The leftie heads are exploding all over.
The explosions are massive.http://www.foxnews.com/politics/trumps-454m-judgment-bond-slashed-more-than-half-appeals-court-ruling 2024 = GOP
The libs have had it pretty rough lately. First the weekend meltdowns over NBC News hiring Ronna. Well at least they could look forward to Monday, the deadline for Trump to either handover a half billion dollars to New York or have Tish James seize his assets and slap him with liens.
Now that’s all gone to shit for the libs thanks to the appeals court ruling. And the icing on the cake?
Truth Social about to go public, adding about $3B to Trump’s bottom line.
Trump's holding is about $5 billion.
I like the next reply to the X post linked below. The poster says:
"People can hate Donald Trump all they want.
He is definitely flawed.
But his ascension woke a lot of people up to what actually goes on in politics.
Populism is political disinfectant.
And right now America needs a really deep clean..."
It's not like the judgment was overturned. $175 million is still a significant amount of money to come up with in order to appeal the judgment. Even if the judgment is eventually reduced by the appellate court, your hero and his sons are still civilly convicted business fraudsters and restricting them from doing future business in New York is likely.
You might be taking in all in stride, but the general consensus of libs on social media tends towards outrage regarding the appeals court’s ruling.
As usual you have a sourcing problem. Is it possible you don't know better than to rely on social media?
He says you have a sourcing problem. Of course! If it's not from HIS source it must be a lie. Double dumb #2 strikes again.
Anyone who claims to get credible information from social media is as dumb than his white knight defender.
Ummmm, did you just say "is as dumb than"
😳😳yeah....annnnnyway
Any information that don't line up with your far left radical beliefs is "dumb" in your mind. Credible info to you is only the "parts" you like or agree with. The rest is MAGA MAGA MAGA.....all I can say is MAGA!! TDS much??
What's the old saying?
Old = set in your ways? You definitely have that wrapped up.
Grammatical error - my faux pas. You used the word dumb so in my response I am using language that you can relate to on a personal level. I think that relying on social media as a source for forming any opinions is ill-advised or dumb using your vocabulary. And why are you are always so triggered when MAGA is mentioned - or even when it isn't? Nowhere in this thread did I mention MAGA but you did 4 times. Your TDS - trump denialism syndrome - is apparent.
But what difference does it make which thread you say MAGA on? You still post it constantly? You certainly have a problem for sure. You assume. Just because someone doesn't agree with you, you immediately yell MAGA MAGA MAGA, like.a lunatic. Hell man, a different of opinion doesn't make anyone anything?
Your use of the word triggered sounds pretty familiar as well. You just keep on revealing yourself. That's on you.
But also, you seem to get quite upset when someone mentions your age. Well quit shining a spotlight on it and we will. Someone who posts like you, with this type of "repeat what others say" as your own, or "I know you are but what am I" attitude, is either a kid (who has no business being here) or someone who is "old enough" to know better. I'm guessing you are the latter of the two. Do better......
This was a thread about the bond in your 'dear leader's' civil judgement for business fraud. As you usually do you have highjacked the thread to distract, voice your many grievances, and to insult and attack. You don't know my age and I don't know yours. Age is irrelevant to this thread or to posting on this board. Yet, you consistently focus on old age as a debating point. That makes you an ageist and an antagonistic age bigot. I'd like to think that a prejudiced person like yourself has no business posting here, but unfortunately this is the ideal place for you to show your ignorance and preconceived opinions not based on reason or reality. Your parents and grandparents must be so proud of you.
You literally replied exactly as I JUST described. You simply do not understand. I can't explain it any clearer. So, continue doing what you are doing. Keep on reveling yourself. You don't need me to point it out any more.
“Social Media” has been around for decades, and one would have to be naive to think you can’t get a pulse of the public’s mood based.
Our justice system is BROKEN AS F
The poster? Lindy Li. Social media influencer with 350K followers on X, CNN Contributor, repeat White House guest, Biden delegate in the Pennsylvania. Another one of her posts.
NY appeals court is competing with Judge Aileen Cannon and the 6 Federalist Society hacks on the Supreme Court to see who can kowtow to Trump the most
These Trump enablers are in a dead heat
Here’s another influencer, Henry Sisson. The DNC used young Henry to reach the youth vote. He’s got 184K followers on X and 800K followers on TikTok. His take on the appeals court decision?
