trumps legal situation

Sprintcyclist wrote:Facts are

............  Judge Arthur Engoron has already ruled that Trump and his adult sons are liable for fraud for inflating the value of his golf courses, hotels and homes on financial statements to secure loans.

The trial portion of the case, playing out in court in Manhattan, will assess what damages will be levied against Trump and how Engoron’s decision to strip Trump of his New York business licenses will play out.      ..............

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/02/politics/donald-trump-investigations-lawsuits-what-matters/index.html

The only consideration is how much it will cost him and what will happen due to him having no business license.

Courts do not operate on allegations. They run on paperwork and evidence.
You can say whatever you want about this case being appealed, the judge whatever etc etc etc .
Trump tried that and he put on his angry face, neither worked.


As one judge said

............. “What (Trump’s lawsuit) lacks in substance and legal support it seeks to substitute with length, hyperbole, and the settling of scores and grievances,” US District Judge Donald Middlebrooks wrote.         ................

he two men framed their discussion around the first day yesterday in Trump’s trial in the New York “Business Fraud” Case. It was presided over by Judge Engoran, who last week issued a remarkable summary judgment order finding that, as a matter of law, Trump committed fraud by “overstating” the value of his very-difficult-to-estimate real estate properties on financial documents Trump used to obtain bank loans.

Loans that were all paid back, on time, with interest.

Imagine that you wanted to borrow $100 to buy supplies for your MAGA hat stand. I ask, “how’s business?” You say it’s great. Then I give you the $100, and a few days later you pay me back $120, just as agreed. I go away. Now the State of New York comes along and says, hey, when you said business was “great,” it wasn’t really “great,” it was only “okay.” You lied. Now we’re going to take your house.

...

Under long-standing New York and common Law, “fraud” is normally found when the state proves four things: (1) the defendant knowingly made a false representation, (2) to a victim who relied on the false representation, (3) the defendant intended the victim to rely on the false representation, and (4) because of that reliance, the victim was injured.

But the State of New York, applying an obscure, patently-unconstitutional statute that’s never been applied this way before, has stripped out all those common-law elements of proof of fraud except for the very first one: the false representation. I guess they had to keep at least one, and they picked the easiest to prove. It’s easiest to prove because all the the judge had to do were some back-of-the-napkin calculations and then say, yep, it was a false representation.

New York has jettisoned the four other fraud elements of: a victim, reliance, intent to deceive, and injury.

Even if the property values were misrepresented on Trump’s financials, whatever that means, by itself that is not fraud, and people should stop calling it that. Trump is being tried for only “lying” or “exaggerating.” And if that’s the standard, Katie bar the door.

In other words, if the government decides Trump lied or exaggerated, he loses. Period, end of story. Welcome to Venezuela, comrade. And no, you can’t also convict Joe Biden for lying. Why not? Because Judge Engoran will just decide Biden didn’t lie, silly. The judge is the gatekeeper who decides who lied and who didn’t.

Yesterday I saw some ignorant commentary from leftists arguing that, maybe there wasn’t a specific victim, but everyone collectively is the “victim,” because Trump’s misrepresentations will inevitably increase everyone else’s loan interest rates, or their insurance premiums, or something. But that’s just woke claptrap, of course, because Trump paid the loans back with interest, causing the banks and insurance companies to be even more profitable, which has the exact opposite effect as the silly leftists claimed.

Sprintcyclist wrote:and claims with a piccie and not even a link are not admissible evidence either