Trump piles fraud on top of fraud.

The fraud case in NY stems from something that happened while he was President?
I said criminal indictments.

Hunter Biden wouldn’t be under criminal indictment if it hadn’t been for his father being president. Things happen.
 

As Trump Awaits Fraud Penalty, a Monitor’s Report Could Raise His Risk


As a New York judge weighs Donald J. Trump’s civil fraud case, new accusations of deficiencies in his company’s financial reporting could provide the judge with ammunition for a forceful ruling against the former president and his family business.

The judge, Arthur F. Engoron, will soon decide on any consequences Mr. Trump might face as a result of the New York attorney general’s accusation that he fraudulently exaggerated his net worth to obtain favorable loans. After a monthslong trial, the attorney general, Letitia James, asked for a penalty of roughly $370 million, which would come on the heels of a separate jury verdict in a defamation case requiring Mr. Trump to pay $83.3 million.

The new accusations against Mr. Trump’s family business, the Trump Organization, came late last week in a report from an outside monitor whom Justice Engoron assigned in late 2022 to keep an eye on the company. The monitor, Barbara Jones, a former federal judge, has overseen how the company represents its finances to lenders.

Her report highlighted several paperwork issues at a family company trying to shake a legacy of sloppiness: missing disclosures, typos, math errors and questions about a $48 million loan between Mr. Trump and one of his companies. Ms. Jones, now a law firm partner, told the judge that collectively, the issues “may reflect a lack of adequate internal controls.”


Maybe it was just routine sloppiness the Trump Org. has become accustom to for the many years it defrauded NY tax officials. Maybe it was intentional deception. Who knows? The important takeaway is Don does himself no favors by making sure these kinds of errors didn't continue.

$370M to NY. $88.3M to E. Jean. Pretty soon we'll be talking about real money.
No crime and no victim
This is going to get smacked down.
 
I said criminal indictments.

Hunter Biden wouldn’t be under criminal indictment if it hadn’t been for his father being president. Things happen.
Cool start a thread about them. It's not what we are discussing in this thread and not what my comment concerned. Again read the thread title and try to keep up. If you cant then dont post.
 
Crock of shit as usual
Thats what the IRS whistleblower said, so I guess you’re saying they’re a liar now.

The case against Hunter was built on open source reporting, which wouldn’t have occurred if Biden hadn’t run.

Much like the Trump fraud case.
 
Thats what the IRS whistleblower said, so I guess you’re saying they’re a liar now.

The case against Hunter was built on open source reporting, which wouldn’t have occurred if Biden hadn’t run.

Much like the Trump fraud case.
Hunter was under investigation before Jo declared he was running for president
 
Mac1958

Laugh all you want but do you think Trump would be under this indictment had he never run for President? The obvious answer is no. That's my problem with it. And you'd have a problem with it to too were you not in a cult.

Would E Jean Carroll have brought her suit?
As I recall the Orange Rapist's admission on the Access Hollywood tape that he groped women because he could get away with resulted in a number of women he abused coming forward. What caused E. Jean to do so was Trump's disparaging remarks in response to the book she published in 2019 accusing him of rape.

So there you go, problem solved by the simple facts.
 
As I recall the Orange Rapist's admission on the Access Hollywood tape that he groped women because he could get away with resulted in a number of women he abused coming forward. What caused E. Jean to do so was Trump's disparaging remarks in response to the book she published in 2019 accusing him of rape.

So there you go, problem solved by the simple facts.
Odd that she waited until he was President...... Thanks for making my point.
 
Trump’s PACs Spent Roughly $50 Million on Legal Expenses in 2023

Donald J. Trump piled up legal expenses in 2023 as he was indicted four times, spending approximately $50 million in donor money on legal bills and investigation-related expenses last year, according to two people briefed on the figure.

It is a staggering sum. His lone remaining rival in the 2024 Republican primary, Nikki Haley, raised roughly the same amount of money across all her committees in the last year as Mr. Trump’s political accounts spent paying the bills stemming from his various legal defenses, including lawyers for witnesses.

The exact figure spent on legal bills will be reported on Wednesday in new filings to the Federal Election Commission. But even those totals can be imprecise depending on how certain expense items are categorized by those doing the paperwork.

Trump’s PACs Spent Roughly $50 Million on Legal Expenses in 2023

But wait, there's more.

In addition, Mr. Trump has been directing 10 percent of donations raised online to Save America, meaning 10 cents of every dollar he has received from supporters is going to a PAC that chiefly funds his lawyers.

Once a grifter, always a grifter.
rfmpxch8frfc1.png
 
Trump is not going to appeal E Jean Carroll’s case. He’d have to put her award in an escrow and if he loses, she gets paid immediately.

Habba is a shitty lawyer who has no idea what she’s doing and didn’t take steps to preserve errors for appeal.

There isnt a basis for appeal.


Sure there's a basis, ever heard of an ex post facto law. The statute of limitations for civil litigation has long expired. They have to go on what the laws were at the time of the alleged offense occurred, And denying an allegation from 30+ years ago is hardly defamation. And even if all that survives, the punitive damages were excessive and will be reduced.

.
 
Sure there's a basis, ever heard of an ex post facto law. The statute of limitations for civil litigation has long expired. They have to go on what the laws were at the time of the alleged offense occurred, And denying an allegation from 30+ years ago is hardly defamation. And even if all that survives, the punitive damages were excessive and will be reduced.

.
Sexual assault wasn’t legal 30 years ago. This is not an example of ex post facto.

The defamation was not because he denied it happened, but in the way he attacked her relentlessly.
 
Could you provide a specific example and Prove it with a rational reasonable argument?

Of course you cannot. You're a retarded TDS afflicted moron.
It was presented in the trial, and if you don't like it, so what?

With E. Jean Carroll and his case, Trump will be short a half billion dollars.
 

Forum List

Back
Top