three of the country’s most prominent news outlets: The New York Times, The Washington Post and CNN. Then it filed another suit against a somewhat lower-profile news organization: northern Wisconsin’s WJFW-TV, which serves the 134th-largest market in the country.<<<

These have all been tossed.

>>>A lawsuit filed by President Donald Trump’s campaign against a Northwoods TV station has been dismissed in federal court.<<<


>>>Judge Dismisses Trump’s Lawsuit Against The New York Times
Former President Donald J. Trump, who had sued The Times, three of its reporters and his niece over an investigation into his tax returns, was ordered to pay The Times’s legal expenses.<<<


>>>A defamation lawsuit by President Donald Trump’s 2020 campaign against the Washington Post was dismissed by a federal judge.<<<

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/trump-2020-campaign-suit-against-washington-post-is-dismissed

Basically, Trump tries to use his money and power to shut down any dissent.
 
Last edited:
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Seriously, I have no life.
Trump has a long history filing losing lawsuits, at least in part to harass people. No, I'm making that up. Here's Trump himself:

>>>Trump has long boasted about his penchant for filing lawsuits. The president and his businesses have reportedly filed over 2,000 lawsuits. After losing a 2006 defamation lawsuit against the journalist Tim O’Brien, Trump told the Post that he knew he couldn’t win, but he sued anyway. “I spent a couple of bucks on legal fees, and they spent a whole lot more,” Trump said. “I did it to make his life miserable, which I’m happy about.”<<<(emphasis added)

https://www.propublica.org/article/2020-trump-inc-podcast-the-trump-campaigns-legal-strategy-includes-suing-a-tiny-tv-station-in-northern-wisconsin

The Propublica article mentions several defamation lawsuits filed by Trump, including a tiny TV station in northern Wisconsin that ran an ad he didn't like:

>>>This year, President Donald Trump’s reelection campaign filed defamation lawsuits against three of the country’s most prominent news outlets: The New York Times, The Washington Post and CNN. Then it filed another suit against a somewhat lower-profile news organization: northern Wisconsin’s WJFW-TV, which serves the 134th-largest market in the country.<<<

These have all been tossed.

>>>A lawsuit filed by President Donald Trump’s campaign against a Northwoods TV station has been dismissed in federal court.<<<


>>>Judge Dismisses Trump’s Lawsuit Against The New York Times
Former President Donald J. Trump, who had sued The Times, three of its reporters and his niece over an investigation into his tax returns, was ordered to pay The Times’s legal expenses.<<<


>>>A defamation lawsuit by President Donald Trump’s 2020 campaign against the Washington Post was dismissed by a federal judge.<<<

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/trump-2020-campaign-suit-against-washington-post-is-dismissed

Basically, Trump tries to use his money and power to shut down any dissent.
Wonder if any counter suit followed for frivolous lawsuits. Make him pay more.
 
lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Audioholic Jedi
Trump has a long history filing losing lawsuits, at least in part to harass people. No, I'm making that up. Here's Trump himself:

>>>Trump has long boasted about his penchant for filing lawsuits. The president and his businesses have reportedly filed over 2,000 lawsuits. After losing a 2006 defamation lawsuit against the journalist Tim O’Brien, Trump told the Post that he knew he couldn’t win, but he sued anyway. “I spent a couple of bucks on legal fees, and they spent a whole lot more,” Trump said. “I did it to make his life miserable, which I’m happy about.”<<<(emphasis added)

https://www.propublica.org/article/2020-trump-inc-podcast-the-trump-campaigns-legal-strategy-includes-suing-a-tiny-tv-station-in-northern-wisconsin

The Propublica article mentions several defamation lawsuits filed by Trump, including a tiny TV station in northern Wisconsin that ran an ad he didn't like:

>>>This year, President Donald Trump’s reelection campaign filed defamation lawsuits against three of the country’s most prominent news outlets: The New York Times, The Washington Post and CNN. Then it filed another suit against a somewhat lower-profile news organization: northern Wisconsin’s WJFW-TV, which serves the 134th-largest market in the country.<<<

These have all been tossed.

>>>A lawsuit filed by President Donald Trump’s campaign against a Northwoods TV station has been dismissed in federal court.<<<


>>>Judge Dismisses Trump’s Lawsuit Against The New York Times
Former President Donald J. Trump, who had sued The Times, three of its reporters and his niece over an investigation into his tax returns, was ordered to pay The Times’s legal expenses.<<<


>>>A defamation lawsuit by President Donald Trump’s 2020 campaign against the Washington Post was dismissed by a federal judge.<<<

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/trump-2020-campaign-suit-against-washington-post-is-dismissed

Basically, Trump tries to use his money and power to shut down any dissent.
From a wannabe dictator, of course....
 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Samurai
[/QUOTE]
Wonder if any counter suit followed for frivolous lawsuits. Make him pay more.
He was ordered to pay attorneys fees and expenses in the NYT case. Winning a lawsuit based on a prior frivolous lawsuit is exceptionally difficult. On the other hand, Trump basically admitted that at least one of the lawsuits was brought in bad faith.
 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Samurai
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Samurai
Even if he's not an outright agent, I suspect Putin might have kompromat on him (or Putin convinced Trump he has kompromat).
I'm not the first person to suspect this:

>>>“You wonder, what does Putin have on Donald Trump that he always has to be beholden to him, his buddy in vileness?” Pelosi said last week in an interview on MSNBC.<<<

 

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top