President Trump's Kafkaesque Civil Trial in New York State

A Stalinist nightmare in New York State

Donald Trump has been ordered to pay a $355 million fine and has been barred from doing business in New York State for three years.  Judge Arthur Engoron ordered Trump to pay essentially all of his cash reserves of $400 million, which fine if upheld would force Trump to sell some of his real estate holdings to raise cash to live on.  Once interest is added on the total fine will rise to $450 million.  This is all on top of an $83.3 million fine Trump must pay for allegedly defaming the writer E. Jean Carroll.  The fines in total could deprive Trump of between 11% and 13% of his wealth.

Trump's adult sons Donald Jr. and Eric have also been fined, and they are barred from doing business in New York State for two years.  Ivanka or Melania Trump could legally run the Trump businesses for the next two years, but Judge Engoron appointed retired U.S. District Judge Barbara Jones to continue in her role as an "independent monitor" of the Trump business empire but expanded her authority to review financial disclosures before they are submitted to third parties.  Judge Jones can hire an independent director of compliance, and she has the authority to compel Trump to sell some or even all of his businesses down the road.  This is all punishment for Trump allegedly committing fraud by falsely in inflating and deflating the value of his real estate assets to pay lower state taxes and to receive more favorable loans from banks.

The New York State laws used to go after Trump have NEVER  been used in this way, historically, and while Trump may owe some back state taxes, if Judge Engoron is right, not a single bank claimed that it had been defrauded by Trump in the loans it had made to him.  This is truly a victimless crime.

Bankers took the stand at Trump's civil trial testifying that they would have gladly made loans to Donald Trump given his extraordinary success as a businessman.  It must also be noted that the banks that made loans to Trump did not take his assessment of the net worth of his assets at face value but made their own independent assessments of the value of Trump's assets.  This is apparently standard practice in the New York State real estate market where borrowers often overstate the value of their assets.

The bottom line is that a rarely used New York State penalty has been twisted into a tool for a grossly excessive fine to get Donald Trump because of his political views.  More seriously, the completely inappropriate appointment of Judge Jones as an "independent monitor" who can micromanage the Trump business, which she is not competent to do, and to even order the dissolution of the Trump Business in New York State.  This outcome was pursued by Letitia James, a politically ambition Democrat, who is the Attorney General of New York State, and who hopes to win a future Democratic primary for Governor of or Senator from New York State.

Ms. James and Judge Engeron have essentially turned a vaguely worded New York State law into a modern day Bill of Attainder targeted at Donald Trump both for political gain and because they despise his political views and desperately want to call his truthfulness into question as he runs for President of the United States inn 2024.  In doing this, the have violated Trump's First Amendment right to freedom of speech and of the press; his Fifth Amendment right not to be deprived of liberty or property without due process of law; his Fifth Amendment right not to have property taken away from him except for a public use with just compensation being paid; his Eighth Amendment right not to be made to pay an excessive fine; his Article IV, Section 2 right as a citizen of Florida to do make and enforce contracts in New York on the same terms as are other New Yorkers; and his Fourteenth Amendment right to be free to pursue an occupation without unnecessary and burdensome regulation.

The civil fraud judgment against Donald Trump is a travesty and an unjust political act rivaled only in American politics by the killing of former Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton by Vice President Aaron Burr.  If the New York State appellate courts do not reverse this judgment, the U.S. Supreme Court MUST grant cert on this case and reverse Judge Engeron's outrageous decisions.   National, presidential politics will be permanently altered if a local State's legal system can be used in this way against candidates for President of the United States.  This case raises a national issue of profound importance and if the New York State appellate courts do not address it, the U.S. Supreme Court MUST!

Comments

[Mr. Bumble]

Of course even an appeal will be made more difficult, since I understand Trump must secure a bond for the value of the judgement and thanks to Judge Arthur Wankeron (HT Mark Steyn) he is forbidden from doing business with any NY entity for three years.

[Dr. Ed 2]

That's unmitigated bullshit.

[Dr. Ed 2]

You have to post a bond if you are raising a Federal Civil Rights issue in Federal Court? That doesn't make sense.

But this is the modern Dredd Scott decision -- and it won't end well.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“But this is the modern Dredd Scott decision.”

Good lord. This is almost too stupid to actually be offensive.

Imagine what kind of brain worms would be required to actually think that these are remotely comparable.

[Moderation4ever]

Generally, when people go back to the Dredd Scott decision it is because they are out of good arguments.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Or when they want to make the point that history is repeating itself.

Which, sadly, it is.

[Randal]

You keep saying it’s not going to end well.

What’s the timeframe on that ending and what can we do to hurry it along?

[Vryedni]

Dr. Ed has been wishcasting Civil War 2.0 since forever (in VC on Reason terms), so the shooting should start any day now. Keep your muzzle-loaders at the ready.

[Dr. Ed 2]

You seem to think I want this to happen -- I don't.

But as I look at Brandon wandering through East Palestine, I am reminded of the Buchanan Administration.

[eaglesfanintn]

Anyone using Brandon is easily dismissed as a troll. Thanks for letting us all know.

[Drewski]

Ed predicted, correctly, that Civil War 2 would start as soon as Trump was indicted, then he successfully predicted a third one when Trump was arrested. You must not have been paying attention. Millions are dead and our cities are in ruin. The fourth starts when he gets convicted, so try to pay more attention this time.

[Zarniwoop]

You have to post a bond if you are raising a Federal Civil Rights issue in Federal Court?

What do you imagine you're pontificating about this time? Trump lost in NY State court on issues regarding to a NY civil business fraud statute.

[Dr. Ed 2]

In a trial which violated his FEDERAL Constitutional/Civil rights.

[Krychek_2]

I may regret having asked this but how did it violate his federal civil rights?

[Moderation4ever]

This is a state case so Trump trying to go back an file a federal civil rights case here would not be an appeal it is a new case and he would not have to post anything. I am thinking it will go no where and his lawyers will get sanctioned for filling a frivolous case.

[Gwegan]

Ya might have a minor problem with the Anti Injunction Act. Just maybe? And if not maybe collateral estoppel or res judicia?

[nystateofmind]

Rooker-Feldman

[Dr. Ed 2]

Dredd Scott was correctly decided pursuant to the legal procedures of the day.

I argue that this should be considered a criminal, not civil case.

[David Nieporent]

Dredd Scott was correctly decided pursuant to the legal procedures of the day.

I don't think anyone thinks the "legal procedures" were the problem with Dred (note the spelling) Scott. It was the legal fabrications (e.g., blacks couldn't be citizens) that were the problem.

I argue that this should be considered a criminal, not civil case.

If your point is that Donald Trump should be in jail, who can argue with that?

[Zarniwoop]

In a trial which violated his FEDERAL Constitutional/Civil rights.

Yah, so thanks for once again broadcasting your fundamental legal ignorance. It knows few bounds!

The appeal bond rules for a NY State trial are governed by NY State rules. Whinge all you want about imaginary violations of Federal rights … that’s not what “appeal” even means in this context. Yes, you’re really that dumb.

Go back to self-abusing yourself while looking at pictures of wing plows, and leave legal discussions to people with an IQ > 90.

[not guilty]

Donald Trump has the opportunity to raise his federal issues in the New York appellate courts, provided he has preserved the issues by first raising them before the trial court.

I haven't looked up New York law on this point, but I doubt that a bond is required in order to pursue an appeal from the trial court judgment, but posting bond is required, I suspect, in order to stay collection/implementation of the judgment while the appeal is pending.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Which would not be true under the criminal rules of procedure and that's the point I am trying to make.

[Zarniwoop]

No, that’s exactly not what you were blathering about. You asked, and I quote:

You have to post a bond if you are raising a Federal Civil Rights issue in Federal Court?

There’s no “Federal Court” currently involved. Because this entire kerfluffle is in NY State Court. Whatever the NY State appeal bond rules are - and notguilty provided a more nuanced take on the possibilities than I did - your post was inane drivel. It remains inane drivel.

And now you further claim to be talking about rules of criminal procedure? What are you smoking, and can I have some?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The modern Dredd Scott?

This blog is what happens when a bunch of conservative affirmative action hires at law schools get together and try to emulate modern humanity. A bunch of fringe assholes lathering up a bigger bunch of obsolete misfits.

Carry on, clingers. Your betters will let you know how far and how long, though.

[eaglesfanintn]

It’s the opposite of the website’s name.
I always find it funny that a site called Reason has some of the most unreasoned comments.

[CJColucci]

Any litigant wh

With rare exceptions, any litigant in either state or federal court who has a judgment entered against him or her and wants to appeal and stay execution of the judgment while the appeal is pending must post a bond for the amount of the judgment plus interest. Doesn't matter who you are or what the nature of the claim is.

[Roger S]

Yes, it is a modern Dreddd Scottt, because it is just like Aaron Burr shooting Alexander Hamilton.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Burr shooting Hamilton is also not like Dred Scott. And Trump having a civil judgment against him and his company is not like either of those two things.

[Sarcastr0]

I thiiink it's a joke.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I don’t think this one is from this guy

[David Nieporent]

You have to post a bond if you are raising a Federal Civil Rights issue in Federal Court? That doesn’t make sense.

"That doesn't make sense" is Dr. Ed's middle name.

[not guilty]

"You have to post a bond if you are raising a Federal Civil Rights issue in Federal Court? That doesn’t make sense."

If Donald Trump complains of federal civil rights violations regarding his state court proceedings, he cannot seek immediate review in any federal court. Under Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923) and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983), federal courts other than the Supreme Court do not review the validity of state court proceedings, even where the state proceedings involve federal issues.

SCOTUS review of the state court proceedings is not available unless and until there is a final judgment in the state court system. 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a). Trump must raise any federal issues in the appellate courts of New York before seeking review by writ of certiorari from SCOTUS.

The purpose of the bond requirement is to secure payment of the judgment if it is affirmed.

[johnnie118]

You have to post a bond to appeal a conviction in a civil proceeding that had cash penalities. Dredd Scott is a blatant false equivalence. First because Trump's appeal will be under State Law, not Federal, and it's about a fraud case with a financial penalty. Second his appeal will likely hinge not on the fact that the fraud didn't occur, he will argue that there were no victim's in the classical sense, though the law doesn't strictly require victims, and one can argue the banks were victims because if Trump had revealed his true networth they could have charged higher interest rates and made more money. Trump's fraud deprived them of that additional income.

The point of the bond is to minimize frivolous appeals and the chance of a subject using the appeal as an opportunity to hide the money that they would otherwise have to pay due to the trial credit.

[Moderation4ever]

This should not be a problem as the man is a billionaire.

[Krychek_2]

Trump lies about everything else so why would anyone believe him when he says he’s a billionaire?

[Dr. Ed 2]

LIQUID assets, not assets per se.

[Sarcastr0]

Is this about the piss tape?

[Moderation4ever]

Then he will have to turn paper assets into liquid assets like anyone else. Alternatively, the family could put a family member as head of the RNC and leverage the party's assets to cover the penalty during appeal. I am sure they would pay it back after thy have won.

[Zarniwoop]

hey, why did my sarcasm meter just EXPLODE!!1!?!

[eaglesfanintn]

He said in a deposition he has $400 million cash on hand. Surely, some Saudi prince looking for even more favors if trump were to retake the White House could “loan” him the rest.

[SimonP]

Bubbles, the pseudonyms you choose to describe people you don't like need to be sufficiently close to the original that readers can follow the intended reference. Otherwise, it becomes obscure MAGA-speak that is indecipherable to all but a few twits.

[JDrawles]

A kangaroo trial brought by black James in front of Jew Engoron. Exterminate all niggers and exterminate all kikes.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Another day, another heavy dose of bigotry at a Federalist Society-Republican-movement conservative blog.