Taking just a quick scroll through the comments shows us many liberals (who refer to themselves as “Resisters” on X) who were very upset that Trump’s bond was reduced and equally upset when news of Truth Social going public broke..
Now these aren’t polls and there’s no margin of error to complain about. But it’s naive to think it’s not possible to gauge public sentiments by perusing social media.
I’ve got a feeling Jazzy’s wearing blinders, and if he doesn’t read it in the New York Times, or hear it on PBS, than to him it’s not true.
One more example, this time from MSNBC Contributor and Former RNC Chair Michael Steele.
One could argue that Steele isn’t a liberal, but that’s not the point of highlighting this particular post. Just a quick look at the quote posts and replies reveals a lot of anger felt by liberals. To suggest that social media can’t be used to gauge the pulse of political thought is just misguided and comes from a place obviously not well versed in social media.
Michael Steele is a Republican. A principled Republican but a Republican nevertheless. Is his post what you consider as "heads exploding"? It's an opinion. He's offered the same opinion on the air. Social media in general is a cesspool. One, or even several, reasonable post (s) doesn't make social media any less a sewer in totality.
Oh, Jazzy, we all know Steele is the former Chair of the RNC. But that’s not the point. I even acknowledge that for you and you still miss the point.
A big cesspool. Duh!
A big cesspool. Duh!
What? If English is not your first language feel free to type in your native tongue.
very significant to a guy who just had his net assets increased by $5 Billion. You should get around more. Lol
They were only convicted by a judge, while the constitution calls for a Jury of your peers. However, the Liberal NY legislation put this law on books to specifically allow politically motivated judges to make decisions that juries would not be allowed to make after hearing the jury instructions. (Read the legislative record when the law was being discussed.) In any other case of fraud throughout this country, a case of fraud MUST have evidence of those that were defrauded. In this case, the crooked prosecutor said it was the banks, but the banks said "no" under oath, but this uncontroverted evidence didn't matter to the crooked judge.
(1) Trump could have had a jury trial if his lawyer had asked for one. ... After months of stories that Alina Habba was too stupid to "check the box." It later came out that Trump didn't want a jury trial because he thought that a NY jury would be inclined to convict him but that a judge could be bullied otherwise.
.
(2) "Read the legislative record ..."? Link?
very significant to a guy who just had his net assets increased by $5 Billion. You should get around more. Lol
They were only convicted by a judge, while the constitution calls for a Jury of your peers. However, the Liberal NY legislation put this law on books to specifically allow politically motivated judges to make decisions that juries would not be allowed to make after hearing the jury instructions. (Read the legislative record when the law was being discussed.) In any other case of fraud throughout this country, a case of fraud MUST have evidence of those that were defrauded. In this case, the crooked prosecutor said it was the banks, but the banks said "no" under oath, but this uncontroverted evidence didn't matter to the crooked judge.
it is incorrect to say he had a right to a jury trial:
Constitutional provisions guaranteeing a jury trial, such as the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, apply only to cases “at common law,” so-called “legal” cases. The phrase “at common law” is used in contradistinction to cases that are “equitable” in nature. Whether a case is “legal” or “equitable” depends on the relief that plaintiff sought. Here, plaintiff seeks disgorgement and injunctions, each of which are forms of equitable relief. Thus, there was no right to a jury,3 and the case was “tried to the Court;” the Court being the sole factfinder and the sole “judge of credibility.”
per the opinion.
I'm not a lawyer, but I do watch Perry Mason re-runs. I can't argue the generality of the law, in particular, the NYS law.
.
The specific case of NYS v Trump was discussed by dozens of lawyers -- former NYS prosecutors, defense lawyers, Fed lawyers, etc.. -- in Op Eds, interviews, youtubes, ALL media great or small. When Trump declared in his news conferences, "I was denied a jury!" it was unanimously pointed out that Trump was lying and the NYS courts have an SOP. The default setting is a bench trial but any defendant can request a jury trial instead. EVERY lawyer (except for one) practicing in NYS courts knows this.
.
