Will the 8th Amendment reduce Trump's $500,000,000 in "fines"? (Poll)

[hadit]

THAT is a lie.
DB was defrauded out of more than 100M
The state of NY was defrauded out of several million.

DB testified that they were not defrauded.

 

[Couchpotato]

Does the fact that they allege that Trump has been committing this "fraud" continuously since 2011 give you a hint?

Yeah. There would be no case brought except for the politics.

 

[justoffal]

SCOTUS doesn't have a say in State court judgements. The last stop for an appeal of the New York verdict is the New York Supreme Court.

Yes they do...

 

[Rawley]

DB testified that they were not defrauded.

"That boy ain't right"

 

[The Duke]

"That boy ain't right"

He's a little Bizarro Planet of The Apes retard.

 

[Dadoalex]

Have a blessed life

I do.

 

[lantern2814]

You have to be deep in the kool aid to say with a straight face that the fines imposed on Trump are on the level. Even New Yorkers don't believe this B.S.

Even Hochul is backtracking on this already. Who would have thought that real estate companies would start abandoning the city (taking billions in revenue with them) after seeing this clown ruling?

 

[struth]

Trump may have a Supreme Trump card to play. The 8th Amendment. How can he use it?

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

Excessive Fines

www.law.cornell.edu

In 1998, however, the Court injected vitality into the strictures of the clause. “The touchstone of the constitutional inquiry under the Excessive Fines Clause is the principle of proportionality: The amount of the forfeiture must bear some relationship to the gravity of the offense that it is designed to punish.” 9 In United States v. Bajakajian,10 the government sought to require that a criminal defendant charged with violating federal reporting requirements regarding the transportation of more than $10,000 in currency out of the country forfeit the currency involved, which totaled $357,144. The Court held that the forfeiture11 in this particular case violated the Excessive Fines Cause because the amount forfeited was “grossly disproportionate to the gravity of defendant’s offense.” 12 In determining proportionality, the Court did not limit itself to a comparison of the fine amount to the proven offense, but it also considered the particular facts of the case, the character of the defendant, and the harm caused by the offense

Does the Eighth Amendment only apply to the Federal Government, or does it protect all citizens?

Won’t be necessary. Case will be overturned on appeal

 

[lantern2814]

And individual can appeal anything.

That doesn't mean the appeals court whether New York's highest appellate court, or if they fail there, appealing to the SCOTUS.

However for an appellate court to accept a case there must be appealable issues for them to resolve. I think the "legal experts" you are claiming are saying that an appeal is likely to fail on being accepted, not that they can't submit one.

WW

Funny that most legal experts say this will get tossed. But you don’t see that living in your Dim bubble.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

Trump may have a Supreme Trump card to play. The 8th Amendment. How can he use it?

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

Excessive Fines

www.law.cornell.edu

In 1998, however, the Court injected vitality into the strictures of the clause. “The touchstone of the constitutional inquiry under the Excessive Fines Clause is the principle of proportionality: The amount of the forfeiture must bear some relationship to the gravity of the offense that it is designed to punish.” 9 In United States v. Bajakajian,10 the government sought to require that a criminal defendant charged with violating federal reporting requirements regarding the transportation of more than $10,000 in currency out of the country forfeit the currency involved, which totaled $357,144. The Court held that the forfeiture11 in this particular case violated the Excessive Fines Cause because the amount forfeited was “grossly disproportionate to the gravity of defendant’s offense.” 12 In determining proportionality, the Court did not limit itself to a comparison of the fine amount to the proven offense, but it also considered the particular facts of the case, the character of the defendant, and the harm caused by the offense

Does the Eighth Amendment only apply to the Federal Government, or does it protect all citizens?

The Timms SC decision covers this. It covers all citizens in both federal and state cases.

 

[whitehall]

Maybe an honest judge who wasn't appointed by Obama will understand that the Biden administration has become a Banana Republic.

