If You Overvalued Your Assets You Can't Be Mad When No One Will Give You Money Against Them

Jackie you’re wrong. Trump was found guilty. There is no 8th amendment violation. As I noted he can make a due process argument under the 14th but it’s unlikely that’d be successful. I’d have to look but there is a Supreme Court case involving BMW which addresses awards under penalty provisions (having to do with bad faith claims) and the gist of the case was that big judgments are generally not to be upset even when they shock the consciousness as long as there is some basis, like punishing a repeat offender.

Trump is definitely a repeat offende. The judge even noted Trump’s inability to acknowledge his own lies, even when caught red handed ie stating his penthouse was 30,000 sqft when it’s 10,000 sqft, which goes far beyond simple mistake or a slight stretch of the truth. That’s just plain straight up lying and fraud.

Believe what you like. But don’t get invested in you Fox News Alan Deshowitz narrative because you’ll be highly disappointed.

Refer to post above yours for why the judgement is what it is.

Jackie you’re wrong. Trump was found guilty. There is no 8th amendment violation. As I noted he can make a due process argument under the 14th but it’s unlikely that’d be successful. I’d have to look but there is a Supreme Court case involving BMW which addresses awards under penalty provisions (having to do with bad faith claims) and the gist of the case was that big judgments are generally not to be upset even when they shock the consciousness as long as there is some basis, like punishing a repeat offender.

Trump is definitely a repeat offende. The judge even noted Trump’s inability to acknowledge his own lies, even when caught red handed ie stating his penthouse was 30,000 sqft when it’s 10,000 sqft, which goes far beyond simple mistake or a slight stretch of the truth. That’s just plain straight up lying and fraud.

Believe what you like. But don’t get invested in you Fox News Alan Deshowitz narrative because you’ll be highly disappointed. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

So, under your theory, a cop can beat a confession out of a suspect, a jury can find him guilty due to that confession, and a judge sentences him to death.

Later, it all comes out that his civil rights were violated, but the Supreme Court says, “sorry, nothing we can do, he was found guilty”.

You seem to think that civil rights violations only pertain to the 5th Amendment.
If a Government Entity violates a persons rights under ANY of the Bill f Rights, or any other part of the Constitution, it’s the same thing.

Like I said.the 8th Amendment, which is part of the original Bill of Rights, was put in place for the very scenario that Trump is facing. That being, an over zealous Government Entity inflicting far too great of a punishment for the crime.

Here's some legaleze on the 8th and 14th amendments:

First-The Eighth Amendment deals only with criminal punishment, and has no application to civil processes. In holding the Amendment inapplicable to the infliction of corporal punishment upon schoolchildren for disciplinary purposes, the Court explained that the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause “circumscribes the criminal process in three ways: First, it limits the kinds of punishment that can be imposed on those convicted of crimes; second, it proscribes punishment grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crime; and third, it imposes substantive limits on what can be made criminal and punished as such.” These limitations, the Court thought, should not be extended outside the criminal process.

The Eighth Amendment protects against SOME excessive civil fines and forfeitures of property. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the Excessive Fines Clause does not apply when the government has not prosecuted the action or has no right to receive a share of the damages awarded. I think the court in the case of NY vs. Trump has proven that they are indeed entitled to receive the distribution of engorgement due to the misrepresentation of valuations.


Punitive damages in civil cases are not covered by the Excessive Fines Clause, but are covered by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Which is a bulk of these fines.

14th amendment states:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Trump may get a lifeline from the court if an appeals court deems that his property is being seized without due process of law- (jurisdiction and protections will not be a factor here, but the terms of appeal in NY have been long held to be 30 days to produce such bond or asset to cover the full value of the judgement. Trump despite his attempts to reach out to 30 plus bond companies is relevant here since he's made attempt to try to find a bond but that his loss of property may be putting him in direct peril of loss of innate values vs. current values or distressed values.


I'm betting he's going to get a stay on the bond, IF he can demonstrate that he has assets that meet the full amount of values upon sale within a 180 day period or similar, but if he's not got atleast 50% in cash holdings, and or a bond of 50% cash and the rest in real estate, he's gonna be double fucked- Nobody wants to see his real estate untangled in court as that will be a giant pain in the ass, and is likely why he hasn't done it already. Also he's likely not owned 100% of those properties but sold of subdivisions of them, or partnership shares, or licensures along with NDA's to keep this all hushed up. It's his M.O.


I'd imagine that the most arbitrary values of his licensure of products or namesake is what he' relies on for the hyped up values. Imagine thinking that the name Trump was EVER associated with value. LOLLING>

Jackie S is way off in his discussion of the 8th amendment and how it would or would not apply
to Trump's case.

