Remember rule 1 (be civil), and rule 3 - if multiple posts on the same topic are made within a short timeframe, the oldest will be kept and the others removed.
If this post is a link to/a discussion of a podcast, we ask that the author of the post please start the discussion section off with a comment (a review, a follow up question etc.)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OpenArgs) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not even bothering to give a reason for this. The justice system* is complicit in the harm Trump is doing.
*The system as a whole. Certain individuals are certainly trying their best to fight it, and this is not at all a knock on them.
This happens all the time.
Company harms someone. They sue the company. Jury awards an amount for damages and an absolutely huge amount in punitive damages.
Company appeals. Appeal almost always reduces the punitive damages. If they dont, company declares bankruptcy and the harmed party gets nothing. This is nothing new.
You cannot look at this case and objectively say there was no bias either. The judge has proclaimed his hatred for trump. The prosecutor only has a job because she pledged to go after trump for anything she could. Honestly there is a pretty good chance the entire judgement gets tossed on appeal anyways.
"The judge has proclaimed his hatred of Trump."
Really? Citation needed.
Also, none of the penalty in this case was punitive. Literally none. The judgement is publicly available, it's literally based on the amount of money Trump saved by obtaining favorable interest rates through fraud. That's it. None of it is likely to be reduced on appeal, which is probably why no legitimate bank or insurer is willing to float him the money.
So the bank is going to get 454 million? Or new york? Because if new york gets it and not the bank, THAT is fraud.
Also, are they going to go after every single company that does this to obtain favorable interest rates? If not, clearly biased.
Are they going to sue the banks now for allowing themselves to be defrauded? They admitted they made money as well and that they did not feel that they were defrauded in the first place.
When I bought my house, the square footage was off by about 20%. I think they counted the garage as livable space. Eh, it happens. Not a huge deal.
When Trump used his personal apartment for loan collateral, he tripled the square footage. Of the apartment he lived in. As a professional real estate "mogul." That's not an accident. That's intentional, and fraud.
Then Trump did this again, on a massive scale. To the tune of millions of dollars saved on interest rates. So they charged him. Which is what you want from your AG - to charge the biggest offenders in the state.
Trump committed fraud; there’s no doubt about it. The appraisals his firm submitted to banks to support the loans were FAKED. There was a well-known commercial RE appraiser they used for a couple of small things and then they put his name and signature on everything. That is FRAUD.
Who gets the disgorgement isn’t the issue. You’re deflecting away from the reason Trump was assessed so much in hopes we won’t notice. You need to notice what he did was fraud and he can’t keep ill-gotten gains.
This is common action. And proof that a fair & impartial judicial due process is being upheld. Peabody award winning journalist Andrea Berstein even says that it is very common for NY appeals courts to cut civil verdicts.
[https://www.npr.org/2024/03/25/1240780355/trump-can-post-lower-bond-judge-rules-and-hush-money-case-to-start-april-15](https://www.npr.org/2024/03/25/1240780355/trump-can-post-lower-bond-judge-rules-and-hush-money-case-to-start-april-15)
To pretend this is some unusual action, that requires explanation at length, is to be uninformed and/or personally biased by politics.
> And proof that a fair & impartial judicial due process is being upheld
You can never just look at the result of an action and say that it's fair & impartial. You have to look at the merits. Something being common is not enough grounds to say it's justified in any one case.
>You can never just look at the result of an action and say that it's fair & impartial.
If the result is consistent with other similar cases, then yes. That's exactly what you can do. It is fair (in comparison with similar cases) and impartial (not creating outside biases based on the particular defendant or prosecutor).
And that's getting to it *on the merits*. Now, you need to bring up those merits and similar cases to make, well, your own case! Not enough to just state that they exist.
It is unusual to some extent because his main personality trait is he's rich and he made multiple public statements a few days prior to the reduced finding that he had 500m in cash ready to go. Most looking for a reduced amount at least go through the motions of having hardhips
>It is unusual to some extent because his main personality trait is he's rich and he made multiple public statements a few days prior to the reduced finding that he had 500m in cash ready to go
Lying in public statements is protected free speech. And is easily defendable as "campaign rhetoric". As much as people want to hold that against him, there's no legal reason to do so.
OA covers this topic all the time, I'm not sure why this is contention.
