Trump GUILTY of Fraud

[lovinthehd]

Thanks for clarifying what happened. So that court thinks that being convicted of business fraud is enough without any other monetary penalty. WOW.
What if it is appealed to the NY supreme court? Can a fine be imposed?

The appeals court is turning over the decision of what they call Supreme Court in NY....the appeals court is effectively the supreme court in other jurisdictions. https://ww2.nycourts.gov/courts/8jd/structure.shtml

 

[Mr._Clark]

Thanks for clarifying what happened. So that court thinks that being convicted of business fraud is enough without any other monetary penalty. WOW.
What if it is appealed to the NY supreme court? Can a fine be imposed?

I do not practice in NY, but the AG said she is appealing the decision. I'm assuming she will ask the NY Court of Appeals to reinstate the penalty. In terms of the penalty, I'm not sure what options the NY Court of Appeals would have (this gets into areas of NY law that are well outside my area of practice). My best guess (emphasis on guess) is that the court could either: 1) reinstate the entire penalty (this strikes me as an unlikely outcome), 2) confirm that tossing the entire penalty was correct, or 3) order a retrial with legal guidance Re 8th amendment limits on penalties, after which a new penalty might be imposed depending on the outcome of the new trial.

It is unclear to me if the NY Court of Appeals could adjust the penalty on its own without a retrial. I suspect this is unlikely because an adjustment would likely (again, just a guess) require new findings of fact (which must done by a trial court) to determine 8th amendment limits under new legal guidance.

If the the NY Court of Appeals tosses the finding that Trump committed fraud, the amount of the penalty would be a dead issue unless the court ordered a new trial on the fraud issue itself (I'm guessing that the NY Court of Appeals could properly order a retrial on the fraud issue, but I'm not sure).

NY Court of Appeals will be in an awkward position. I suspect that the court will not want to set a precedent that effectively removes penalties for business fraud, but reinstating the entire penalty would also be uncomfortable (for lack of a better word) for the court. Based on the Clinton v Jones case, it appears to me that a retrial could in theory proceed while Trump is in office, but I doubt the courts would order an immediate retrial.

Take all of the above with several grains of salt. I have not read the court decision and the case involves many legal issues that are outside my area of practice.

 

[lovinthehd]

 

[DrMorbius]

He is truly a human leech. It baffles me that so many people voted for him.

 

[Mr._Clark]

Can this be appealed to next level of court?

It looks like Trump just got an early Christmas present.

>>>President Trump’s criminal prosecution in Georgia suddenly moved to its end Wednesday, as the prosecutor who recently took over the case announced he will not move forward with it.<<<

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5623428-trump-georgia-prosecution-ends/

Here's snip from the motion to dismiss filed by the prosecutor:

>>>The strongest and most prosecutable case against those seeking to overturn the 2020Presidential election results and prevent the certification of those votes was the one investigated and indicted by Special Counsel Jack Smith. Although Special Counsel Jack Smith’s federal case encompassed evidence from multiple states, he ultimately concluded the federal case could not be prosecuted because of the U. S. Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States and the re-election of President Donald J. Trump.<<<

 

[budjo]

Unbelievable how he gets away with everything. Even more unbelievable is how many people still would vote for him. Makes me think the country is in big trouble if there are that many people without critical thinking skills. Absolutely insane.

 

[Mr._Clark]

Unbelievable how he gets away with everything. . . .

Might as well get used to believing it. The US Supreme Court created presidential immunity out of thin air and gave Trump and all future presidents an almost unlimited get out of jail free card.

>>>Even though Trump has defied the law and the Constitution more egregiously in his second term than he did in his first, most legal experts agree that he will face few, if any, of the kind of prosecutions he was confronted with after grudgingly leaving office in 2021. . . .

In large part, Trump owes his current insulation from potential prosecution to the 2024 Supreme Court decision Trump v. United States, which granted the president “absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts.”<<<

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/25/opinion/trump-corruption-crypto-immunity.html

The asymmetry in the Comey case is especially jarring. Trump's actions are infinitely more criminal than anything Comey ever did, yet Trump can direct Bondi and a hoard of federal lawyers to go after Comey while Trump hides behind a wall of presidential immunity.

Given the fabulous wealth that presidents can now amass from criminal activity while in office, Trump is probably just the first of many criminal presidents.

 

[Dude#1279435]

Might as well get used to believing it. The US Supreme Court created presidential immunity out of thin air and gave Trump and all future presidents an almost unlimited get out of jail free card.

>>>Even though Trump has defied the law and the Constitution more egregiously in his second term than he did in his first, most legal experts agree that he will face few, if any, of the kind of prosecutions he was confronted with after grudgingly leaving office in 2021. . . .

In large part, Trump owes his current insulation from potential prosecution to the 2024 Supreme Court decision Trump v. United States, which granted the president “absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts.”<<<

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/25/opinion/trump-corruption-crypto-immunity.html

The asymmetry in the Comey case is especially jarring. Trump's actions are infinitely more criminal than anything Comey ever did, yet Trump can direct Bondi and a hoard of federal lawyers to go after Comey while Trump hides behind a wall of presidential immunity.

Given the fabulous wealth that presidents can now amass from criminal activity while in office, Trump is probably just the first of many criminal presidents.

Another would be the Bolton case over documents while Trump held on to his own after his first term. I believe he also had evidence destroyed in his house but cannot remember specifically what.

 

[Mr._Clark]

Another would be the Bolton case over documents while Trump held on to his own after his first term. I believe he also had evidence destroyed in his house but cannot remember specifically what.

In my honest opinion, there appears to be a lot more evidence in the Bolton case vs the Comey case. Trump is undoubtedly motivated by revenge, but that does not mean there’s nothing to the case.

This is just my preliminary impression based on a few media reports. I have not by any means extensively evaluated the Bolton case.

A lot of Bolton’s criticisms of Trump appear to be well-founded, but again that doesn’t mean there’s nothing to the case.

Having said that, I agree that the Bolton case is another example of the asymmetry between Trump’s absolute immunity and the potential criminal liability of everyone else. Nevertheless, it’s a bit less jarring in the Bolton case.

And that’s my huge opinion.

 

[Dude#1279435]

In my honest opinion, there appears to be a lot more evidence in the Bolton case vs the Comey case. Trump is undoubtedly motivated by revenge, but that does not mean there’s nothing to the case.

This is just my preliminary impression based on a few media reports. I have not by any means extensively evaluated the Bolton case.

A lot of Bolton’s criticisms of Trump appear to be well-founded, but again that doesn’t mean there’s nothing to the case.

Having said that, I agree that the Bolton case is another example of the asymmetry between Trump’s absolute immunity and the potential criminal liability of everyone else. Nevertheless, it’s a bit less jarring in the Bolton case.

And that’s my huge opinion.

There's a difference with the Bolton case, but not much difference in the hypocrisy.