The trump trial according to Judge Engoron's ruling

The Bill of Rights protects citizens against abuse by ANY Government Official.That is their sole reason for being. Latisha James is a Government Official .

Latisha James should have got one of the Banks to sue Trump.

Latisha James should have got one of the Banks to sue Trump. Originally Posted by Jackie S

For what? The banks weren't harmed as a result of Trump's misrepresentations. They made money off their business with Trump, and were paid a fair interest rate based on the risk, prevailing interest rates, the collateral, the personal guarantee, the liquidity of his personal assets, and Trump's actual net worth, which admittedly was a lot less than his purported net worth.

Maybe Deutsche Bank and possibly Fortress Investment Group could have sued Trump over loans they made for construction of the Trump International Hotel & Tower in Chicago. Trump didn't pay those back in their entirety. Maybe they would have won and maybe they would have lost. My guess is they would have lost. They agreed to loan money, mostly without recourse to Trump's other assets, and the project flopped. By the time Letitia James was elected, the statute of limitations had run on that though.

For what? The banks weren't harmed as a result of Trump's misrepresentations. They made money off their business with Trump, and were paid a fair interest rate based on the risk, prevailing interest rates, the collateral, the personal guarantee, the liquidity of his personal assets, and Trump's actual net worth, which admittedly was a lot less than his purported net worth.

Maybe Deutsche Bank and possibly Fortress Investment Group could have sued Trump over loans they made for construction of the Trump International Hotel & Tower in Chicago. Trump didn't pay those back in their entirety. Maybe they would have won and maybe they would have lost. My guess is they would have lost. They agreed to loan money, mostly without recourse to Trump's other assets, and the project flopped. By the time Letitia James was elected, the statute of limitations had run on that though. Originally Posted by Tiny

The state can step in and has in this case. BTW the 8th is not intended in this case. Im hoping the judgement stands

The state can step in and has in this case. BTW the 8th is not intended in this case. Im hoping the judgement stands Originally Posted by winn dixie

Yes, if it stepped in and fined Trump, say, $20 million for misrepresenting his financial position, I'd say that's fair. This imaginary disgorgement of profits allegedly realized through fraud is not. It's inconsistent with truth, justice and the American Way.

That said, Trump deserves to be prosecuted for trying to steal an election, and he will be. And, if I were in a position to do so, there's no way I'd do business with him or loan him money, because of his past history. I assume the banks do it because they believe they're adequately protected and the risk-reward ratio looks good in their eyes. And they're big boys.

I believe the 8th Amendment would be relevant if this were a federal case. But it's not. The state of New York created a law to extract excessive fines from politically unpopular businesses and individuals, but based on what Blackman wrote, this will likely end with the Supreme Court of New York and never see the light of day in federal courts.

What denied civil rights? Be specific. I know you'll lie or say something that's covered in the details you didn't read.
Who told you to say Trump's civil rights were violated? Or did you come up with that on your own?
The cop knows because he denied someone's civil rights. No one in the fraud case violated anyone's civil rights.
No she won't be chastised . Why would she? The judge who actually did the sentencing won't be either. And the details are very important. 355 is what he fraudulently made. This was over the course of 10 years. Just because he took 355 million and can't pay it back now.
Trump doesn't get to keep his ill gotten gains.
He fraudulently made 128,000,ooo on the sale of the old post office and made 169,000,000 in interest saving. How is the dickhead having to pay back what he stole excessive? It's not.
Only trumpys wouldn't make trump pay back as much as he took. Are you catching on why the details matter?

If you steal a shit load of money by fraud, you pay back a shit load.
If he only took, say, a million, then his fine would have been less. Plus probably no loss of licences.
Trump and his douche-bags did this for ten years.
If he took 355 million and they fined him 800 million, that's when the 8th kicks in.

And BTW, most every trumpy claims he did nothing wrong,he was unfairly prosecuted or some other total bullshit. The slimy piece of shit isn't called out by his douche bag boys for anything.
To bad you don't know the details. If you knew any of them or had done your own research instead of relying on trumpy talking points, you might not look so Dunning-Krugerish.
At least try to refute facts instead of posting nonsense.