Profs. Bernstein, Blackman, and Volokh will issue a pass to you with respect to the antisemitism, JDrawles, because conservative bigots have special privileges at this blog. And not one of the law professors at this blog will say a word about your racism, because . . . well, just because.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'm actually surprised we aren't seeing a lot more of this garbage.

[Oafish]

You are either a troll or a fool. I think the former.

[David Nieporent]

He is not in fact forbidden from doing business with any NY entity for three years. Maybe you should try getting information from original sources rather than Mark Steyn, who apparently thinks that making fun of people's names (and not even in a funny way!) is a substitute for understanding the facts?

Trump may seek a stay of the judgment from Engoron or the Appellate Division. Or he can get a bond, or deposit the actual amount of the judgment; either would automatically stay the decision.

[Riva]

That's all? only banned for 3 years and only 400 million plus in fine and interest? Nothing at all shocking here.

[johnnie118]

The law has absolutely been used previously and in almost 20% of the cases businesses have been shut down. The only arguable difference is that in the cases where the businesses were dissolved one could make a stronger argument that there were "victims" but to claim the Law, or penalty, has never been used before is either born of ignorance or is intentionally disingenuous.

[randolphwiseguy]

Let's put on our thinking caps and ask what would happen to DJT were he, one or more of the kiddies, and the "entity/defendants" in the case was to declare bankruptcy as a method to stop collection in place of posting a bond? Well, the documents to be filed in support of a Petition in Bankruptcy usually include an asset disclosure that has to be made at the time of filing and/or updated shortly thereafter. On the other hand, certain debts incurred in relation to fraud or wilfully causing injury are not dischargeable. It is possible that one or more of the Judgments against him, both in this case and the E. Jean Carrol libel judgments, might fall into that category. Would love to hear the comments of others regarding this. This assumes, of course, that DJT is willing to deal with the stigmata of filing for bankrupcy 'again,' just like his casinos did years ago, one of them twice.

[randolphwiseguy]

Not sure what the libertarian angle to this is. If you think there is some justification for the way DJT & Co. did business, I’m all ears. Multiple states have statutes that allow civil suits for “deceptive” or “unconscionable business practices”, like NJ’s Consumer Fraud Act, that are comparable to NY’s “Executive Law” under which DJT was tried and lost. Those laws have been around for a while, and have not been challenged due to unconstitutional “vagueness.” The point of those laws is that traditional, common law fraud claims, are too restrictive and poorly adaptable to the mass-market, consumer driven environment. However, and while it’s time-consuming, I would suggest you read the entirety of Judge Engoron’s decision. You would be shocked by the extent to which DJT &Co. defrauded the banks and others. The statements by the bankers that they would have done it all over again are ludicrous on their face. And, the point of the statute is to protect everyone who does business with the banks, so that customers such as DJT don’t get loans that could have gone to other, more creditworthy, less risky applicants who played by the Rules and submitted fraud-free applications. And, for all you free-enterprisers, what about the shareholders of those banks, who could have made higher interest rates on those loans had they been underwritten in an ‘honest’ way. That’s part of the penalty assessment.

[Johnathan Galt]

All of which will be overturned, and NYC will end up owing Trump massive damages.

[Noscitur a sociis]

This is truly a victimless crime.

It is not, in fact, a crime at all.

Ms. James and Judge Engeron have essentially turned a vaguely worded New York State law into a modern day Bill of Attainder targeted at Donald Trump both for political gain and because they despise his political views and desperately want to call his truthfulness into question as he runs for President of the United States inn 2024.

An executive official alleging in court that a particular person has violated a generally applicable law is not generally considered a bill of attainder.

his Fifth Amendment right not to be deprived of liberty or property without due process of law

What additional process was he due?

his Article IV, Section 2 right as a citizen of Florida to do make and enforce contracts in New York on the same terms as are other New Yorkers

Wasn’t Trump a New York citizen at the time of the conduct at issue?

[Chernobog]

To say nothing of Trump's right to "freedom of the press." This is indistinguishable from satire.

[Riva]

Yeah funny. Like the laughably erroneous findings of fact. What fun a police state show trial can be.

[Noscitur a sociis]

What are one or two of the most egregious errors you’ve identified?

[Riva]

The judge's valuation of Mar-a-Lago. Ignoring the disclaimers.

[David Nieporent]

The judge did not value Mar-a-Lago, and in any case to establish a fact one must supply admissible evidence, which Trump did not.

[Riva]

I guess one could say technically he found fraud relying on a local assessor who valued the property between 18 and 27 million. But ultimately his ruling of fraud was based on a comically low valuation of the property. Does that really make the laughably absurd ruling of the judge less laughably absurd?

[Sarcastr0]

So now Riva is doing a valuation!

[Riva]

If you get a chance to buy Mar-a-Lago for 27 million, I recommend you take it.

[Tilted]

Judge Engoron's finding of fraud relating to President Trump's valuations of Mar-a-Lago didn't rely on the county assessor's valuations of the property. Despite the BS spread across the internet, and as suggested above, the judge didn't make findings as to what the proper valuations of Mar-a-Lago would have been.

The finding that President Trump's valuations of Mar-a-Lago were fraudulent was based on the acknowledged reality that those valuations were premised on Mar-a-Lago being able to be sold and used as a private residence. It was based on those valuations ignoring the substantial deed restrictions on the property which President Trump agreed to in order to (1) be able to use it as a private club and (2) get reduced tax rates. Whatever Mar-a-Lago is worth, it is surely worth considerably less than it would be worth if its future use and development weren't so severely restricted.

It would be like offering a valuation for a 100 acre parcel of land based on the ability to sub-divide it into 200 buildable home lots while knowing that you've already agreed, through deed restrictions, that it can't be sub-divided. That valuation might be fraudulent whether it was $10 million or $1 billion. It's premised on a condition you know not to exist.

Are there findings of fact related to Mar-a-Lago which Judge Engoron actually made which you find laughably erroneous? Or is it just the findings which were made up by critics, to conveniently support BS talking points, which you find laughably erroneous?

[Riva]

Not “surely”anything. Not to the banks, which performed their own independent assessments, made money, and said they’d gladly do business again.

[David Nieporent]

They did not say any of those things.

[Riva]

Uh, not sure who you’re trying to convince with your nonsense lies, most of the commenters here are just fine with the targeting of political opponents in kangaroo court show trials.

[Chernobog]

How is this in any way responsive to my comment?

[Riva]

you brought up satire sport. TDS really is destabilizing.

[Chernobog]

Explain to me what "police state show trial[s]" or "TDS" have to do with the idea that Trump's right to "freedom of the press" is not in any way implicated by the New York court's judgment.

[Riva]

What are you the comment police? Maybe you should write your own responses? That way you can control the conversation and not have your fragile sensibilities offended.

[Chernobog]

Got it. You don't have an answer; you're just emoting.

[Riva]

Take it easy, I think my comment speaks for itself. But just because I'm feeling generous, I believe the post may be referring to the gag orders at play in that offensive litigation. Sorry to offend you further, since you seem to be fan of soviet-esque show trials when they abuse political candidates you just don't like.

[Ed Grinberg]

.

you seem to be fan of soviet-esque show trials when they abuse political candidates you just don’t like.

It is mindboggling to see putative "liberals" applauding things like this...

[Nige]

The abuse usually goes the other way when it's Trump.

[Riva]

and just when we needed a mindboggling hypocritical liberal to applaud this, you give us this timely post Nige

[Nige]

I'm sorry, what am I applauding here? People who would happily see someone gunned down for shoplifting a pair of boxers pulling their hair out over white-collar crime involving millions punished with a fine?

[bernard11]

Why are you commenting when you haven't looked at the decision?

[Dan Schiavetta]

Reading this post was a strange experience. It comes off like Stalin-era propaganda.

[Mr. Bumble]

So says the resident Marxist, who of course would know all about how that works.

[Theendoftheleft]

How do you think people across the West, across the political spectrum, have felt reading the mainstream American press for the last eight years or so?

[Nige]

'Why the fuck do they let Trump get away with so much illegal shit?'

[Theendoftheleft]

Why did they let Clinton do so? Biden? Comey? The FBI?

The entire world asks this question about your American legal system a lot. Whilst our answers aren't uniform, there is a large consensus which isn't very flattering...

[Nige]

Because Clinton, Biden and Comey haven't done anything illegal, Clinton's perjury excepted. It's rather crucial, the concept of having actual evidence of crimes, you know. Perhaps your sense of justice does not encompass that, and while some US institutions are held in suspicion, contempt and even horror abroad, the prosecution of a billionaire for fraud will be a rare bright spot. I don't think you're particularly clued in to any consensus.

[Theendoftheleft]

Sure they did. In addition to Clinton's violation of 18 USC 793f, she also committed obstruction of justice. Comey, in turn, perjured himself.

No one in the world believes you anymore. America's capacity to gaslight is dwindling.

Further, your SENSE of how 'clued in to any consensus', on my continent, I am (even amongst my colleagues, most of who don't share my views) is based on absolutely nothing whatsoever. But please don't take my word for it: spend some more time abroad and learn about how experts in different institutions and jurisdictions ACTUALLY view you.

[Nige]

No she didn't, and no he didn't. Remember, cranks online spouting bullshit does not translate into prosecutable crimes.

Amongst other things it's based on how utterly laughable it is to claim to be clued in to an entire continent.

[Theendoftheleft]

Your blanket denials mean nothing.

One also CANNOT be clued in thus??? Is that a necessity claim?

Keep betraying your parochialism. (How many international colleagues do you have?)

[Nige]

Your dumb accusations mean less, because nobody's ever presented evdience to support them.

Perhaps it is possible to be clued in to an entire continent, easier to lie about it, like yourself.

[Theendoftheleft]

No one's ever presented the evidence, let alone in court, and no trial was had, no jury rendered a verdict, etc. THEREFORE, no crime was ever committed.

Nice try, Nige.

[Nige]

Yes, that is the crucial difference, no evidence was ever presented or, indeed, shown to exist.

[Theendoftheleft]

And WHY was that? Because of, say, a purported mens rea requirement that was indeed no real requirement for Hilary’s admixture problem?

There’s no point in continuing this, Nige. You’re just going to compartmentalize and lie. You're evil, Nige. And you're seen to be evil by most of the world now.

[Nige]

Because there was no prosecutable crime, mate.

[bacchys]

You really need to quit believing idiot rightwing propaganda.

[Riva]

Yeah, apart from Clinton's perjury. Hilary's destruction of evidence. And Biden's classified documents violations (and that's just scraping the surface on the Big Guy)

[Nige]

The latter two didn't amount to anything requiring criminal prosecution, though, did they? Trump could have availed of exactly the same leniency if he'd co-operated.

[David Nieporent]

"Vladimir Putin pays me to say this" is not "the entire world" saying it.

[Theendoftheleft]

Nice try, David. You need something more substantive, though, to even try to defend the indefensible.

[Nige]

Prosecuting white collar crime is indefensible? Just what someone who loves oligarchs would say.

[eaglesfanintn]

lol. You chuds loved Comey in 2016. Pick a lane.

[SimonP]

Steve-O has more bad days than good days, sadly.

[David Nieporent]

It's still exactly the caliber of commentary one would get if one asked ChatGPT to generate a rant about the decision in the style of a semiliterate MAGA.

[Absaroka]

"A Stalinist nightmare in New York State"

Without getting into the rest of the controversy, this ain't Stalinist. Not even close.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, it's more Lavrentiy Beria...

[LawTalkingGuy]

Rape and torture are the same as civil fines is certainly a take one can have.

[Dr. Ed 2]

More than one way to destroy a person...

[Riva]

Oh its getting there. "Show me the man and I'll show you the crime" seems to be the motto. That hack James even campaigned on targeting President Trump.

[Nige]

Or, as with Trump, 'Which of his crimes to start with?'

