The Sham Trial Against Trump

[Oldestyle]

Unfortunately nothing you’ve said has any relevance to the facts of the case, which is the only thing that should matter for the verdict.

So the fact that there is no victim has no "relevance"? LOL Wow...I can't believe you just made that claim!

 

[Marener]

So the fact that there is no victim has no "relevance"? LOL Wow...I can't believe you just made that claim!

Of course there’s a victim. The banks are the victim. Trump defrauded them.

 

[Oldestyle]

The first thing that any competent judge should be asking is who the injured party is. It's a civil case without a victim? Really? This whole thing is a farce.

 

[Oldestyle]

Of course there’s a victim. The banks are the victim. Trump defrauded them.

THE BANKS WERE PAID IN FULL WITH INTEREST!!!
If the banks ARE the victim then the banks would be the injured party in the civil suit! They aren't!

 

[Mac1958]

When you break a state law, the state is the victim. That's how it works. Laws exist for a reason.

Evidently you can drive 95mph through a nursery school zone and, as long as you don't hit a child, it's okay wth the Trumpsters. There was no victim!

The Manson Girls will do or say anything to protect their cult leader.

 

[Marener]

THE BANKS WERE PAID IN FULL WITH INTEREST!!!
If the banks ARE the victim then the banks would be the injured party in the civil suit! They aren't!

It is not legally necessary for the banks to file the suit. Fraud is fraud and it is illegal regardless of whether the banks pursue the matter themselves.

Didnt you know that? The judge does.

 

[Oldestyle]

When you break a state law, the state is the victim. That's how it works. Laws exist for a reason.

Evidently you can drive 95mph through a nursery school zone and, as long as you don't hit a child, it's okay wth the Trumpsters. There was no victim.

The Manson Girls will do or say anything to protect their cult leader.

Let's use an analogy that's a bit more realistic, Mac.

You're driving down the road at ten miles an hour over the speed limit and you get pulled over by the local Sheriff who hasn't liked you for years and has made the dislike public knowledge. Other traffic on that same roadway at that same time is also going ten miles an hour over the speed limit but the Sheriff doesn't stop or ticket any of them. He tickets YOU and ONLY YOU!

That, my friend is the very definition of Selective Prosecution. That is what is happening in New York.

 

[Mac1958]

Let's use an analogy that's a bit more realistic, Mac.

You're driving down the road at ten miles an hour over the speed limit and you get pulled over by the local Sheriff who hasn't liked you for years and has made the dislike public knowledge. Other traffic on that same roadway at that same time is also going ten miles an hour over the speed limit but the Sheriff doesn't stop or ticket any of them. He tickets YOU and ONLY YOU!

That, my friend is the very definition of Selective Prosecution. That is what is happening in New York.

I know. You'll love him no matter what. I know.

 

[Oldestyle]

I assume that you're all of the belief that Trump is the only person in the State of New York that has overvalued assets when applying for a bank loan? That even though he repaid said loan with interest and the banks with which he dealt were satisfied with the outcome of the loan...that HE and ONLY he should be charged with "fraud" by a DA who campaigned on charging him with something if she were elected?

 

[Oldestyle]

I know. You'll love him no matter what. I know.

Don't have a come back for that analogy...do you, Mac? You know it's spot on. Not hyperbole like your nursery school analogy?

 

[Weatherman2020]

Trump is corrupt. I thought you would have gotten this by now. If he wasn't, he wouldn't be in the situations he's in. And this is just the low hanging fruit trial. But in some ways, it's bigger than the other three trials. This one goes to to the heart of Trump's four decades of bragging about "The Art of the Deal" and him being this successful, savvy businessman. When in fact, he lost all his daddy's money and then proceeded to scam and fraud his way through the next decades. The fine coming from this trial may bankrupt him and take away his family's right to do business in the state of NY. More than that, it will forever dispel the notion that Trump is anything but a grifting con artist.

If corruption is an issue with you, then….

 

[Oldestyle]

And if overvaluing assets is such a heinous crime then wouldn't undervaluing them be a crime as well? The judge in this case put a ridiculously low value on properties such as Mar A Lago. Will charges be forthcoming against him for "fraud"? (eye roll)

 

[Marener]

Let's use an analogy that's a bit more realistic, Mac.

You're driving down the road at ten miles an hour over the speed limit and you get pulled over by the local Sheriff who hasn't liked you for years and has made the dislike public knowledge. Other traffic on that same roadway at that same time is also going ten miles an hour over the speed limit but the Sheriff doesn't stop or ticket any of them. He tickets YOU and ONLY YOU!

That, my friend is the very definition of Selective Prosecution. That is what is happening in New York.

It’s almost impossible to get away with committing a crime by arguing selective prosecution.

 

[MagicMike]

before the trial even started, found Trump guilty without a jury of his peers

The initial review of the evidence incriminating Trump of fraud was standard in a civil trial.
A "jury of one's peers" is not in a case like this.
Besides, Trump's lawyers elected not to request a jury.

claiming that Trump defrauded banks even though no bank claims that Trump defrauded them.

Trump most certainly DID defraud banks out of 168 million dollars by falsifying his net worth in order to get more favorable loan terms.
It is not up to the banks to determine whether Trump committed fraud. That is up to the court to decide.