The details are a moot point.
As has been stated. Nobody is denying that Trump broke the law.
The complaint is with the sentence and penalty.

Latisha James will be severely chastised by the Supreme Court when they rule that she broke the law by denying Trump’s civil rights under the 8th Amendment.

What do we do when a Government Official denies a citizen of their Civil Rights.
Ask the Cop in the George Floyd case. Originally Posted by Jackie S

So you'd let him keep $335 million he made through fraudulent means?
IGG bud. Read the details Jackie claims are moot.
After you'll give trump a third of a billion dollars, your other thoughts on trump guilt don't mean much.
Plus why do I think you grant the same pass in following cases?
How funny you think lying and cheating are the American way. But then, you are a trumpy.
Allegedly? Wrong. It's been proven in court.

Yes, if it stepped in and fined Trump, say, $20 million for misrepresenting his financial position, I'd say that's fair. This imaginary disgorgement of profits allegedly realized through fraud is not. It's inconsistent with truth, justice and the American Way.

That said, Trump deserves to be prosecuted for trying to steal an election, and he will be. And, if I were in a position to do so, there's no way I'd do business with him or loan him money, because of his past history. I assume the banks do it because they believe they're adequately protected and the risk-reward ratio looks good in their eyes. And they're big boys.

I believe the 8th Amendment would be relevant if this were a federal case. But it's not. The state of New York created a law to extract excessive fines from politically unpopular businesses and individuals, but based on what Blackman wrote, this will likely end with the Supreme Court of New York and never see the light of day in federal courts. Originally Posted by Tiny

Dunning-Kruger poster boy. Making trump, the cocksucker, the victim.
Another funny guy.

The Bill of Rights protects citizens against abuse by ANY Government Official.That is their sole reason for being. Latisha James is a Government Official .

Latisha James should have got one of the Banks to sue Trump. Originally Posted by Jackie S

Nice 180. You've been claiming no banks were harmed. Now you say the bank should have sued trump.
Which is it? Now you're willing see anybody sued as long as trump doesn't have to pay. What is moot in your post? Other than your reasoning?
Just kidding. You haven't been right yet.

The problem that I see is that assuming Trumps financials were not accurate, it still had nothing to do with him getting any monetary gain from it.


Insurance Companies have their own methods for valuing real estate for insurance purposes, and rates are based on amount of insurance bought. Over stating property values would actually increase Trumps insurance costs not save any money.


Government taxes on real estate is based on accessed values determined by local government officials and they don't use owners financial statements.


Banks, while looking at financial statements to see if it is worth doing their own appraisal for lending money, but they don't trust anyone's financial statements.


The real bottom line is that most of Trump's assets are based on high dollar real estate which is really an illiquid asset and may take several years to sell if put on the market. Forced to sell quickly often results in the property being sold for less than market value by as much as 10% to 20% or more


So the only fraud is really the AG and the Judge in this trial pulling numbers out of thin air and calling it intentional fraud.

Everybody is miss construing what I said.

Latisha should have gotten a private entity to sue Trump so that 8th Amendment concerns would be less likely. By the State doing it, the 8th is in play because THEY ARE A GOVERNMENT.

Here is the 8th again. It is Taylor made for a case such as this.
In her zeal to “get Trump”, James forgot about those pesky Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights are in the Constitution to protect citizens against Government over reach. It makes no difference if it is a over zealous cop beating a confession out of a suspect, or a over zealous prosecutor attempting to ruin a suspect financially.

https://www.google.com/search?q=8th+...&client=safari

I think that a number of people in this thread are missing the point. Under the current law all they have to prove is the deception itself. Which they did because it is so blatant.

I realize that many people think that the law is over broad and too likely to be abused but only the legislature or the courts can decide to change it.

