Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
www.msnbc.com
Part of the issue boils down to how broadly James used a state law to go after Trump and his civil co-defendants for fraud in financial dealings, given that it wasn’t a case where victims were conned and then complained to the government about it. Put differently, the question is how broadly that law, Executive Law 63(12), can reach.
to upset a private business transaction that was between equally sophisticated partners, where the supposed victim had the ability and legal obligation to discover the allegedly misrepresented matters by conducting its own due diligence; where the supposed wrongdoer advised the supposed victim, through written disclaimers, to conduct its own due diligence and to draw its own conclusions; where the alleged misrepresentation almost entirely concerned inherently subjective valuations of properties and businesses; and where the victim never complained about any fraud.”
You try what trump did and see if they wonder about harm.Letitia James’ massive Trump civil fraud victory in question after appellate argument
One judge asked the state about “mission creep” and wondered if the broad civil law used against Trump had morphed into something it’s not designed to do.
Possibly the charges were too broad?
The question of harm is being raised, which is one that has been asked by people from the start.
Thoughts?
Well, the article is saying they are questioning if any harm was done, and to whom.You try what trump did and see if they wonder about harm.
So if I shoot at you and miss, I haven't harmed you.. Yet it is a crime.Well, the article is saying they are questioning if any harm was done, and to whom.
So if I shoot at you and miss, I haven't harmed you.. Yet it is a crime.
Not even close to parallel for the supposed crime, No one lost money, no harm was done to anyone , all parties were happy with the transaction.So if I shoot at you and miss, I haven't harmed you.. Yet it is a crime.
Not even close to parallel for the supposed crime, No one lost money, no harm was done to anyone , all parties were happy with the transaction.
the appellate court doesn't appear to agree with your make believe.It's called opportunity costs.
If I would loan you money at 6%, but you lie on financial documents to get a rate of 4%, some will say that no one was "harmed" because the lender made 4%. But they don't acknowledge that the lender lost 2% of overall value because of fraudulent business activity from the borrower.
The fraudulent business practice also represents loss of tax revenue to the state since the amount of the transaction is lowered.
WW
It's called opportunity costs.
If I would loan you money at 6%, but you lie on financial documents to get a rate of 4%, some will say that no one was "harmed" because the lender made 4%. But they don't acknowledge that the lender lost 2% of overall value because of fraudulent business activity from the borrower.
The fraudulent business practice also represents loss of tax revenue to the state since the amount of the transaction is lowered.
WW
the appellate court doesn't appear to agree with your make believe.
That 2% was based on the stated value the collateral. The lender is free to make their own assessment of that collateral or have an independent entity do it. They chose not to. If they were harmed it was self inflicted.
It's called opportunity costs.
If I would loan you money at 6%, but you lie on financial documents to get a rate of 4%, some will say that no one was "harmed" because the lender made 4%. But they don't acknowledge that the lender lost 2% of overall value because of fraudulent business activity from the borrower.
The fraudulent business practice also represents loss of tax revenue to the state since the amount of the transaction is lowered.
WW
That does not absolve the business from being truthful in it's required filings of legal documents.
You are correct in that the lender is free to make their own assessment, however we are talking a home loan here. We are talking high finance with the "collateral" being spread across the country and even internationally.
WW
You try what trump did and see if they wonder about harm.
I am certain if Letita goes from her standards on Trump, she could go to inner city areas and fill up prisons with non-violent accused criminals on charges in the direction of his. The resources may be in different ways, the standards the same or even worse.So if I shoot at you and miss, I haven't harmed you.. Yet it is a crime.
Is someone absolved from responsibility for selling counterfeit Rolexes because the buyer could have had them checked to see if they’re real?That doesnt absolve the lender from doing its due diligence when making the loan. Im betting they did found the collateral sufficient given the low risk of default and made the loan. The bottom line here is this prosecution is only happening because Trump is running for President. Were he not a political candidate this case is never brought. That's really the biggest issue.
That’s not what happened or even close to what happened. Thanks for playing though. Is it your contention that if Trump weren’t running for President that this case would still have been brought? It’s decades old.Is someone absolved from responsibility for selling counterfeit Rolexes because the buyer could have had them checked to see if they’re real?
Deception isn’t acceptable if you believe that it can be discovered.
It’s fraud either way. Lying about the value of a property is the same as lying about the value of a watch.That’s not what happened or even close to what happened. Thanks for playing though. Is it your contention that if Trump weren’t running for President that this case would still have been brought? It’s decades old.