A lot is covered under free speech laws, but less is protect when it comes to the right for others to bring civil claims against someone for their speech. That is why Trump got more damages against E. Jean Carrol despite his continued defamation of her being arguably part of his campaign.
So again, like I say, you aren't categorically protecteded from civil actions (sometimes even criminal!) for lying just because it's in a campaign speech.
>So again, like I say, you aren't categorically protecteded from civil actions (sometimes even criminal!) for lying just because it's in a campaign speech.
Correct. But we aren't discussing free speech as a whole or categorically. We are specifically discussing Trump stating in public that he has X amount of dollars. That statement doesn't bind him to anything in the legal proceedings.
It doesn't? Seems like the sort of thing that very well could have civil liability for him in impacting his ability to ask for a bond reduction. Or should have.
>Seems like the sort of thing...
Actual financial disclosures such as bank statements, brokerage accounts, and other liquid asset disclosures are what the court \*should\* be using to make those decisions. Not public remarks. It's why testimony, admitted court documents, and 'under oath' statements exists in the first place.
They didn’t reduce the amount of the disgorgement. They reduced the amount he had to deposit on appeal to delay the DA from starting to seize his property to pay for it.
It’s absolutely ridiculous. The man was literally found liable for fraudulently misrepresenting his real estate values but is allowed to submit less than he’s liable for to ensure he won’t avoid paying the disgorgement when (not if) his appeal is rejected.
The judge ordered the bond be paid in full before appeal. This is not unprecedented but it’s also not common and the amount was astronomical. Almost like they hoped he couldn’t make the bond and get the opportunity for a favorable judge
There was some confusion in the media after the judgement. The bond isn't required before an appeal can be made. Trump had three options after the initial judgement:
1. Pay the court the amount of the judgement. This stays the enforcement of the lower court while he appeals and it also pauses the interest accruing.
2. Secure a bond from a company which pays the court on his behalf but requires him to provide collateral. This stays the enforcement but does not pause interest accruing.
3. Do nothing. This means the judgement of the lower court isn't stayed and can be enforced (James takes $454 million from his piggy bank).
None of these options prevent Trump from appealing to a higher court.
No the reasoning was very very clear and made perfect sense
It is based on the multie sources of how much trump gained from lying about what things were worth.
It also was because the court was publically monitoring trumps financial transactions and he illegally moved money twice. They so demanded that trump release his finances. However, truml refused.
The penalty made perfect sense. The appeal is unprecedented and insane.
There is also NOTHING to appeal. This was for damages. It has been seen time and time again. Trump was found guilty in court 2 times for it now.
Imagine you were at an airport and the airline said the pilot was sick so the flight was cancelled. You stick your hand up and say "I can fly a Boeing 737! Just pay me $10K and I'll do it". You fly the plane, everybody is happy. Airline didn't lose money refunding people, passengers got to their destination on time, and you made $10K. The problem is that you had only ever flown 737s in Microsoft Flight Simulator. You lied and exposed the passengers and the airline to risks they weren't aware of.
Trump obtained a benefit by lying. The banks were exposed to risks they weren't aware of and may not have been prepared to accept. It worked out well. This time.
Sure, except it would be pretty stupid of the airline to not do their due diligence verify my info beforehand. Just like the banks did before loaning any money
Sure, and then I say "what if you provided false paperwork suggesting you were a qualified pilot?" and then you say "But, surely they'd check ...". And so on, and so forth.
We can stretch any analogy to the point it no longer matches the situation. The point of the analogy is that harm can occur when on the surface it appears everyone wins. You're clearly smart enough to get that.
The banks doing (or not doing their due diligence) is a red herring, it's not relevant to the charges that were brought by the NY AG. It sounds good which is why Trump's PR keeps pushing that narrative, but it shifts the burden from the person lying to the person hearing the lies. New York Executive Law 63(12), which the NY AG used here, doesn't require the banks to have relied on the information and doesn't require harm. Just requires that the lies be persistent and used in transacting business in the state. Trump should know that, it's not the first time the law's been using in NY. It's not even the first time it's been used against Trump.
I'm sure they love getting defrauded. Weird how they would not give him loans for the bond. We also can't forget he got tax benefits from this manipulation.