 

[The Duke]

Even Hochul is backtracking on this already. Who would have thought that real estate companies would start abandoning the city (taking billions in revenue with them) after seeing this clown ruling?

Just about anyone with sense.

 

[two_iron]

 

[jc456]

Trump may have a Supreme Trump card to play. The 8th Amendment. How can he use it?

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

Excessive Fines

www.law.cornell.edu

In 1998, however, the Court injected vitality into the strictures of the clause. “The touchstone of the constitutional inquiry under the Excessive Fines Clause is the principle of proportionality: The amount of the forfeiture must bear some relationship to the gravity of the offense that it is designed to punish.” 9 In United States v. Bajakajian,10 the government sought to require that a criminal defendant charged with violating federal reporting requirements regarding the transportation of more than $10,000 in currency out of the country forfeit the currency involved, which totaled $357,144. The Court held that the forfeiture11 in this particular case violated the Excessive Fines Cause because the amount forfeited was “grossly disproportionate to the gravity of defendant’s offense.” 12 In determining proportionality, the Court did not limit itself to a comparison of the fine amount to the proven offense, but it also considered the particular facts of the case, the character of the defendant, and the harm caused by the offense

Does the Eighth Amendment only apply to the Federal Government, or does it protect all citizens?

That was the reason for the excessive amount. Bail to avoid affordable appeal

 

[kyzr]

I missed it. What day were you appointed to NY Supreme Court?
DB admitted on the stand they lost over 100M dollars because of Trump's fraud.
City and State of NY lost millions to Trump's fraud.
Findings are TrumpCo committed fraud
TrumpCo refused to accept responsibility
Penalties based on fraud amount and punitive aspect $350M
Current amount with interest $450M
Let us know when you release your next legal text.

LIAR

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/deutsche-bank-gained-lucrative-business-from-trump-former-executive-testifies-515f6dca

The former
Deutsche Bank
executive who recruited Donald Trump as a client testified Wednesday that the bank’s dealings with the former president were lucrative and her superiors were eager to expand them.

 

[Dadoalex]

LIAR

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/deutsche-bank-gained-lucrative-business-from-trump-former-executive-testifies-515f6dca

The former
Deutsche Bank
executive who recruited Donald Trump as a client testified Wednesday that the bank’s dealings with the former president were lucrative and her superiors were eager to expand them.

Wrong, no matter how you wish otherwise.

NEITHER of your links address the fraud. That the business was profitable was never challenged, that Trump defrauded DB out of over 100M dollars is in the testimony.

 

[kyzr]

Wrong, no matter how you wish otherwise.
NEITHER of your links address the fraud. That the business was profitable was never challenged, that Trump defrauded DB out of over 100M dollars is in the testimony.

LIAR. This is your direct quote.
"DB admitted on the stand they lost over 100M dollars because of Trump's fraud."

I proved what Deutsche Bank really said on the stand.
"The former Deutsche Bank executive who recruited Donald Trump as a client testified Wednesday that the bank’s dealings with the former president were lucrative and her superiors were eager to expand them."

All democrats have are lies.

 

[Dadoalex]

LIAR. This is your direct quote.
"DB admitted on the stand they lost over 100M dollars because of Trump's fraud."

I proved what Deutsche Bank really said on the stand.
"The former Deutsche Bank executive who recruited Donald Trump as a client testified Wednesday that the bank’s dealings with the former president were lucrative and her superiors were eager to expand them."

All democrats have are lies.

TRUTH.
No matter how much you wish it weren't.

Here's a look inside Donald Trump's $355 million civil fraud verdict

On the witness stand last year, Donald Trump proclaimed: “I have a lot of cash.” After Friday’s eye-popping penalty, he’s going to need it — and maybe more.

apnews.com

 

[B-Nasty]

SCOTUS doesn't have a say in State court judgements. The last stop for an appeal of the New York verdict is the New York Supreme Court.

They do if a judgment is found to violate someones constitutional rights.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

None of Trump's rights were violated.