[Riva]

Yeah, run with that Beria

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Okay, we get it, mindless Trump support with no ability to actually engage with an argument. Feel free to move on to the next blog, you are well represented here already.

[Riva]

I think you're a little confused. You're in good TDS company. Trump haters abound in this comments section. You could have a TDS convention. Don't forget the straitjackets.

[eaglesfanintn]

lol. TDS is just another calling card of the cult. You smooth brained trolls are easy to spot in the wild.

[Sarcastr0]

Constant reductive Cold War references aren't enough to convince you?!

[Riva]

what size jacket do you want?

[Dr. Ed 2]

And don't forget Beria's final fate...

[Nige]

Smarter than the average Beria?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Isn't campaigning that you will "get" someone itself evidence of a 14th Amendment equal protection violation?

[Riva]

It kinda screams selective prosecution.

[LawTalkingGuy]

lol. Trump literally ran on the platform of getting Hillary Clinton.

[Riva]

Uh no, no didn't and more importantly, he didn't after elected. But, aside from that, that's your principled position? Well Trump made a joke about Hillary so the lawfare abuses are just fine?

[LawTalkingGuy]

“No he didn’t”

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2016/06/02/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-imprisoned/index.html

And I don’t think there are enough links to show all the “lock her up” chants.

As for giving it up after he was elected:

https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN1NP2O9/

WH counsel/DOJ didn’t really bite, but that’s not for lack of trying.

[Riva]

So, you attack the political candidate you don’t like because CNN (which also also reported the Russia collusion nonsense, just as an aside) said he was going to prosecute a political opponent (although he did nothing of the sort when in power) but you’re really in favor of elected officials actually abusing their power to attack political opponents? Or maybe you’re too blinded by TDS to see your obnoxious hypocrisy? I think its the latter

[LawTalkingGuy]

No. He said it in a speech dude! There’s a literal video of it:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rJck0ZfmAXc

[Riva]

When exactly was that Hillary indictment filed?

[LawTalkingGuy]

There wasn’t but again that wasn’t for lack of desire by Trump.

[Nige]

Turns out she hadn't committed any crimes, see.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And banning Muslims and I seem to remember that coming back to eliminate his ban.

[David Nieporent]

Isn’t campaigning that you will “get” someone itself evidence of a 14th Amendment equal protection violation?

No. This has been yet another episode of Simple Answers to Stupid Questions.

[Darth Buckeye]

It's abusive legalism. Thorough distortion of the law. Would New York State survive if federal regulators and prosecutors were equally creative in applying federal laws and regulations to the state. Not that the DOJ would ever do that

What do you get when people lose faith in the law? It won't be pretty.

[Darth Buckeye]

James should be held personally liable for financial harm suffered by Trump.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Actually, wouldn't Barbara Jones have a fiduciary duty to the corporation? And she wouldn't be exempt from liability on this, would she?

THAT could be interesting.

I also wonder if he could use the bankruptcy laws to bring a bankruptcy trustee into the middle of this -- and then make a big issue as to how the Democrats are trying to steal all his money.

That won't play well in Peoria -- or anywhere people own businesses, including farms. Never Trumpers will remain that, as will MAGA, but something like this could sway the people in the middle, particularly if it involved pictures of the properties and what the tax assessor says they are worth, and then what the judge claimed they were worth.

I'm just hoping it doesn't become racist -- and it could quite easily.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'd love to see Trump re-elected and do exactly that.

Start with auditing the HUD and Food Stamp money, there inevitably will be errors, particularly in NYC. They indict James for fraud

[David Nieporent]

Setting aside everything else retarded about this, what role do you think Letitia James has with "HUD and Food Stamp money"?

[LawTalkingGuy]

You see because she’s black she’s obviously in charge of food stamps and subsidized housing in NYC. /s

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, because she is the Attorney General, isn't she?

[Purple Martin]

Because she’s AG, she’s obviously in charge of food stamps and subsidized housing in NYC.

Just as Blazing Saddles established the meaning of Authentic Frontier Gibberish, I thank Ed for providing such an equally memorable example of Authentic Dr. Ed 2 Logic.

[David Nieporent]

She is indeed the Attorney General (of the state of NY). What role do you think that gives her with respect to "HUD and Food Stamp money"?

[Ed Grinberg]

.

this ain’t Stalinist. Not even close.

As I had occasion to say before:
How do you think Stalin’s Russia became Stalin’s Russia? Do you think maybe intolerance / suppression of [opposition] and intentionally instilling fear had something to do with that? Do you see any parallels here?

[Nige]

Well, first of all, one man decided he was completely above the law, and his supporters decided this was a good idea.

[Oafish]

Yes, I don’t see that as an appropriate analogy. IMO it undermines the point. This all seems rather third world-ish to me. Maduro seems a better comparison.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"an unjust political act rivaled only in American politics by the killing of former Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton by Vice President Aaron Burr. "

That's where we are going and this is not going to end well.

Can the President act as Attorney General if the Senate doesn't confirm his nominee? Maine Governor LePage did that as Education Secretary because the legislature wouldn't.

Sure it's not legitimate but I don't see why he can't bring Federal Civil Rights charges against these people. FABRICATE something.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“an unjust political act rivaled only in American politics by the killing of former Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton by Vice President Aaron Burr.”

*Looks the history of American political violence*

You know, I don’t think this is accurate.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I do.

This WILL get ugly....

[LawTalkingGuy]

You think that because you’re not very historically literate.

[Theendoftheleft]

The historically literate can see exactly why your Blue team now perfectly emulates the Jacobins during the reign of terror, the socialists during the Munich revolution after WWI, and the Soviet Bloc.

It is already ugly. It will get worse.

[Nige]

The Bolshoi during the Bolshevikking, the Smurfs during Smurfageddon, the Muppets during the Muppetocalypse.

[Theendoftheleft]

Smurficide? The Smurficaust?

This is your response to being (correctly) outed as totalitarian?

[Nige]

Its my response to a clown who'd accuse a granny in a wheelchair of being totalitarian if she said a bad word about Trump.

[Theendoftheleft]

Nah: I think Trump’s just controlled opposition.

I’m also not American, Nige, and certainly don’t see T has a saviour of either the American people or your system.

So, whilst I’m not a colour team partisan for any party in any country, your country’s Blue team is totalitarian. Social democrats, liberals, the centre-right, etc., across the West are all becoming disgusted by you.

[Nige]

‘Controlled opposition’ oooh there’s a non-falsifiable but also unprovable phrase. Weird how little control they seem to have over him.

‘your country’s Blue team is totalitarian.’

Lol. A rich man? Not above the law? Fascism!

‘Social democrats, liberals, the centre-right, etc., across the West are all becoming disgusted by you.’

If anything they’re disgusted by the Democratss timidity and restraint.

[Theendoftheleft]

Keep betraying your parochialism, Nige. The European left and liberals are disgusted by your Blue team.

[Nige]

The European left who think Biden started the war in Ukraine, are, yes. But they're the dirtbag left. They're always disgusted by anyone who isn't Putin.

[Theendoftheleft]

Wrong, Nige. The liberals agree.

[Nige]

The liberals never agree, for starters.

[Theendoftheleft]

The liberals in America don't... There are liberals elsewhere. You'd know that, and about what they actually think, were you not so parochial.

[Nige]

Gasp! You’re so in touch with the continents you know that… there are liberals everywhere! Fucking hell, tell us more about the wonders of this outside world, sensei. Do they go about on two legs or scuttle on all fours?

[Theendoftheleft]

I'll tell you when you turn 800.

[Darth Buckeye]

Very ugly. My head may end up on the chopping block too even though I have resisted these abuses.

[Kazinski]

Well as I have said before this decision is going to end up costing NY far more than its going to cost Trump.

Its just plain old bad for business.

[Noscitur a sociis]

How?

[Absaroka]

I'm going to show my ignorance: what are the advantages of incorporating in NY (or the ever popular Delaware)? I have assumed it was that there was an ample supply of ancillary services, like corporate attorneys and so on, but I'm just guessing.

If I were founding something, whether for profit or not, that I thought might displease the NY AG (tobacco? gun rights? chicken sandwich fast food?), I'd be asking whether incorporating in Texas or South Dakota might be smarter.

What impact would that have on NY long term?

(n.b., not saying that Trump or LaPierre aren't getting their just deserts, but a rational actor isn't going to take even a small risk of government displeasure that he doesn't have to)

[Sarcastr0]

I don't much know for big businesses. Small businesses incorporate where they're doing business.

But a white collar crime case isn't going to move the needle; this is just a certain segment trying to find fantasy revenge.

I did hear that Delaware is not the super-friendly jurisdiction it once was, but it does have very good and fast specialized local courts.

[Kazinski]

It's not so much of a question of where you incorporate, it's where you have your operations.

Lots of financial firms are moving out of NY because there is no longer an advantage to being there. You have to pay higher taxes, higher wages, higher expenses, then you get the disadvantages of a hostile regulatory environment.

[Longtobefree]

Because New York has many regulations about keeping New York transactions distinct for tax audits and other regulatory functions that a separate New York corporation is often the only way to do business in New York and stay legal.
I worked in several national and international clients that had a separate corporation for New York.
One even went so far as to process all New York business on a separate computer system.
My contracts never asked for an evaluation of the cost/benefits of all the extra administrative overhead, but in a couple cases, it looked like they should just leave New York. But they never do for some reason.

[Dr. Ed 2]

They haven't yet...

[Mr. Bumble]

For the same reason that Elon Musk is moving Tesla from Delafuckingnowhere to Texas after a Delafuckingnowhere judge threw out his board and shareholder approve compensation package. Why do business in a hostile environment if you have a choice.

[Zarniwoop]

Elon is blustering about moving Tesla.

He's not actually moving Tesla.

Because actually moving Tesla, a public company, requires shareholder approval. And no sane shareholder is going to vote yes for "let's reduce the already-low controls on Elon and give him a few hundred billion dollars of corporate value that comes out of our pockets, because his fee-fees got hurt".

Not handing the corporate candy store to one egomaniac is a great reason for shareholders to really, really appreciate incorporation in Delaware.

[Mr. Bumble]

I misspoke in that it is Space X that he is moving and has already filed in Texas. As for shareholder approval, this from Reuters:
"The public vote is unequivocally in favor of Texas! Tesla will move immediately to hold a shareholder vote to transfer state of incorporation to Texas," Musk said on X earlier this month after holding a poll where 87% respondents voted "yes" for Tesla's change of incorporation.

[Mr. Bumble]

Seems he is moving both.

[Chernobog]

I feel certain that Delaware courts will defer to an online poll on Elon Musk’s social media platform and waive the requirement of shareholder approval.

[Zarniwoop]

well played, sir, well played.

[Noscitur a sociis]

You do realize that there’s a difference between a shareholder vote and a Twitter poll, right?

[Mr. Bumble]

OK, get back to me after the vote. The point is he plans to move out of Delafuckingnowhere.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Have you read his posts?

[Mr. Bumble]

Hey, numbnuts makes an appearance. If the shareholders approved the compensation package a judge threw out, what makes you think they won’t approve a move?

[SimonP]

Some familiarity with the judge's ruling in Delaware might have helped you here.

The judge voided the pay package because it was portrayed to shareholders as being awarded only upon achievement of "reach" goal. But in fact the Board and Musk knew that the target he had to hit, to get the package, was well in line with their own projections.

In other words, the shareholders thought, and were told, that they would be rewarding Musk for outsized performance. In fact, he and the Board knew that he would get the options for just keeping the seat warm.

That is not how the Board should be negotiating with its CEO, and shareholders would have every right to be pissed that they'd been bamboozled. Hence, the very litigation that invalidated the pay package in the first place.

[David Nieporent]

Moreover the shareholders were told that independent directors had approved the compensation package, but in fact the directors in question were not independent at all; they had close personal and professional ties to Musk.

[SimonP]

God, you're a fucking moron.