Every Trump complaint ("I was denied a jury!") was followed by days of lawyers mocking Alina Habba for being too stupid to have simply "checked the box" to have a jury trial. (It isn't just "check the box" but something very simple that I don't remember. Maybe a one sentence submission: "We request a jury trial." Please and thank you not required.)
.
Habba said in an interview, "I'd rather be pretty than smart. I can FAKE being smart." Lawyers mocked her, "No, you can't."
.
After several weeks of mocking, it came out that Trump did NOT want a jury and wanted a bench trial and that Habba did not make a rookie mistake and forget to "check the box." She still might have been stupid NOT to request a jury trial, but it was a deliberate decision not a stupid oversight.
it is incorrect to say he had a right to a jury trial:
Constitutional provisions guaranteeing a jury trial, such as the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, apply only to cases “at common law,” so-called “legal” cases. The phrase “at common law” is used in contradistinction to cases that are “equitable” in nature. Whether a case is “legal” or “equitable” depends on the relief that plaintiff sought. Here, plaintiff seeks disgorgement and injunctions, each of which are forms of equitable relief. Thus, there was no right to a jury,3 and the case was “tried to the Court;” the Court being the sole factfinder and the sole “judge of credibility.”
per the opinion.
and the one who was right was the only one who counted-Judge Engoron.
Did you not understand the quote I gave you was not from me but from the judge's opinion? The talking heads were all wrong.
Thanks for replying. I have listened to some commentators talk about "legal" vs "equitable" but I forget which case they were talking about. (I am usually doing other stuff when listening so I get distracted. I prefer to read.)
.
How is this Snopes article at explaining things:
http://www.snopes.com/news/2023/10/03/trumps-lawyers-forget-check-box/
It gets down to Engoron's statements but it also says that some lawyers thought that Habba should have filed the motion anyway. (ANYTHING to delay a trial is Trump's modus operandi so I think Habba didn't think of it or she would have filed the motion for a jury trial.) There are some views that the "not entitled to a jury" are based on case law, not written law.
.
Even though Engoron said, "It would have not helped to make a motion. Nobody forgot to check off a box," Habba could have appealed that.
and the one who was right was the only one who counted-Judge Engoron.
Did you not understand the quote I gave you was not from me but from the judge's opinion? The talking heads were all wrong.
was not to blame. I think you are right that she should have appealed in the interest of delaying at least. While I do not think there is any chance Trump could win with respect to the injunctive relief , she could have argued that the disgorgement of profits though labeled equitable relief in fact was an attempt by the AG to recover damages for which there was a right to a jury trial. Courts look at the gravamen of the allegations, not the label the parties place on them. She also could have requested an advisory jury assuming NY allows that under state-not sure.
Trump still has his constitutional excessive fine argument which I believe is valid if he preserved it.
Note that excessive is determined by comparing the amount to the gravity of the offense, not the amount of profits realized.
Although the talking heads all say the judge found persistent fraud that is also incorrect. The judge found statutory fraud which is essentially strict liability for false statements at least as to Count One. Very different from common law fraud and there the "everybody does it" and no damages defense has some traction.
$465 million and counting is a little ridiculous for what Trump did. Not Bernie Madoff fraud.
Engoron did NOT allow a lot of historical biz info in the trial and he detailed how he and the accountants came up with ~$355M + interest. However, many NYers and NorthEasterners know Trump's history and the "big" number was even too low for them.
.
Trump had MANY biz failures that harmed banks and other lenders and investors. He did manage to negotiate or litigate his way out of hundreds of millions of dollars of loans but was still left with considerable personal debt.
.
After the 2008 real estate crash, Trump couldn't pay off $700M of loans on the Chicago tower. He SUED Deutsche Bank claiming that they had caused the recession! Rather than fight Trump in court, DB forgave (LOST) $287M of Trump's debt.
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/523069-nyt-trump-had-287-million-in-debt-mostly-tied-to-chicago-project-forgiven/
NYT: Trump had $287 million in debt mostly tied to Chicago project forgiven
.
Trump Shuttle never made a profit during ~18 months of operation and Trump defaulted on his loans. The lenders agreed to forgive (LOSE) almost ALL of the $135M in loans, except for an estimated $25M-$35M that Trump had personally guaranteed.
.