It’s the opinion of many that not only is Trump getting what he deserves but that the law is desperately needed to rein in all kinds of corruption in the future.

I think that a number of people in this thread are missing the point. Under the current law all they have to prove is the deception itself. Which they did because it is so blatant.

I realize that many people think that the law is over broad and too likely to be abused but only the legislature or the courts can decide to change it.

It’s the opinion of many that not only is Trump getting what he deserves but that the law is desperately needed to rein in all kinds of corruption in the future. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Not even close to right, it smacks of blackmail by politicians to do as they say or we will bankrupt you with legal fees and excess fines. It makes Putin look honest compared to Democrats.

Not even close to right, it smacks of blackmail by politicians to do as they say or we will bankrupt you with legal fees and excess fines. It makes Putin look honest compared to Democrats. Originally Posted by farmstud60

If people would play by the rules we wouldn’t need laws like these. Too many people think lying and cheating are acceptable in the pursuit of money and power. People like Putin and Trump depend upon it.

Not even close to right, it smacks of blackmail by politicians to do as they say or we will bankrupt you with legal fees and excess fines. It makes Putin look honest compared to Democrats. Originally Posted by farmstud60

Thank the higher powers that we have a Constitution that does protect citizens against the vindictive and maybe criminal actions of Government Officials.

Another point. So many on this Forum are quick to dismiss a 8th and 14th Amendment claim because their unwavering hatred for Trump blinds them to the fact that the Supreme Court can choose to rule any way the majority sees fit.

In short, they are not bound by any previous decisions or precedent. They do not have to give reasons, or explain themselves.

The Leftist will say…….”but, but, but surely the Bill of Rights doesn’t apply to people like Trump”.

Well, yes, it does.

If people would play by the rules we wouldn’t need laws like these. Too many people think lying and cheating are acceptable in the pursuit of money and power. People like Putin and Trump depend upon it. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Fair enough. But everybody with a brain, including you, knew Trump was overstating his net worth. Deutsche Bank and other lenders knew it.

Not even close to right, it smacks of blackmail by politicians to do as they say or we will bankrupt you with legal fees and excess fines. It makes Putin look honest compared to Democrats. Originally Posted by farmstud60

With New York Executive Law 63(12), it doesn't matter whether you do as "they say." If the New York Attorney General sees a politically unpopular company or individual with a big cash pile, then, with this vague statute, the AG can manufacture a case to go after it.

So the only fraud is really the AG and the Judge in this trial pulling numbers out of thin air and calling it intentional fraud. Originally Posted by farmstud60

I strongly agree.

Everybody is miss construing what I said.

Latisha should have gotten a private entity to sue Trump so that 8th Amendment concerns would be less likely. By the State doing it, the 8th is in play because THEY ARE A GOVERNMENT.

Here is the 8th again. It is Taylor made for a case such as this.
In her zeal to “get Trump”, James forgot about those pesky Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights are in the Constitution to protect citizens against Government over reach. It makes no difference if it is a over zealous cop beating a confession out of a suspect, or a over zealous prosecutor attempting to ruin a suspect financially.

https://www.google.com/search?q=8th+...&client=safari Originally Posted by Jackie S

OK, I get it I think. The question was rhetorical? Because if Deutsche Bank sued Trump for damages because the interest rate should have been higher or he profited from the sale of the Old Post Office building, it would get laughed out of the courtroom.

As to the 8th Amendment, I'm just relying on Blackman. But admittedly he's biased. There appear to be two issues here. First, as Eyecu2 points out, the 8th Amendment is usually applied to criminal cases. The second is whether the United States Supreme Court or other federal courts will take up the issue if the second New York appellate court rules against Trump. From your Wikipedia link, I believe the excessive fines clause has been used in civil forfeiture cases. And there definitely have been instances where 8th Amendment cases have jumped from state to federal courts. Susan Shelley argues you're right, that this could end up before the U.S. Supreme Court:

https://www.dailynews.com/2024/02/24...-massive-fine/

Anyway, I don't know, you may be right.