[Zarniwoop]

“The public vote is unequivocally in favor of Texas! Tesla will move immediately to hold a shareholder vote to transfer state of incorporation to Texas,” Musk said on X earlier this month after holding a poll where 87% respondents voted “yes” for Tesla’s change of incorporation.

Yes ... that's precisely the bluster part. Call me when there's actually a vote Elon actually wins. He's a whinging narcissistic egomaniac who can't deal with being wrong and held to account.

$10 says he does not win such a vote ... if it even happens in the first place. And I'm skeptical on that front too.

[BrotherMovesOn]

But retired auto-parts assistant manager Bumble, turned equity analyst as an avocation, told me the Twitter vote was overwhelming, and the Chancery Court decision would be reversed.
I'm so confused now.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Because actually moving Tesla, a public company, requires shareholder approval. And no sane shareholder is going to vote yes for “let’s reduce the already-low controls on Elon and give him a few hundred billion dollars of corporate value that comes out of our pockets, because his fee-fees got hurt”."

Why not? The presumptively sane stockholders had already approved the compensation package that the judge canceled, after all.

[bernard11]

The presumptively sane stockholders had already approved the compensation package that the judge canceled, after all.

Not quite.

First, the directors who approved the plan were all Musk cronies, or Musk himself.

The judge wrote, “In addition to his 21.9% equity stake, Musk was the paradigmatic ‘Superstar CEO,’ who held some of the most influential corporate positions (CEO, Chair, and founder), enjoyed thick ties with the directors tasked with negotiating on behalf of Tesla, and dominated the process that led to board approval of his compensation plan.”

As to shareholder approval:

Tesla and Musk’s attorneys, the court decided, “were unable to prove that the stockholder vote was fully informed because the proxy statement inaccurately described key directors as independent and misleadingly omitted details about the process.”

You'll find much the same information about the shareholder vote lots of other places.

IOW, the deal was neither negotiated in good faith by the Board, nor presented honestly to the shareholders.

[Zarniwoop]

Let's pretend you're a major TSLA investor.

"Hey, Elon's fee-fees are hurt, so we need to give an extra 20% (or whatever the number is) of the company to him and reduce future controls if he goes even more cray-cray. This will dilute your investment value to salve his delicate ego."

Yes or no?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

How? Some right-wing misfit holed up in his off-the-grid hermit shack in a can't-keep-up stretch of backwater America will boycott New York City's high-end restaurants, luxury retails, premier hotels, and Broadway shows! Or maybe he'll refuse to buy a $12 million condo overlooking Central Park. Or maybe he won't relocate his 100-employee business to New York. Or maybe . . . he'll just keep muttering bitterly about how much he hates modernity, science, reason, inclusiveness, the liberal-libertarian mainstream, modern America, and all of this damned progress!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

It's being reported that a group of right-wing truckers are organizing a boycott of New York City.

Honk if you're a half-educated, un-American, right-wing bigot!

[Theendoftheleft]

That's today. What will happen when your culture war turns hot, AIDS?

The liberal order is collapsing, you fool. The young are abandoning liberalism (let alone the libertarian fringe) for both the left and the right.

You are losing the global culture war. Get your head out of your ass. Yours is an evolutionarily inferior meme. You're not progress, but rather the delusional espouser of a moribund value system.

Keep spewing your American bullshit, till your betters replace you.

[Kazinski]

If I'm a business or a billionaire that can relocate to a state where the authorities don't see the justice system as a tool for political payout then I'm moving, and I will enjoy the lower taxes too.

But it's been going on a while NY had 45 Congressional seats in the 1950 census, now it has 26. This will just accelerate the trend.

Just consider what's happening now in the commercial property market where a lot of major loans are coming due, now everyone is on notice the consequences of not being extremely conservative in estimating property values. This case is likely to cause several large bankruptcies and possible bank failures completely unrelated to Trump.

[Sarcastr0]

now everyone is on notice the consequences of not being extremely conservative in estimating property values

No, dude.
Trump didn't estimate shit - he has people for that. He just took what they said, tossed it out, and lied.

I don't think businesses need to be on notice not to do fraud.

[Dr. Ed 2]

When a used car dealer writes a price on the windshield that he knows that he will never get, is he engaging in fraud?

[Zarniwoop]

FFS no, where do you even get such whack-ass ideas?

An offer, even unrealistic one, in an arm's length negotiation is not remotely what Trump was convicted of doing.

A somewhat better analogy: you have an 1954 MG TD, and get a huge bank loan with your car as collateral, based on a representation that your car is a 1954 Mercedes 300SL gull-wing. The bank gives you a better loan because they like 300SLs more than TDs. (I mean, I do too, duh.)

No matter how much you bloviate, you have an MG. You do not own a 300SL gull-wing Mercedes. You have committed fraud. You are caught. You are sued for fraud. You and all of your witnesses are found not-credible. You are found liable.

You continue to whine. <-- you are here

[David Nieporent]

No. A price is not a representation.

[Sarcastr0]

A valuation is not a negotiation.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Well if the bank's using its own numbers, could you simply say "unknown"?

[Sarcastr0]

Who says the bank used it's own numbers? They testified that they did not.

[Dr. Ed 2]

” now everyone is on notice the consequences of not being extremely conservative in estimating property values.”

Particularly if office space value starts declining due to telecommuting — and (CYA) telling banks that it has declined. This could kick over the whole house of cards as banks could fall below minimum reserves (or something) if the value of their loan portfolio falls below some level. And then if you estimate the value of your property conservatively, you can the demand the city tax it on the basis of your conservative figure and that means less revenue for NYC.

I don’t know how it works, but the apartment complexes in Amherst are owned by big corporations and every year they fight out their valuation with the town (civilly) and it’s a long drawn out process.

Even without this, the mere value drop could be significant.
Boston is looking at $400M-$500M so NYC?
https://commonwealthbeacon.org/government/drop-in-office-values-caused-by-remote-work-is-eroding-bostons-tax-base-report-says/

[SimonP]

Ah, yes, move to Texas… where the AG is a crook, the state judges are elected, and the federal courts are controlled by right-wingers in the Fifth Circuit.

That’s where you move your business if you want to avoid accountability to your shareholders, violate labor and employment laws, pollute the environment, etc. Good for business in those respects. But the idea that it’s not a place where “the justice system [is] a tool for political payout” is just laughable. That’s why Musk wants to move there.

Delaware courts are famously professional and pro-corporation, and the body of law they’ve built up over the years means that corporations can have a good idea of what they can and can’t do. Moving to Texas changes all of that. And Musk’s motives couldn’t be clearer. He wants to run a publicly-traded company as his personal piggybank, and he’s mad that Delaware won’t let him do that. So move to Texas! And you goobers rush to support the move!

MAGA-heads have got to be the most eagerly-duped-by-con-men people I’ve ever encountered.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Other state courts often look to Delaware decisions for persuasive authority and guidance in corporate cases anyway. And unless he can get his cases into the Fifth Circuit somehow, Texas state courts, including their Supreme Court probably aren’t going to fuck up their corporate law just for Elon.

[Randal]

I suspect this isn't the sort of business NY wants done there. Maximizing business isn't the top priority of most states. Any state really, even Texas.

[Moderation4ever]

Why is this bad for business? If your competitor is a shady business man and they are out of business, does that hurt your business? I have noticed one thing about Trump, and he doesn't seem to have a lot of friends in business. Most of the people saying he is a great businessman are not his equals but rather people sucking up to him.

[gVOR08]

Elect a clown, you get a circus.
Elect a known criminal, you get trials.

[Krayt]

Irony, there, because it admits going after him for going into politics.

You're not supposed to do that! It only works if you facetiously claim disinterested concern for rule of law.

[Nige]

You're not supposed to go after criminals if they go into politics!

[Moderation4ever]

Yes, brilliant new strategy for criminal defense lawyers. Have your client file for an elected office and claim the prosecution is politically motivated.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Ever hear of oppo research?
Don't you think the opponent will make an issue of the crimes?

[Moderation4ever]

Isn't that what happening to Trump now? How many of his primary opponents have mentioned his indictments? Even when they say the indictments are wrong, they point to them be a burden and that another unburdened candidate like themselves should be the nominee.

[Nige]

The people voting for him have to care they're voting for a criminal for that to matter, since his crooked past was well-known, if not blared about as much as Hilary Clinton's e-mail.

[Krayt]

You're no supposed to go after criminals because they go into politics.

1. Irritating opponent
2. Therefore go after him with an endless chain of government initiatives to get him

You don't care about rule of law. We wouldn't be here but for politically motivated people going after him.

The joy expressed openly about going after a political opponent qua opponent, in the "political" process of impeachment, where you didn't have to hide that, indeed some around here bragged about that, shows all attempts are to get an opponent.

Donald "Lock her up!" Trump deserves this in a cosmic sense. But the American People do not need another faction abusing their Constitutional rules and the spirit of the constitution.

He will be an embarrassing chapter for America. But so will you.

[Sarcastr0]

We wouldn’t be here but for politically motivated people going after him

Begging the question.

You think Trump is innocent; that doesn't mean he is, nor that everyone must agree with you.

[Nige]

‘2. Therefore go after him with an endless chain of government initiatives to get him’

Which, even if that was the case, still don’t go anywhere without him having committed crimes. Cf – Republicans Vs The Clintons.

'He will be an embarrassing chapter for America. But so will you.'

I think the people who decided Trump had to be treated as above the law will be treated quite unkindly in retrospect.

[Theendoftheleft]

When will Biden be going on trial, then?

[Nige]

As soon as Trump replaces the DOJ and the judiciary with personal loyalists.

[Theendoftheleft]

So, the current office holders won’t uphold the law because of partisanship? The same regarding their treatment of Clinton, Comey, etc.?

How do you expect people to respect the USA after this?

[Nige]

No, I do not mean that.

If the US elects Trump, a mutliple fraudster, rapist, multiple indictee who tried to illegally overthrow an election he lost back into the office of the presidency, I suspect very little respect will remain at all, inside our outside the US.

[Theendoftheleft]

It could be FAR worse, Nige. They could elect a Blue team totalitarian to perpetuate your global imperialist project and comprehensive social re-engineering project domestically. (And your election law changes in 2020 were NOT duplicated in any civilized Western country. We ALL consider them to be fundamental rule of law and election integrity threats.)

You’re also trying to culturally genocide all of Europe. Do you think Europeans will all jump in line to stand up, enlist, and fight for NATO, for your imperial legal order, and for the fucking over of their children? You can’t even get Americans to enlist for those very reasons.

[Nige]

Wow, I wonder what the fuck that's supposed to mean.

'And your election law changes in 2020'

Why would they? Don't you know European countries have different voting systems from each other as well as from the US?

'We ALL'

Actually nobody gives a fuck about them.

'You’re also trying to culturally genocide all of Europe'

I think the Marvel movies are way over-rated, too.

'Do you think Europeans will all jump in line to stand up, enlist, and fight for NATO,'

The ones who are in NATO, might, especially if they're threatened by a certain agressive bastard of a neighbour.

'You can’t even get Americans to enlist for those very reasons.'

That's funny, the US somehow found enough people to enlist to proescute the most useless war of the 21st century for ten years, more's the pity.

[Theendoftheleft]

EVERY Eastern European has good reason to fear being rendered a political slave or subordinate to the Russians again. Most know full well, too, that the America-led coup and meddling in Ukraine, forcing the Russkies' hands, was WHOLLY unnecessary. You put us all into great danger solely for your own imperialist aggrandizing, hubristic agenda. There was no need to be in Ukraine, to try to add it to NATO, etc.

You're not meeting recruiting numbers, and with good reason. Why would people enlist when their own government wants to screw them, socioeconomically and politically, at home?

[SimonP]

Well, play it out. What happens, in a scenario where Yanukovych isn't run out of Ukraine? Ukraine becomes, what, another suzerainty of Russia, like Belarus - right? What's next, in Putin's grand plan?