It's all pretty simple and the evidence is crystal clear.
The prosecution has done an admirable job of proving Trump's & family's guilt.
Next it is up to Trump's defense team to try to convince Judge Engoran that he shouldn't believe his own eyes and ears.

 

[two_iron]

That "judge" is a piece of fucking work... ain't it?

Posting "naked chihuahua" selfies on a high school website. Any of you high schoolers want to fuck that?

 

[WorldWatcher]

I'm not really understanding this trial. What is it about? We've got a TDS anti-Trump prosecutor, a TDS anti-Trump judge who, before the trial even started, found Trump guilty without a jury of his peers, and now we are parading a bunch of so called witnesses through the court to determine the amount of damages of which the same TDS anti-Trump judge will decide the amount of those damages, claiming that Trump defrauded banks even though no bank claims that Trump defrauded them.

And, we've got those two clowns who are on record of saying they are going after Trump while getting all bent out of shape when Trump says that if he wins he will then go after them. What am I missing? Get this sham over with already so that Trump can then appeal the case.

As a serious attempt to answer some question above, let me give it a shot.

What is it about?
Persistent fraudulent and illegal business practices, to wit, making false claims on required legal documents.

"before the trial even started, found Trump guilty"
That is because BOTH the claimant (NY AG) and the respondent (FPOTUS#45 and the Trump Organization) asked for summary judgement by the judge based on the written submission before the court. There were 7 original claims filed, based on the claimant and respondent agreeing that there were no material differences in fact and because both requested a summary judgement the judge reviewed the submissions and made a ruling. His ruling was that of the original 7 claims that the respondent was liable for 1 of them. As a result the current trial is to determine the amount of disgorgement under the 1 claim and to adjudicate the other 6 claims.

"claiming that Trump defrauded banks even though no bank claims that Trump defrauded them."
No that is not the claim. That claim is that FPOTUS#45 and the other respondents operated Trump Organization using persistent fraudulent and illegal business practices. There is no requirement that anyone other than the AG file such a claim. (See NY Statute 63(12) below.)

Hope this helps.

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

Fraud does not exist where there are no damages. If the Banks had believed they were defrauded then THEY would have sued Trump's businesses, but they didn't, so they didn't.

This is false. See the law above.

WW

 

[konradv]

So the fact that there is no victim has no "relevance"? LOL Wow...I can't believe you just made that claim!

Actually there are victims. Anyone who couldn’t get a loan at a lower rate, because Trump sucked up the capital, and banks that could have demanded a higher rate. I think the reasons we’re not seeing the banks join in are: they could end up as co-defendants and they could be on the hook to their shareholders for fiduciary incompetence, I.e. being warned by Trump not to trust his numbers, but giving him the loan anyway.

 

[Independent thinker]

The initial review of the evidence incriminating Trump of fraud was standard in a civil trial.
A "jury of one's peers" is not in a case like this.
Besides, Trump's lawyers elected not to request a jury.

Trump most certainly DID defraud banks out of 168 million dollars by falsifying his net worth in order to get more favorable loan terms.
It is not up to the banks to determine whether Trump committed fraud. That is up to the court to decide.

It's all pretty simple and the evidence is crystal clear.
The prosecution has done an admirable job of proving Trump's & family's guilt.
Next it is up to Trump's defense team to try to convince Judge Engoran that he shouldn't believe his own eyes and ears.

If the banks were defrauded, shouldn't they be the ones collecting the money from the judgement?

 

[Independent thinker]

No you don't. I'm certain she's no fan but Trump is being treated by her like any other citizen accused of a crime. If you disagree, please identify the actions she's taken that you believe unfair or unwarranted.

Hardly. He's given Trump more leeway than the King of Siam. I find the leniency and leeway Trump has been granted here appalling. He ought to be behind bars and incommunicado for the violations of his gag orders and pre-trial conditions. ANY other citizen in his shoes would be.

The judge is not responsible for the bench trial. Juries are atypical for those charges and Trump's lawyers didn't request one. Besides, I'm quite certain a bench trial was his and his lawyers choice since the case was a lost cause and he can target a single judge more easily and effectively than he could twelve jurors. And, of course, the jury would be drawn from the citizens of New York who, in general, do not have a high opinion of the man. Ever wonder why the more experience people have with Donald Trump, the less they like him? It's almost a fucking axiom.

Trump's lies cost those banks $168 million. And the law is not dependent on the banks "pressing charges"

The judge never said he was going to go after Trump in any way, shape or form. And when a prosecutor discussing prosecutions says she's going to go after someone, you can be certain she's talking about a prosecution in the courts. When Donald Trump says that as president, he will come after those who have prosecuted him, to what actions does he refer? What powers does the office of the presidency possess to go after individuals in a retributive manner? The president is NOT supposed to be pushing the DoJ at particular individuals and that is PRECISELY the charges Trump and the RNC have been trying to throw at Biden - and failing completely.

Trump was a criminal before 2016 and he's more of a criminal today. It's my opinion that he's guilty of violent sedition and election fraud for his attempts to overthrow the 2020 election. He should spend the rest of his life behind bars and though its hard to believe I should have to say both these things, he should be prevented from ever holding any public office.

If Trump's lies cost the banks 168 million dollars, are they going to be the benefactors of any judgement against Trump? After all, they were the ones supposedly defrauded. My heart is just so touched over the dems' concern for the banker one percenters being cheated out of money.