The Eighth Amendment protects against SOME excessive civil fines and forfeitures of property. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the Excessive Fines Clause does not apply when the government has not prosecuted the action or has no right to receive a share of the damages awarded. I think the court in the case of NY vs. Trump has proven that they are indeed entitled to receive the distribution of engorgement due to the misrepresentation of valuations. Originally Posted by eyecu2

Eyecu, The New York state government prosecuted the action. And the state of New York will receive the entire fine.

In another thread, I questioned Blackman, if the fact that this is occurring in a state court would diminish the chances federal courts would take up this case on the basis of the 8th amendment. He strongly believes this will not go to the Supreme Court based on the 8th amendment. I'd trust him over Dershowitz on this. I don't believe he commented on the 14th. I think he believes if the fine is reduced, it will be in New York state appeals courts or the NY Supreme Court. Hopefully he'll correct me if I'm wrong.

I suspect the appeals courts in New York won't treat Trump fairly. I could be wrong though. A few years ago they prevented the New York legislature from instituting a gerrymander that favored Democrats and that would make Maryland's look almost fair. More recently though, the New York Supreme Court appears inclined to let Democrats do what they want in setting boundaries of Congressional districts, meaning it would appear to be more politically influenced. Based on the remedies that Leticia James and Alvin Bragg are seeking, persecuting Trump in New York state is politically popular, whether the prosecutions are justified or not.

Just reading the text of the 8th Amendment, I agree with Jackie, that if this were in federal court, it would be custom made for an appeal for Trump.

Nobody is saying Trump did not commit the “crime”

What people are saying is the punishment is so asinine.
This is akin to someone getting Life in prison jaywalking.

This is where the 8th and 14 th Amendments should come into play.

Regardless whether our liberal Democrat friends want to accept it, the “Bill of Rights” shouldprotect citizens against all Government abuse, whether it’s a cop beating a confession out of a suspect, to a over zealous DA and Judge destroying an individual financially for a victimless crime. Originally Posted by Jackie S

Good post. I've highlighted in red a couple of changes I'd make. Also, as to "liberal Democrat friends," some Republicans can be as bad as some Democrats. Remember the chants of "lock her up" in 2016, directed towards Hillary Clinton over confidential records violations and Benghazi.

So, under your theory, a cop can beat a confession out of a suspect, a jury can find him guilty due to that confession, and a judge sentences him to death. Originally Posted by Jackie S

That shouldn't happen in the United States of America. But it has.

So, under your theory, a cop can beat a confession out of a suspect, a jury can find him guilty due to that confession, and a judge sentences him to death.

Later, it all comes out that his civil rights were violated, but the Supreme Court says, “sorry, nothing we can do, he was found guilty”.

You seem to think that civil rights violations only pertain to the 5th Amendment.
If a Government Entity violates a persons rights under ANY of the Bill f Rights, or any other part of the Constitution, it’s the same thing.

Like I said.the 8th Amendment, which is part of the original Bill of Rights, was put in place for the very scenario that Trump is facing. That being, an over zealous Government Entity inflicting far too great of a punishment for the crime. Originally Posted by Jackie S

You continue to be wrong as to what I said. And you're wrong about the application of the 8th amendment to Trump.

Jackie S is way off in his discussion of the 8th amendment and how it would or would not apply
to Trump's case. Originally Posted by VitaMan

How so.

The Amendment is written in plain English.

You just don't get it.

You just don't get it. Originally Posted by VitaMan

do you?

do you? Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Maybe Tucker should give his opinion

Maybe Tucker should give his opinion Originally Posted by VitaMan

i'll let you know if he does



bahahahhaaa

That's okay.

Perhaps a constitutional scholar would be better.

Prove no other has been charged. We will wait.

Only a MAGA could come up with this as a defense for Trump fraud.

Perhaps if Trump had not committed fraud or such a MASSIVE scale...over decades...and not shown one iota acknowledging his fraud...the judgement would have been different. Instead he chose to instruct his lawyers to do their best to attempt to show there was no fraud.

Unfortunately for Trump the evidence showed otherwise.

Judgement sizes are made all the time with consideration for mitigating factors or circumstances...but it is doubtful you would understand why.

This applies to criminal cases also. Originally Posted by VitaMan

show me any prior charges of any real estate mogul not named Trump under this law


i'll wait

Nobody is saying Trump did not commit the “crime”

What people are saying is the punishment is so asinine.
This is akin to someone getting Life in prison jaywalking.

This is where the 8th and 14 th Amendments com into play.

Regardless whether our liberal Democrat friends want to accept it, the “Bill of Rights” protects citizens against all Government abuse, whether it’s a cop beating a confession out of a suspect, to a over zealous DA and Judge destroying an individual financially for a victimless crime. Originally Posted by Jackie S

the only crime Trump "committed" is political