I am not sure why every popular resistance movement against Putin's territorial ambitions needs to be attributed to American shenanigans, but taking that supposed element out of the equation only accelerates Putin's absorption of Ukraine and enables further moves on Moldova, Georgia, and the Baltics. If American is somehow responsible for the Euromaidan protests, then that effort successfully pushed off Putin's designs for broader Europe for another decade, and have made those plans much more expensive to achieve.

That is why the man is working so hard - and employing trolls like you - to undermine American opposition from within, by manipulating Republicans via Trump. Remove America from the equation, and Ukraine falls. Zelensky dies in a missile attack, or is captured live and executed on Russian soil. Moldova surrenders without a fight. Trump invites Putin to invade the Baltics and secure Kaliningrad. That is the world without "American-led meddling," which you seem eager to bring about, ostensibly arguing from the perspective of one who doesn't want that to happen.

There is no historical path where Putin sits content on a pile of stolen oil money in Moscow and leaves his neighbors alone. Taking back Ukraine was always part of his plan, and that's why he wanted Trump in office when he did it.

[Theendoftheleft]

‘…only accelerates Putin’s absorption of Ukraine and enables further moves on Moldova, Georgia, and the Baltics’.

That is ALL just question begging.

I’m not a Russian troll. One of the great tragedies of the West is, to regurgitate 2015-ish European talking points, that America was facing a Russia threatened by Chinese colonization of Siberia and declining demographics. Even so, Russia has a large military and nuclear arsenal, and many natural resources. At that time, Obama and Western allies were building bases across central Asia, in the Indian Ocean, etc., in anticipation of the Second Cold War.

NOT that Russia is, or could be, a friend. Not that it would be a good or reliable ally. But it could have been AN ally, given the alignment of interests.

America pushed Russia into China’s arms instead. You fucked up. Even if Russia collapses in the coming years/decades, which seems likely, it could have been on our side and not on Team China’s.

A bigger question, especially for a ‘libertarian’ blog. Why is America even there? Why isn’t, and shouldn’t this, be an EU job? Why continue to let the EU free-ride, save to the extent that it benefits the American military industrial complex?

My neck of the woods doesn’t like the Russians. But we’re not going to fight and die for Ukraine and America’s dubious meddling there. Eastern Europe is worth it; Ukraine is not.

[SimonP]

That is ALL just question begging.

Well, you’re free to play it out, based on a more accurate view of Putin’s motives. What does he do, if the Euromaidan never happened? What’s the next step?

You assert that, if Obama had chosen some alternative geopolitical strategy, Russia and the US may have found alignment of interests. Um – where? Putin aligns with China the same reason that China aligns with military dictatorships in Africa and autocrats around the world. It’s a kleptocratic axis. Appeasing Putin by letting him slowly reconstitute the USSR by installing kleptocratic rulers in the near abroad doesn’t align us with Putin, by any stretch of the imagination. In your proposed alternative history, Putin is stronger and he still sides with China geopolitically. He’s just less dependent on China than he is now.

You can disclaim being a Russian troll, but then you slip in these bits about European “free-riders” on the American security umbrella. Comrade, you are pretending to be benefiting from that security umbrella. You’re more sophisticated than most of these lunkheads have ever proven to be, but you can’t reconcile the message you’re trying to implant with the character you’re portraying.

[Theendoftheleft]

I’m no commie or a Russian troll.

The alignment of interests was obvious: there are millions of Chinese moving in to Siberia. China might colonize it. China also poses a threat to Russia’s hands and interests in Central Asia and the ME.

Again, you’ve just begged the question about Russia’s geo-strategic aims in Eastern Europe. HOW, for example, would it even be able to AFFORD (financially) to maintain power over the Eastern Europeans now?

Further, from 2014 to the present Russia realigned its economic ties to be China-facing, including the selling of primary resources. Russia is now far MORE China-dependent.

I’m all for defending Eastern Europe from Russian invasion and conquest. But that’s far different from what has happened in the Ukraine over the last twenty years. (The Russians can also contest the legitimacy of the borders vis-a-vis the Donbas and Crimea all it wants; that has nothing to do with the Baltics, Poland, etc.)

[David Nieporent]

I’m not a Russian troll.

Right; you're a paid Russian propagandist.

[Dr. Ed 2]

China is an economic mess and on the verge of a revolution, Evergrande is just part of it.

Clinton fucked up Russia — we should have backed Yelsin and bought all his nukes for cash — and hired all his nuke scientists to have a paid retirement in the US.

[Zarniwoop]

(The Russians can also contest the legitimacy of the borders vis-a-vis the Donbas and Crimea all it wants; that has nothing to do with the Baltics, Poland, etc.)

Ah, so you want to just give Russia what it wants in Ukraine. And in return, you'll get "peace for our time". That worked out so well last time!

[Nige]

'But we’re not going to fight and die for Ukraine and America’s dubious meddling there'

You mean Russia's meddling and Russia's invasion, not that anyone else is being asked to fight and die for Ukraine other than Ukrainians.

'America pushed Russia into China’s arms instead'

Russia's a fucking shell. China doesn't give a shit what Russia wants.

[David Nieporent]

Actually all of them know that this is Vladimir Putin propaganda you're spouting, that there was no "coup," let alone an "America-led coup," in Ukraine, and that Russia's hands were not "forced." We were not "in Ukraine" and did not "try to add it to NATO." But Vlad is paying you money to say that.

[Theendoftheleft]

No one believes you anymore. Stop gaslighting.

Fuck Russia. Fuck Putin. And fuck your lies.

[Purple Martin]

TEotL, Fuck your lies. Stop gaslighting. No one believes you anymore.

[Theendoftheleft]

Well, if Purple Martin says so...

[Theendoftheleft]

Oh, and in all seriousness, do you think Mearsheimer’s a Russian (or other sort of foreign) agent?

I can see a case for him being SOME sort of American intelligence asset because he lies about international law stuff (to mystify to the American audience regarding how that came about).

Do you think he’s instead just a stooge? A useful idiot? It’s not intentional misinformation just incorrect data and erroneous analysis?

It’s hard to see how the guy is anti-American, working against America per se, etc.

Enlighten us if you have credible reasons to nevertheless think otherwise.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4

[Nige]

So fucking unfair of Ukraine to seek allies abroad to help against an agressive imperialistic neighbour. That's not how it's sposed to be!

[Purple Martin]

“Well, if Purple Martin says so…” …certainly, at least over Pravda stringer TEotL.

[Nige]

'Most know full well, too, that the America-led coup and meddling in Ukraine, forcing the Russkies’ hand'

THERE it is.

Ukraine was nowhere near becoming a NATO member. It's a near-certainty now.

'You’re not meeting recruiting numbers, and with good reason'

Hope springs eternal.

[David Nieporent]

Wow, I wonder what the fuck that’s supposed to mean.

As I mentioned the other day, the common thread with this guy is hatred of brown people.

[Theendoftheleft]

This is the best you can do because you can't address the merits.

You're also a fake libertarian, Nieporent.

[Randal]

This paper gets an F+ in my conlaw class. The plus is for the sheer creativity and induced chortling.

[Theendoftheleft]

Perhaps the author should have written instead that Trump had a natural right to undertake such actions (inflating/deflating values), that those rights underpin contract law, and so, constitutionally, such actions cannot be rendered criminal or tortious.

Then the author would HAVE to earn an A+ in your class, yeah?

After all, how are you going to falsify a natural rights claim?

[Randal]

That paper certainly would've at least passed for having used legal terms appropriately.

[Theendoftheleft]

False: ‘natural rights’ isn’t a cogent legal term.

Such 'rights’ are instead either religious mumbo jumbo, or just a ruse wherein one presents one’s (contingent) normative preferences as if they were immutable (or close to it) norms, Randy.

[Randal]

That doesn't mean it's not a legal term with a definition. Notice I said "appropriately," not "correctly."

Calabresi doesn't pass even that low bar.

[Theendoftheleft]

It isn’t a cogent legal term that can be used appropriately in legal contexts. It’s instead a philosophical term.

[Randal]

Justice Black may beg to differ.

[Theendoftheleft]

He might, were he not deceased. He would nevertheless be mistaken (or lying), even so.

[Randal]

I would call his Supreme Court opinions a "legal context."

[Theendoftheleft]

Surely, but the usage was inappropriate therein. Worse than that, Black misrepresented a philosophical term as if it were a legal one.

[Sarcastr0]

How the fuck did this guy pass the bar?

I did a bit of Googling, and he has some pretty legit looking scholarship from about a decade ago.

Legit looking is way way above this below high-school nonsense. Bill of attainder, and white collar crime being victimless?!

I don't know if his blogging standards are so low he turns off 3/4 of his brain, or if his co-authors carried him, or if he's suffered some kind of issue since then.

[Mr. Bumble]

Says resident "legal expert", GaslightO.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not claiming expertise. Everyone with a whiff of legal training can tell this is bullshit.

As I said, I figured out what a bill of attainder was and was not when I was in high school.

[Ed Grinberg]

.

Everyone with a whiff of legal training can tell this is bullshit.

I think this can fairly be said about every single case currently pending against Donald Trump (including the "disqualification" charade).

[Dan Schiavetta]

It doesn't seem like the same person.

[David Nieporent]

Again: ChatGPT.

[Sarcastr0]

This bit of nonsense has made it to other forums of mine.

The theory over there is that getting kicked out of the Federalist Society has broken Steve's brain.

[Kleppe]

If you can't attack the argument, attack the man.

[Sarcastr0]

You keep saying this, and you keep ignoring people actually addressing the, for lack of a better word, 'argument.'

I called out fundamental issues of legal analysis relating to 'Bill of attainder, and white collar crime being victimless."

I hope this helps you with your lazy reading.

[Nige]

If you can't defend the argument, respond selectively to criticism directed at the man.

[PoliFights]

How the fuck did this NAZI Sarcastr0 pass the bar?

This NAZI Sarcastr0 is constantly advocating NAZI ideology to put political enemy into jail and/or bankrupt them.

I don’t know if his blogging standards are so low he turns off 3/4 of his brain, or if his co-authors carried him, or if he’s suffered some kind of issue since then.

[Sarcastr0]

Lucky for me, the NAZI bar is notoriously easy.

Your last paragraph doesn't make sense as a parallel, but I hope you feel better.

[PoliFights]

every odd thing makes sense on a dedicated NAZI.

[Randal]

Apparently this person just today found out about calling people Nazis on the Internet.

[JohnSmith97]

When the company that was the supposed victim is testifying in favor of the defendant - it may be a sign that there was no crime committed.

The valuation example the judge gave to mar-a-lago is an indication that the judge lives in a fantasy land...

[Sarcastr0]

Check out the facts of the case, and how much interest the Trumps unjustly avoided paying.

[Michael Ejercito]

Deutsch Bank executives testified that they relied on their own appraisal to approve the loan application.

[bernard11]

When did they do that?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

A stroke seems a likely explanation with respect to Calabresi's recent output.

[Zarniwoop]

Has Calabresi been replaced with an AI that’s had “legally incoherent rants” turned up to 11?

[ah....Clem]

I can't say that it's a proven fact, but it would be the smart way to bet.

It sounds a lot more like a herp-a-derp bot than a law professor.

[Please, Daivd, Seek Help]

I can't tell you if the court's ruling is correct, or if it erred. I am absolutely sure and agree that the prosecution was politically motivated on the part of the DA (which is true of virtually every high profile prosecution by every elected DA and many appointed DAs in every jurisdiction in and outside the U.S.)

Superficially, this was a trial in which both sides were well represented, spent significant time contesting the issues they wanted to contest. There was significant testimony from many witnesses. The judge admits he didn't do enough to control decorum issues, but no one was held in contempt and things that would ordinarily not be allowed in a courtroom were allowed on the defendant's side in order to minimize the perception that the court was unduly harsh. It was a lengthy trial.