Those two cases alone account for ~$400M of bank losses that were "settlements" that do not show up as bankruptcies or in other court cases. Trump had many other biz failures with negotiated "settlements" (LOSSES for the banks).
.
Those two loans, going back to the 1980s when Trump lied to Forbes in order to get onto their "wealthiest people" list, were probably secured with fraudulent valuations and other false claims. Those and other cases of "fraudulent enrichment" did NOT enter the recent court proceedings. Even though Trump continued to lose and owe money, the amounts were decreased by $400M. Instead of being a $600M loser, Trump became a $200M loser. In Trump bizzarro world, that made him a WINNER because he beat the banks.
it was not relevant to the case. We can't punish Trump for past sins- only for the liability proven at trial. Put aside your dislike of Trump for a moment. Don't you think $465 million and counting is a ridiculously excessive fine given his rather modest offense of inflating assets to sophisticated lenders who all made money on the loans even though not as much as they should?
Again this was not even common law fraud which has to be proven by clear and convincing evidence . The judge applied the preponderance standard which means proof by 51%! $465 million for 51%? Come on. Trump got shafted.
I think I hit the wrong reply button again. ..sign.
Yeah ... you were replying to me and the historical frauds and non-prosecuted illegal enrichments post. I didn't post anything about Trump SHAFTING and bankrupting dozens of small businesses who worked with him over the years. He would refuse to pay them at all. He would "negotiate" with them: "30 cents on the dollar or nothing .... or you can take me to court where I will slowly drain you of every asset in years-long delays and frivolous filings." Trump deserves to be counter-shafted ... but, I agree, this isn't a case about "everything" just about some of his many misdeeds.
.
We AGREE about that distinction (everything vs this case only). The original DA filing included more items, I think. Not back to the 1980s but maybe 2012 or 2014 or whatever. Trump appealed and the appeals court applied a tighter interpretation of the Statute of Limitations and a bunch of loans and frauds were cut from this case. E.g., Ivanka was involved in some of the shenanigans and was also charged but she claimed that her involvement preceded the statute limits. She was removed from the case as a defendant but had to testify under oath. Some people interpret "escaped prosecution on a technicality" with "Ivanka wasn't charged. Ivanka is an angel, as good and honest as Mother Theresa." Some say that "Ivanka escaped prosecution (and likely conviction) on a technicality."
.
We agree that Engoron correctly tried and ruled based on the allowed evidence and so on. The Trump Shuttle, Chicago tower, Trump University, and other biz disasters were not allowed to be presented as evidence. Maybe the Appeals Court will throw out some piece of evidence that Engoron did allow.
.
The initial ruling called for disgorgement of excess profits of $355M + interest based on evidence presented at trial. The proper course of action for the defendant is to file an appeal (already done) and argue for a reduction of the disgorgement or even a complete reversal of the ruling. The initial appeal ONLY lowered the BOND requirement to $175M. When the full appeal is taken up in a few months, many legal analysts have said that that is a sign that the Appeals Court is likely to lower the $355M to something closer to $175M or so.
.
I agree with that whole judicial process. I can mutter under my breath -- or post on TER! -- that I would like to see Trump pay for ALL of his lies and frauds over the past 50 years but I sit on a chair, not The Bench.
.
I post a lot of Trump's history to make sure that others have a more full picture of it and to understand why Trump is disliked by so many people who obey the law, pay their taxes, do not file false claims, do not file false loan applications, etc..
.
Trump's PUBLIC repetition of "I didn't do anything wrong!" about EVERY case (Carroll defamation, Bragg - Stormy Daniels, Engoron, DC Jan 6, FL Documents, etc.) is worn out. Trump is a lifelong liar, charlatan, fraud, scam artist, grifter.
it was not relevant to the case. We can't punish Trump for past sins- only for the liability proven at trial. Put aside your dislike of Trump for a moment. Don't you think $465 million and counting is a ridiculously excessive fine given his rather modest offense of inflating assets to sophisticated lenders who all made money on the loans even though not as much as they should?
Again this was not even common law fraud which has to be proven by clear and convincing evidence . The judge applied the preponderance standard which means proof by 51%! $465 million for 51%? Come on. Trump got shafted.
I think I hit the wrong reply button again. ..sign.