New York Judgment Against Trump Violates the Eighth Amendment

[para bellum]

This wacko AG and judge are using the NY law as a modern-day bill of attainder. They don't need a complaint from the public, the AG just invents one herself. No crime, no jury.

She's doing it again with that meat company. She's gonna steal their money because she doesn't think they're doing enough to meet their carbon goals.

Are there any countries that are meeting their carbon goals? Is the State of New York meeting it's carbon goals?

Who will she go after next? The Psychic Hotline?

Ringling Brothers and Barnum and Bailey? Think of all those people who thought they were going to see the "Greatest Show on Earth". It was just the same show in different places! That's "civil fraud"!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I understand your cultist talking points perfectly.

They're still bullshit, though.

Yes cultist it's a known fact you understand your talking points.

 

[Catsnmeters]

Its relevant dumbfuck

The legal system seems to disagree with your assessment.

It's unfortunate you aren't in Trump's legal team.

If all you have is ad hominem I guess you are done.

Have a good day.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

"Yet the victims — the bankers who lent to Mr. Trump — testified that they were thrilled to have him as a client. And while a parade of witnesses echoed Ms. James’s claim that the former president’s annual financial statements were works of fiction, none offered evidence showing that Mr. Trump explicitly intended to fool the banks."

 

[Crepitus]

Yes cultist it's a known fact you understand your talking points.

Well, they do say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery so thanks, I guess?

 

[surada]

This wacko AG and judge are using the NY law as a modern-day bill of attainder. They don't need a complaint from the public, the AG just invents one herself. No crime, no jury.

She's doing it again with that meat company. She's gonna steal their money because she doesn't think they're doing enough to meet their carbon goals.

Are there any countries that are meeting their carbon goals? Is the State of New York meeting it's carbon goals?

Who will she go after next? The Psychic Hotline?

Ringling Brothers and Barnum and Bailey? Think of all those people who thought they were going to see the "Greatest Show on Earth". It was just the same show in different places! That's "civil fraud"!

Bill of attainder is illegal in the US.

Bill of attainder - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[surada]

This wacko AG and judge are using the NY law as a modern-day bill of attainder. They don't need a complaint from the public, the AG just invents one herself. No crime, no jury.

She's doing it again with that meat company. She's gonna steal their money because she doesn't think they're doing enough to meet their carbon goals.

Are there any countries that are meeting their carbon goals? Is the State of New York meeting it's carbon goals?

Who will she go after next? The Psychic Hotline?

Ringling Brothers and Barnum and Bailey? Think of all those people who thought they were going to see the "Greatest Show on Earth". It was just the same show in different places! That's "civil fraud"!

Bill of attainder - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Not only does the absurd judgment by the clown judge Engeron violate Trumps's 8th Amendment rights, it is also based on a statute that is unconstitutional.

Making the entire trial an obscene play. Lead by an obscene judge who really cares nothing for the oath he swore.

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." In United States v. Bajakajian, 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 forfeiture in this particular case violated the Excessive Fines Cause because the amount forfeited was "grossly disproportionate to the gravity of defendant’s offense." 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.​

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt8-3/ALDE_00000962/

And see:

Opinion analysis: Eighth Amendment’s ban on excessive fines applies to the states - SCOTUSblog

The Supreme Court today ruled that the Eighth Amendment’s ban on excessive fines applies to the states. The decision is a victory for an Indiana man whose luxury SUV was seized after he pleaded guilty to selling heroin. It is also a blow to state and local governments, for whom fines and forfeitures

www.scotusblog.com

Nope.

Trump easily gained more in wealth from the fraud than the fine amount. If anything, they were restrained.

 

[para bellum]

Bill of attainder is illegal in the US.

Bill of attainder - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Indeed it is.

 

[para bellum]

Nope.

Trump easily gained more in wealth from the fraud than the fine amount. If anything, they were restrained.

Then that should have been easily proved.

Charge him with a crime, let a jury decide.

 

[para bellum]

"Yet the victims — the bankers who lent to Mr. Trump — testified that they were thrilled to have him as a client. And while a parade of witnesses echoed Ms. James’s claim that the former president’s annual financial statements were works of fiction, none offered evidence showing that Mr. Trump explicitly intended to fool the banks."

As one NY Billionaire put it, "If everyone knows you're a fraud, who is defrauded?"

Trump is a showman, everyone knows he exaggerates his wealth. Forbes and Bloomberg have published many pieces over the years that placed Trump's actual net worth at about half of what he claimed.

The State could have made this case decades ago if there was really an attempt to defraud anyone. Every counter-party to the transactions said they were not defrauded, but the judge just dismissed their testimonies.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Then that should have been easily proved.

It was. Pay attention! $168 million in lost interest alone. I don't think you know anything about any of this.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It was. Pay attention! $168 million in lost interest alone. I don't think you know anything about any of this.

Where did the banks say they lost 168 million in interest when in fact they got their money back with interest

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Where did the banks say they lost 168 million in interest when in fact they got their money back with interest

You don't seem to be following. I think maybe you need to go back to square one and start reading about this trial again.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You don't seem to be following. I think maybe you need to go back to square one and start reading about this trial again.

No I don't follow leftist fuzzy math and farting cotton candy unicorns
The banks said they got their money back with interest. Case closed

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No I don't follow leftist fuzzy math and farting cotton candy unicorns
The banks said they got their money back with interest. Case closed

Nor have you followed this trial, and clearly you know nothing about it.

You're just not worthy of discussion about this topic. Sorry.

 

[para bellum]

It was. Pay attention! $168 million in lost interest alone. I don't think you know anything about any of this.

So New York is going to "return" that money to the banks?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Nor have you followed this trial, and clearly you know nothing about it.

You're just not worthy of discussion about this topic. Sorry.

No one lost any money

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So New York is going to "return" that money to the banks?

New York isn't going to get any money