The ruling is 100 pages long and has pretty detailed findings of fact. It superficially looks like the kind of ruling you'd expect in a case governing this kind of statute. Again, I have no idea if the ruling is correct or not (as a matter of law or fact), but the blog post's histrionics seem totally divorced from reality; it seems to me like on a basic level the kind of processes that need to be followed for a case like this were followed, the output looks like the kind of output that would normally result from such a case, etc.

I guess what I'm saying is that I'd like to know how a trial that tried a case _like_ this (but maybe not involving a former elected official) would be different to not be a "Kafkaesque", "Stalinist", etc. event.

It seems like the main actual argument being made is that the statute is not designed to prosecute fraudulent statements for which there is no "victim". Maybe that's true, maybe it isn't, I don't know. I could imagine drafting the legislation either way. But again it seems superficially like the court's ruling addresses this point, correctly or incorrectly, the way that court rulings address similar questions governing other statutes.

And I guess the only other thing to say is that I don't know who Steven Calabresi is, but I've noticed a lot of his posts over the last month or two here have been really worrying, like the kind of way I worried about my father when his cognitive issues worsened. Like, a lot of hyperventilating emotional outbursts, a lot of weird fixations that don't seem to have anything to do with anything, inability to fit things into a larger framework, just general executive dysregulation. I see lots of blog posts on this blog that I agree with and lots that I disagree with, but I don't see any other author who writes in a way that makes me concerned for them.

[Moderation4ever]

"Superficially, this was a trial in which both sides were well represented, spent significant time contesting the issues they wanted to contest. "

Is this statement really true? I am not a lawyer, but the defense here seems to be pretty sloppy and unserious. First was the question of why have the value assessments so out of line with reality. Then the company lost in summary judgement suggesting their presentation of the case was poorly prepared. The defense squabbled with the judge deciding the penalties, stupid thing to do and not helping your case. Finally, the poor performance of the officers of the company in testimony. Did Eric and Don Jr. ever get prepped for cross examination or did the defense attorneys just wing it?

[Please, Daivd, Seek Help]

I yield that "well represented" as I used it would refer to the fact that they represented their client in the manner he expected and that he was not subject to a defence he didn't approve of out of indigence or lack of capacity to secure representation. I think it would be very difficult for Trump to credibly say down the line that he was a victim of ineffective counsel.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'll remind you that this was a trial by a judge who tried to apply the corporate death sentence to Trump's NY holdings up front, before the trial, and got overruled by a higher court. The verdict here was, thus, rather an anti-climax. Everybody including the judge knew Trump was going to lose before this judge, he'd already decided Trump would lose.

It's all about the appeal in this case, not the original trial.

[Moderation4ever]

The problem maybe that they don't really have much to use to appeal this decision. They can certainly file a case, but as I noted they defense seemed pretty sloppy and that is not really grounds for appeal.

[Michael Ejercito]

The defense got the alleged victim to testify that they were not defrauded.

[David Nieporent]

I guess it's lucky that this wasn't a trial for civil fraud, then. Also, there was no such testimony.

[LawTalkingGuy]

The problem with this theory is a that appeal is not a mulligan of a trial.

This will be an appeal to a state appellate court of a decision in a civil bench trial.

The appeals court will confine itself to the trial court record. It will defer to the trial judge on its fact finding, its credibility determinations, and admission of evidence. That’s not them even ducking the issue: it’s the law that’s applied.

The standards for getting a reversal on sufficiency of the evidence or manifest weight of the evidence is extremely high.

They’re not going to accept external evidence of judicial bias. Whatever they have will be based on the record. The record will demonstrate that Trump and his lawyers behaved like huge assholes. You can’t argue “judicial bias” when the judge gets a negative impression from a party or their counsel’s behavior during trial.

You simply can’t fuck up in state court and hope it goes your way on appeal. That’s just not how it works. Trump fucked up with his behavior and choice of counsel. With competent counsel he could have gotten either a settlement or at least built a much more favorable record to make his appeal chances better.

And when he almost certainly loses on appeal, what’s he going to do? Will the NYCOA take it? Maybe. But maybe not. And if they do it’ll be on one or two particular questions. And if he thinks SCOTUS is going to bail him out on this, that’s certainly a choice. Contrary to Trump’s hopes, they’re very likely not going to take a case that could screw up state civil enforcement and remedies nationwide with some crazy due process/takings analysis just to help him. I mean they have to write an opinion on this, and there are only going to be at most three votes for “this was all very unfair to Trump” as an opinion.

[Please, Daivd, Seek Help]

This doesn't seem hugely relevant to either Calabresi's post or my reply, but sure I absolutely yield that appeals are an important part of the disposition of this trial and I think everyone understands that and I have no particular opinion as to whether the ruling will be reversed on some kind of appeal.

My sole reason for replying was to note that the author reminded me of how my father spoke when he dealing with dementia and the statements in the post seemed to not even stand up to five or six seconds of basic, surface level scrutiny of the ruling. Whether or not the ruling is also junk, I have no idea.

[johnnie118]

Trump was not well represented at all. In New York State the default for such a case is a Bench Trial. A Jury Trial must be requested, and his attorneys didn't do so, then whined about not having a Jury later.

When Trump was cross examined they couldn't keep him on track, and he even made an incriminating statement, then they didn't put him on the stand during their case in chief to explain the incriminating statement.

They also showed complete ignorance in how the Clerks work in the NYC system. They complained repeatedly about the Clerk passing notes to the judge and such, during proceedings, and that is literally part of their job.

Attorneys can prepare witnesses so that even if their testimony is irrelevant it can appear relevant, and credible but their preparation of various witnesses, such as one who may have perjured themselves, was so sloppy that their reliability immediately came into question.

There are even more issues with their performance but a lot of people who support Trump are ignoring it because of two reasons. First, it hurts the whole "it's a conspiracy" angle when they lose. Also the fact that competent Law Firms won't take his cases, even though he is paying millions of $ to amateurish attorneys, only intensifies the appearance of wrong doing on his part.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Access to the VC should be withdrawn from Calabresi on the same humane principle which withdraws pistol and ball from would-be suicides.

I paraphrased. (In a prior era, someone well-known said approximately that about pen and ink and a different idiot. If I could discover who it was, I would credit the source.)

[Kleppe]

No argumentation, only ad hominems. Standard.

[Stephen Lathrop]

It remains a humane principle. Especially applicable to reckless idiots who rush to publish world-wide.

[Kleppe]

Leftists won't blink at the fact that nobody had ever been prosecuted for this before. They'll just mindlessly repeat "nobody is above the law" and deny Democrats are committing unrelenting lawfare against their political opponents. But there will come a day when the shoe is on the other foot. Still voting for Trump.

[Randal]

Please, file civil suits against Dem politicians all you want. You seem to think it's some sort of threat. We don't break down in tears when our politicians get held accountable. We actually kind of like it.

[PoliFights]

This civil suit was filed by a govt official using taxpayer's money and resource. BTW you are a NAZI.

[Randal]

Yes, the Nazis were all about accountability.

[PoliFights]

accountability like putting political enemies into jail and/or bankrupt them.

[Sarcastr0]

That's actually not what the Nazis were mainly known for, just so you're aware.

[PoliFights]

It is. Now a resident NAZI is trying to whitewash NAZI.

[Sarcastr0]

Holocaust denier, historically illiterate, or glitching AL?

It's hard to tell these days!

[PoliFights]

False. It's very easy to spot a NAZI. Sarcastr0 advocates putting political enemies into jail is 100% fascism. Sarcastr0 is a NAZI.

[Sarcastr0]

Sorry man, you're still super bad at this. Authoritarians that throw their opposition in jail are all over the place.

Nazis are known as uniquely awful for reasons other than that.

[JohnSmith97]

The only thing I ever see is endless claims that it is (D)ifferent when (D)emocrats do it.

Of course it is, (D)emocrats reliably vote in lockstep when it comes time to hold one of there own "accountable".

[Theendoftheleft]

No one in the rest of the world believes that for even one second.

The time for bullshitting and gaslighting is over, Randy. The reputational damage to your country is real, and it's probably irreparable. You’ve been outed as, amongst other things, totalitarians.

[Nige]

The only people who claim to think that are the dirtbag left who prefer Putin's Russia to any version of the US and right wing reactionaries who think drag queens are a threat to western civilisation.

[Theendoftheleft]

Wrong, Nige, but you are free to try to continue to comfort yourself with such illusions.

What did you think of Braverman's letter to Sunak?

[Nige]

‘Wrong, Nige’

Gotta say you're not making a great case for that.

‘What did you think of Braverman’s letter to Sunak?’

Evil clowns beclowning themselves, evilly.

[Theendoftheleft]

Perhaps if you live to 800 years of age you’ll come to see things more accurately, free of your ideological self-delusions.

Sunak has surely beclowned himself, though, and lost the faith of his own voting base (not that they trust his predecessors either).

[LawTalkingGuy]

Or some state AGs can bring cases against Democrats. Sherrod Brown, Jon Tester, Warnock and Ossoff are Dems in states with Republican AGs. They should totally go after them. Or Ken Paxton can go after Joaquin Castro or something.

[John Rohan]

Leftists broke down in tears at special prosecutor Robert Hur's report on Joe Biden. And he didn't even recommend prosecution.

[Sarcastr0]

Broke down in tears?

This is someone who sees everything in various gradations of how much the libs are getting owned.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"Still voting for Trump."

Proudly pronouncing your support for America's enemies!

You're full of shit that the law hasn't been used before. Might want to check your 'facts' if you have any integrity at all.

But of course that brings us back to my first point, so I guess we all know that you don't.

[John Rohan]

You’re full of shit that the law hasn’t been used before. Might want to check your ‘facts’ if you have any integrity at all.

OK, show us a single time it's been used to prosecute someone when there was no victim. Give us a single example if you have any integrity at all.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Notice how you had to immediately create a strawman and attacked something I didn't say?

The evidence that the law has been used previously has already been presented (by me) lower in this comment blog. Fuck off with your bullshit.

[I Callahan]

It’s not a straw man, Cavanaugh. It’s the entire fucking point. No one else has ever been prosecuted for this before. That’s because this is a political prosecution. You completely ignored that, which proves you’re a bald faced liar.

[David Nieporent]

1) This was a civil suit; nobody was prosecuted.
2) There were, of course, victims.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Who besides Trump is this happening to?

[Ed Grinberg]

Imagine Trump had chosen not to run this year, and DeSantis was likely to get the Republican nomination (and, like Trump, leading Biden in the polls). Does anyone seriously doubt that the same sort of lawfare would be used against him?

[LawTalkingGuy]

It’s actually pretty unlikely because, as odious as he is, he appears to stay on the right side of the law in his personal life.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Yes, I am virtually certain that DeSantis would have been able to make it to Election Day with zero indictments, and without incurring hundreds of millions of dollars in civil fines.

[MollyGodiva]

People have been prosecuted for these types of crimes. I personally know one who was. And in that case the guy kept up on the loans and the banks lost nothing.

[Ghost of Patrick Henry]

Please provide citation for this case. Name of Defendant. Venue. Date of Judgment. Case number. Otherwise we all know this is bs.

[Sarcastr0]

https://nyccriminallawyer.com/fraud-charge/mortgage-fraud/appraisal-fraud

Here is a lawyer that specializes in this kind of case. I guess he was just patiently waiting for the one time this law was used.

[SimonP]

Leftists won’t blink at the fact that nobody had ever been prosecuted for this before.

The reason that it's hard to find examples where the right has used these kinds of laws to target their own bugaboos is that rightists, by and large, choose to pursue these kinds of politically-motivated prosecutions with smaller targets. So, for instance - a doctor who helps a teenage patient get an abortion in a state where it's legal; a voter who thinks she can legally participate in an election because the state accepted her voter registration; a hospital in Washington that receives a subpoena for private medical information from a prosecutor in Texas. That sort of thing.

Of course, it's not even true that Republicans avoid selectively prosecuting their higher-profile political opponents. DeSantis came for Disney, for instance, and Texas has threatened to come after Meta and Google, and we're all familiar with the cases being brought against Harvard, MIT, etc.

Has any "leftist" had their ability to do business in a state for apparently violating laws in a way that otherwise might be tolerated, resulting in a raft of disqualifications and a hefty fine? No examples come to mind, no. But what is remarkable about the case in New York - setting aside for now the fact that it's legally justified in any event - is that it's an example of a leftist doing something that rightists now treat as fairly routine, on their side. Y'all just use different tools, and choose different targets.

[ReaderY]

Such reduced circumstances for a man we’ve been consistently been told is worth billions? What is this? Suddenly he isn’t? Whatever happened to all the riches he boasted of? We’ve been told half a billion is chump change to a man of such worth.

Has the poor soul fallen into such miserable circumstances that he will be be reduced to having to sell his second yacht? The poor dear!

[ReaderY]

I think Mr. Calebresi will find that the U.S. Supreme Court Justices are not quite the lap dogs he and Mr. Trump might have been hoping for.

At least Mr. Calebresi seems to know the names of a few Constitutional Amendments. It comes out sounding more educated than screeds of this nature generally do. Not using all-caps is also much appreciated.

[MollyGodiva]

No, they will prove themselves to be lap dogs when they rule that 14/3 does not mean what it says it does.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Whimpering, blustering, disaffected right-wing losers are my favorite culture war casualties . . . and most of what the Volokh Conspiracy has become.

More than one law school administration is probably following this stuff by now. I doubt this year will be limited to one Volokh Conspirator's departure from a mainstream campus.

[Theendoftheleft]

You’re losing the global culture war, AIDS. Your liberal order is collapsing. Continue to miss the forest for the trees, if that’s what comforts you.

Further, when American law school admins come to be properly understood by a large segment of public in Foucauldian terms, and when their hiring practices are correctly understood thus, those admin and faculty are going to be in big trouble. 🙂

[pts]

Harm caused by the defendant's behavior is one of the factor that must be considered under a United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (1998), analysis. The state may have a problem with this on appeal.

[Voize]

You'll have to find another blog to comment at if you insist on posting sensible and relevant information.

[Purple Martin]

How so, pts? Would you care to elaborate?

The issue is engaging in unfair business practices in violation of New York state law. The primary victims are any NY businesses placed at a structural disadvantage caused by obeying the law, while in competition with any of Trump’s hundreds of NY LLCs. Secondary victims are New York consumers living in such a economy-distorting business environment that fair real estate pricing is undeterminable.

The damage NY is trying to deter (risk of such damage is a factor under the NY statute charged) is a race to the bottom business environment. If Trump is successful, that means all companies are motivated to skirt the law, as table stakes just to engage in a business (granted, many might consider that a fair description of the NYC real estate development business Trump grew up in, but that doesn't really help him).

The eventual outcome of that are the Jeffrey Skillings and Bernie Ebbers of the world, driving out competition in increasingly risky transactions until (as long as we're using poker metaphors) doubling-down on every failure finally catches up with them. Indeed, this potentially significant societal damage is typified in the inevitable collapses of Enron and MCI/Worldcom (and, indeed, the whole dotcom boom/bust).

Trump mainly differs from Ebbers and Skilling in being such a small-time thinker whose imagination never extends past 1st order impacts, that most lawsuits against him were caused by trying to screw small businesses and subcontractors, while most of his own lawsuits were just threatened, not filed.

His own major development projects mostly went bankrupt, and he was saved from personal bankruptcy only by an unexpected infusion of cash from his unforeseen success in playing the part of a blustering but successful tycoon (faking only half of that) in a scripted reality TV show.

After that, he abandoned almost all actual real estate development in favor of selling his name for suckers to put on stuff other people own. Which is where he remains today, except the suckers are now called MAGAs.

I don't think the state, in NY state courts, is particularly concerned about demonstrating harm caused by the defendant’s behavior, which includes potential risk of significant damage introduced to NY's economic structures caused by the defendant's unlawful actions.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

an $83.3 million fine Trump must pay for allegedly defaming the writer E. Jean Carroll

Don't forget the sexual assault, you pathetic right-wing write-off.

[I Callahan]

There was no sexual assault. E Jean Carroll is a lying sack of shit. Almost as much of one as you.

[David Nieporent]

The jury who actually heard the testimony disagreed. (Well, not Trump's testimony, because he declined to testify on his own behalf. But they did get to hear his deposition testimony where he confused his own wife for EJC.)

[Purple Martin]

Meanwhile, back in the reality-based world of the rule of law and testimony under oath with legal consequences for lying, allegations of sexual assault were investigated, evidence collected and presented to a jury, advocated for and defended in a court of law.

Trump's lawyers represented their client in the manner he desired, presenting the defense he wanted to be presented but unfortunately for him, under a framework of rules differing from his proclamations to cable news and campaign rallies (where he continually committed the defamation at the root of this case).

A jury of Trump's peers who actually listened to the testimony, considered skilled arguments presented and rebutted, reviewed and examined all the available evidence, and found the allegations more credible that the defense presented against them.

That's the reason Trump never argues in court, his proclamations to you. Think I'll stick with the world that lets me read Trump's actual words, review evidence and support (or lack of) for it, and judge for myself.

You reject that world, choosing to live in a different world that requires you to believe with an undying faith whatever it is your dear leader tells you to believe today, then believing with the same faith, the opposite thing he tells you tomorrow. And, heavens no, never subjecting evidence to a rational test.

As this process continues over the coming months and years, enjoy your impotent wailing. I'll stick to reason, logic, and credible evidence.

[mydisplayname]

So, we're up to this point now in the saga of President Trump: "and with his finger [he] wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, 'He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.' And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last. [...] '[W]here are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?'"

History doesn't always reward those who rigorously enforce the law without considering justice. Martyrs are remembered.

[Nige]

Maybe you'd have been better off using this one for, say, the poor guy who got busted for allegedly stealing a backpack and died in Ryker's Island before ever going to a trial, rather than a rich guy being caught out committing fraud for the third time.

[Adabsurdum]

Well, he knows the names of amendments but doesn't understand them at all.

E.g. let's say I got a speeding ticket. Calabresi would argue that the speeding law is unconstitutional because I'm being prosecuted for a victimless crime because no one was hurt by my speeding. My speeding is my free expression, so it's a violation of the 1st amendment to cite me. The 5th amendment says I can't be fined because that would be a taking. I purchased a car that is capable of driving fast, and so not allowing me to do that is a violation of the contracts clause. I'm going to work, so this speeding ticket interferes with my 14th amendment right to run a business (by the way, where is that in the 14th amendment? I thought far righters don't believe there's implied rights in the 14th.) And, even after a trial where I'm represented by a lawyer, Calabresi would argue a lack of due process. (At least if I hired Calabresi for criminal defense, I'd have an ineffective counsel appeal.) And if the cops allowed others to speed but happened to ticket me, well that's a bill of attainder. That checks out, ya?

[Mr. Bumble]

Nice parody post.
Fits your screen name.

[Adabsurdum]

Thanks! I thought it was a logical reductio ad absurdum argument, by use of a speed limit parody. I didn't think most people would get my psuedonym's reference and how it relates to the content of my comment, but apparently you did.

[ConservativeProfessor]

Tropic Thunder post: writer goes full retard.

[pts]

Would it change your conclusion if the municipal ordinance said the judge could fine you up one-third of your liquid assets for the crime of 5 over?

[Drewski]

Common enough in jxs where speeding is a petty crime. Many recipients of minor speeding tickets don't have enough liquid assets to pay them at all.

[JohnTheRevelator]

Foilhat theory of the day: Dems are deliberately trying to stack SCOTUS with questionable-to-outright-bullshit lower court rulings against Trump so that someday they can claim SCOTUS is in Trump's pocket because it keeps ruling in his favor. Then they can stack the court or otherwise legislatively gut it and remove a major roadblock to their agenda.

[ReaderY]

Well, given how many SCOTUS rulings have been against Trump, it sure seems like SCOTUS is stacked against him too.

I suppose you’re going to blame the Democrats for that one too?

[Mr. Bumble]

Calabresi is not alone:

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4473974-obscene-award-against-trump-is-testing-the-new-york-legal-systems-integrity/

[LawTalkingGuy]

LOL. Turley. Good one.

[Michael Ejercito]

It is a good one.

The alleged victim testified for the defense.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Unfortunately for Trump (and you) that doesn’t matter because apparently the statute does not require reliance. And in any event even if the CoA holds that it does…the judge found that the testimony demonstrated that the banks relied on trump’s numbers in their analysis. Unless the record reveals that there is nothing at all supporting this finding…the CoA will defer to the trial court’s finding on this point.

[Michael Ejercito]

But then to whom would these damages be paid?

[LawTalkingGuy]

The state of New York. It’s a civil penalty.

[Michael Ejercito]

Bankers took the stand at Trump's civil trial testifying that they would have gladly made loans to Donald Trump given his extraordinary success as a businessman. It must also be noted that the banks that made loans to Trump did not take his assessment of the net worth of his assets at face value but made their own independent assessments of the value of Trump's assets. This is apparently standard practice in the New York State real estate market where borrowers often overstate the value of their assets.
The alleged victims testified in favor of the defense.

Never forget that.

[bernard11]

It's not true.

To start with, they based their idea of his extraordinary success as a businessman on falsified financial statements that he presented. They were only allowed to review these at Trump's office, with Weisselberg and others looking on, and were not permitted to take copies.

More below.

[bernard11]

Per Calabresi,

Bankers took the stand at Trump's civil trial testifying that they would have gladly made loans to Donald Trump given his extraordinary success as a businessman. It must also be noted that the banks that made loans to Trump did not take his assessment of the net worth of his assets at face value but made their own independent assessments of the value of Trump's assets. This is apparently standard practice in the New York State real estate market where borrowers often overstate the value of their assets.

No they didn't. Calabresi is either lying or hasn't read the decision. There were four Deutsche Bank employees who testified. The upshot of their testimony is that they did not rely on the value of the assets but on Trump's personal guarantee, and accepted Trump's SFC's (Statements of Financial Condition), which were falsified, at face value. Nor did they conduct independent appraisals, except in one case.

Generally they applied a 50% discount to Trump's appraisals of the assets, which they did for most real estate borrowers.

There was testimony from appraisers who performed appraisals for Trump, that their valuations were generally ignored, and property values were wildly overstated in the SCF's, sometimes by a factor of more than ten.

The decision is here.

You don't have to read the whole thing, just the testimony of the "non-party witnesses," which is on pp. 7-22. Quite enlightening.

If you think Trump was just doing a commonplace fudging of values this should change your mind (assuming that is possible).

[bacchys]

To be fair, if he didn't lie Steve wouldn't have an argument.

[David Nieporent]

There's another important issue that's being ignored by these MAGA talking points: the SFCs had to be presented to the bank each and every year, because (as with many business loans — they're not like household mortgages) Trump had a continuing obligation to satisfy certain financial conditions. If his net worth fell below a certain amount, he'd be in default and the loans would immediately come due. And even a bank that did due diligence in offering the loans didn't/wouldn't conduct a full reappraisal of Trump's assets each and every time he submitted one of those.

[Bored Lawyer]

Calabresi is unhinged. Not worth reading. Too bad we can't mute OP's like we can posters.

[Randal]

Think how great VC would be if you could mute Josh.

[I Callahan]

God forbid anything but the approved narrative get through. You progs are such chickenshits.

[eaglesfanintn]

The irony of a Trump cult member posting this isn’t lost on the rest of us.

[Randal]

Oh man if there were a narrative that would be wonderful! I don't care what happened at the supreme court a million years ago or want to hear about how many citations his paper got or see his Tweedle Dee travel selfies. He treats VC like it's his combo facebook, instagram, and linkedin.

[Drewski]

It would actually be worse, because Capt's comments in TiSCH are better than most posts here (and elicit better commentary).

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

President Trump's Kafkaesque Civil Trial in New York State

Former President Trump, clinger.

You're the Alina Habba of law professors.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Worst president ever.

[Theendoftheleft]

Well, if the NYT says so it must be true and its polling must be treated as having been fair and reliable!

Do you know what has happened to that rag’s international reputation over the last few years? Do you know WHY?

[David Nieporent]

You don't speak for anyone, except of course Putin.

[Theendoftheleft]

You need something more creative than that. It's boring already, in addition to being obviously false.

Why don't you take a trip outside the US, to Western Europe say, and see what people really think about the NYT?

[LawTalkingGuy]

“pubic use“

Classic.

[Magister]

Yes, I thought that was a different case against Trump.

[eaglesfanintn]

Even the editors and proofreaders couldn’t be bothered with this crap.

[bacchys]

Drug war supporter faces punishment for victimless crime?

Don't stop, Steve. I'm almost there.

[Longtobefree]

I find it impossible to believe that a case brought against Trump by a prosecutor who ran a political campaign based on "getting Trump" is not politically motivated.

[Randal]

All high-profile cases brought by DAs are politically motivated. It's a political job.

You're just experiencing the cognitive dissonance that comes with finding yourself on the side of the defendant for the first time after a lifetime of self-identifying as a law-and-order conservative.

[Krayt]

Not the same thing. You misuse the term to equate going after a political opponent because they are an opponent, not because it's good politics to go after a criminal.

[Nige]

Except he is a criminal. He committed fraud. It's been proven. And not for the first time.

[Randal]

It's probably both.

Imagine there were a Republican DA. They probably wouldn't have filed this case, as a political favor.

How is turning a blind eye to illegal behavior for political reasons any better than prosecuting it? It's worse, if you ask me. Again, you really have to jettison any claim to being pro-law-and-order if you think DAs should let their political allies off the hook.

[GiveMeLiberty]

Calebresi's posts in defense of Trump are becoming increasingly unhinged. Trump is a multiply indicted criminal suspect that Calebresi acknowledges should have been impeached for trying to hold power after losing an election, and thus banned from running for office. But now if he's punished for fraud, stealing classified documents, or crimes committed in the course of aforementioned attempt to hold power, it's all Kafkaesque Stalinist selective prosecution election interference.

Trump has apparently done a lot of crimes and committed a lot of torts. This decision is solidly in line with the relevant New York State law. And it's pretty standard that giving false information in the course of applying for a law is considered financial fraud even if you actually pay the loan as agreed. Maybe you could consider the NY State law unjust, but the claim that it's unfair only as applied to Trump is groundless special pleading.

[SilverlakeBodhisattva]

Back about 40 years ago, when I was working as a law and motion research attorney in superior court, one of our regular, and otherwise excellent litigators occasionally would get really riled up, and begin his argument in a motion hearing with “Your Honor, this is possibly the greatest miscarriage of justice in the entire history of Anglo-American jurisprudence!” After about the third iteration of this in different cases, I and the courtroom clerks could see it coming, and would recite it in unison under our breaths. Having used up Dred Scott and the assassination of Hamilton, what’s Calabresi to use for comparison when some court somewhere does something more heinous than making a grifter millionaire pay a bunch of money?

[Krayt]

Or...it's the king expropriating the estate of an irritating nobleman thorn in his side.

None of this would be happening but for political fighting.

What an embarrassment.

[Nige]

It wouldn't be happening if he hadn't committed fraud.

[ReaderY]

Not only was Steven Calabresi once a serious scholar, but after January 6 he wrote an op-ed saying Trump should be impeached.

What happened? What in this guy’s head snapped?

[Noscitur a sociis]

He wrote a piece in August saying that Trump was disqualified under section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

https://reason.com/volokh/2023/08/10/trump-is-disqualified-from-being-on-any-election-ballots/

[Estragon]

I only have one thing to add here. Barbra Jones is a very serious person, having met her back in the day before I was even involved in the law. I can’t think of anyone better to put personal feelings and partisanship aside than her. Formidable.

[Bill B]

So SBF sets 10 billion dollars on fire and is free.

Trump pays his loans back and gets fined LMAO

[Drewski]

You understand SBF is about to spend a long time in prison, right?

[Sarcastr0]

This is actually a pretty interesting issue - I've been on a jag reading about about crypto and fraud and WeWork and Enron and the like.

There is a ton of scummy behavior that is not illegal on purpose, for better or worse.
There is also a ton of scummy behavior that is not illegal just because no one has gotten there yet for one reason or another
There is also a ton of scummy behavior that is illegal.

Which you fall into is almost down to a matter of timing. Trump did a pretty old crime; that was his mistake.

[Oafish]

Lots of opinions. Nasty ad hominem retorts all around. In the end, the appeals will decide. I’ll check back in after that to see who are the sages and who the fools.

[Johnathan Galt]

Well the good news is that Trump will never have to pay a dime of this, and once it is appealed he will have his right to do business restored and receive massive payout in damages from NYC.

[David Nieporent]

On what theory of liability would Trump "Receive massive payout in damages from NYC"? What does NYC even have to do with this?

[leweser]

Rather than foaming at the mouth and invoking all manner of dubious analogies, the author might have considered spending a few minutes proofreading his opinion piece. If he had caught all his typos — most especially the use of “pubic” rather than “public” — he might have calmed down long enough to realize that he sounds like he’s stark raving mad.

[arpiniant1]

from today's WaPo

“The only path to a subversion of the republican system of the Country is, by flattering the prejudices of the people, and exciting their jealousies and apprehensions, to throw affairs into confusion, and bring on civil commotion,” Alexander Hamilton wrote to George Washington in 1792. “When a man unprincipled in private life[,] desperate in his fortune, bold in his temper … is seen to mount the hobby horse of popularity … It may justly be suspected that his object is to throw things into confusion that he may ‘ride the storm and direct the whirlwind.’”

Thomas Jefferson agreed with Hamilton about very little, except for the danger of populist demagogues. After he read a draft of the Constitution, his main concern was that an unscrupulous candidate in the distant future might lose an election and refuse to leave office. “If once elected, and at a second or third election outvoted by one or two votes, he will pretend false votes, foul play, hold possession of the reins of government, be supported by the States voting for him,” Jefferson wrote to James Madison in 1787.

[nhwku]

"[A]allegedly defaming E. Jean Carroll...." Prof. Calabresi, the fact finders changed the allegation to facts. You know that.

[Mr. Bumble]

Got any other examples?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Calabresi is a liar who should be required to address his lack of ethics in front of the Bar.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-powerful-new-york-law-that-finally-brought-trump-to-book

[John Rohan]

There were alleged victims of Trump university. There were none here.

[Nige]

All of them, by the sound of it.

[Nige]

His charity foundation.

[Mr. Bumble]

Any other not against someone named Trump?

[Nige]

No. There has never been a fraud case against anyone not named Trump, ever.

[Theendoftheleft]

NOT with your procedures, NOT with your late counting rulings, NOT with your eradicated/decreased signature requirements.

Try again.

[Theendoftheleft]

Don't assume my gender, you bigot!

My pronouns is are it/we.

[SimonP]

I think we should just assume he's a paid Russian troll and leave it at that. Just be on the lookout for a new sock when this one gets too notorious.

[Theendoftheleft]

Thank you, my Queen.

How does monarchy jive with your 'libertarian' ideology?

[Michael Ejercito]

The al.leged victims actually claimed to be victimized.

[Michael Ejercito]

The allged victims actually claimed to be victims.

here, the alleged victim denies even relying on the allegedly false statements.

[Theendoftheleft]

Are you saying I couldn't be doing this gratis?!?

I wonder how'd that have be listed for my income taxes... Does Russia pays its trolls well? Should there be a free market for trolls? Maybe also dedicated nomad visas for trolls?

[Theendoftheleft]

Look, at what point does a site whose regular contributors support:

*large-scale military presence across the globe, let alone the conflict in the Ukraine;
*the social re-engineering of societies, in terms of DEI and sex and gender ideologies, being promoted across institutions;
*the existing banking system with its debt-based fiat currency;
*the current presidency despite its clear corruption;
*the banana republic-style judicial persecution of the former president and the obvious miscategorisation of the January 6 rioters as insurrectionists.

have to ITSELF be called out as composed mostly of trolls. Y'all ain't libertarians. Some of you are 'neocons'. Some are ethno-nationalists. Some are socially/religiously conservative. Some are 'liberals' with (incongruous) sanctimonious, totalitarian social agendas. Your patriotism is perhaps undeniable; but libertarians you ain't.

[Theendoftheleft]

How much should we bet?

[Theendoftheleft]

State a figure in USD.

[Theendoftheleft]

Your link doesn't provide the relevant comparators---but, regardless, 'Schland doesn't use (and would never adopt) your procedures for the mail-in ballots.

Your fishing expedition won't help you either.

Seriously, what amount are you willing to bet?

[Theendoftheleft]

And that EXHAUSTIVELY covers it!

Jesus H Christ...

[Randal]

You just figured that out? Not even the conspiracists are particularly libertarian, no more so than the average X Files fan anyway.

[Nige]

‘*the social re-engineering of societies, in terms of DEI and sex and gender ideologies, being promoted across institutions;’

Apparently he’s against society changing to being less repressive of minorities – a conservative reactionary.

‘*the current presidency despite its clear corruption;’

Every bit of evidence of hs so-called corruption falls apart under the mildest of scrutiny.

‘*the banana republic-style judicial persecution of the former president and the obvious miscategorisation of the January 6 rioters as insurrectionists.’

‘Guy who says he hates Trump rolls out pro-Trump talking points.’ Nothing new there.

'Some are ‘liberals’ with (incongruous) sanctimonious, totalitarian social agendas.'

People threatened by equality think it's oppression.

[Theendoftheleft]

Nice Orwellian talking points there, Nige!

Freedom of speech, thought, association? They must be subordinated to DEI goals! Tell us which are the CORRECT terms and concepts to use. The ‘inclusive’ ones. Regulate their usage! Penalize non-conformity.

Hiring based on merit and skills? Hell no! That goal must be subordinated to DEI! It’d be one thing were it just a matter of corrective justice for past discrimination. But that’s not what’s actually going on. Instead, we’ve got prioritized hiring to diversify the workplaces, irrespective of past discrimination (and indeed hiring ‘diverse’ elites whilst doing so) to particular groups. (Fucking over the working and middle classes in the process? Sure!)

Let’s critically engage with our conceptual scheme to see and overcome the biases and assumptions therein. But challenge the very concepts of equality, dignity, personhood, etc.? VERBOTEN. Identify gender as a spectral concept? Sure! Identify equality as a spectral concept? VERBOTEN. Challenge the very institutional and legal norms meant to advance that DEI agenda? You’re a racist! Challenge the mass immigration schemes that flood a country will unskilled illiterate labour and incongruous values? You’re a RACIST and against Equality!

You’re a TOTALITARIAN, Nige. You’re in no position to judge anyone, and your entire political worldview is imploding globally.

[bernard11]

here, the alleged victim denies even relying on the allegedly false statements.

Not true.

[I Callahan]

The New Yorker. Thats a great source for legal moves. You really are a pitiful, vicious, hateful liar.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

People v. Jofaz Transportation
People of the State of New York v. Exxon Mobil Corporation

Both cases brought under Section 63(12). Next time you accuse someone of being a liar, you'd best be right.

Go suck off a .45.