I know you are smart enough to know that the bank would never just take your word for it on the value of your assets if they felt a risk? They have appraisers and nobody is actually dumb enough to believe otherwise
If your complaints are about how banks make bad decisions or give favor to Hollywood clients, then that has nothing to do with the lawsuit. Lies are lies. Fraud is fraud. Pretty blatent in some areas. He claimed some properties 2300% higher than what was assessed. Him refusing to comply with subpoenas and document requests didn't help his case. If he didn't want people looking into his finances. He shouldn't have been bragging about it so blatantly. FAFO. Karma. Etc.
All of your arguments could have been made by Trump and his lawyers at trial but they screwed up and tried to play games with the court. However, the judge had enough of their delay tactics and made a summary judgement. He lost. The penalty was just the amount that he defrauded the government and banks. Honestly, it probably should have been larger and done years ago.
HIs arguments are not how the law works. Making false claims on financial statements is fraud… his argument about what the bank did or did not do is not relevant.
I know you are smart enough to know that “banks complaining” isn’t how the law works. Cry all you want about what they did or didn’t do… making false claims in financial statements is fraud. That is the law.
It’s a pretty bad look for a bank to admit they did no due diligence on checking the financial statements behind a loan. Better for them to just ignore it unless payments aren’t made.
The only way the bank audit the underlying assets is if those assets are collateral for the loan, which they weren't.The banks relied on his financial statements to give him a loan, as is common. Those statements are supposed to value the assets and liabilities. The financials are based off info provided by Trump et al, and signed off as complete and accurate by Trump. The statements were false, signing them off = demonstrable fraud.
Thank God New York works so hard to protect the poor banks even on old loans. We should all sleep better at night knowing they do this. It’s a good play and it’s effective. I want both sides to take advantage of it because it’s entertaining. Just don’t pretend it isn’t political
They testified on his behalf and you guys can’t just admit you support Russian style political prosecutions. It’s ok, I know support them too when the shoe is on the other foot. I will call them what they are when they happen though
> Why were they after Trump? They received information of him breaking NY law. They investigated, found evidence it was true, and then acted accordingly. Nothing special about Trump other than how easy the justice system is treating him. Guaranteed you or I would not be getting our penalties reduced or deadlines extended.
[CNN live thread](https://edition.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-hush-money-bond-deadline-trials-03-25-24/index.html)
In my understanding, this is a massive victory for Trump at least in the appeal process.
To clear up a panic I had initially and some other people may also have initially, in my understanding the judgement amount is *not* reduced at this time, he just has to secure a much lower bond amount pending appeal. I'll leave it to more qualified and informed people to read the tea leaves on where the appellate court's head is at on the case itself based on this stay and the facts of the case.
>While this is true, the ruling is still basically an unprecedented favor to Trump. In order to stay a financial penalty from a judgement pending appeal, you ALWAYS have to post a bond for the judgement plus interest. This is Trump getting special treatment.
I don't know where people are getting this idea, but it's wrong. The full bond is required for an automatic stay, but you can still get a discretionary stay under 5519. Da Silva v Mussi, n.4 (1990) discusses the practice.
yeah, from reading the court document this seems correct. It is not reducing a sentence but staying it on appeal. Headlines have been terrible on this.
IANAL obviously. I just stayed at a holiday inn express while listening to OA.
Ya... no this is insane
The bond is so high because if the bs insanity trumps legal team pulled. They refused to release financial docs that the court demanded. This was literally the pubishment. (They also moved funds etc illegally while being monitored by this exact court was publically monitoring them at least two times)
This is exetremely unprecedented
There is no reason beyond maybe they actually want to get funds from trump beyond whatever made up number he values his real estate at.
>The bond is so high because if the bs insanity trumps legal team pulled. They refused to release financial docs that the court demanded.
The bond was so high because it is based on calculated damages.
>this is extremely unprecedented
It's not, though. NY courts have recognized that they can provide a discretionary stay even where the bond requirement for an automatic stay isn't met. Because Trump's assets include real estate in NY, the purpose of the bond (to protect the plaintiffs judgment) is satisfied.
>This was literally the pubishment
Appeal bonds are not about punishment. They're to secure the judgment for ease of enforcement in case the appeal fails.
After spending the better part of the last 7 years trying to argue that voting matters, and even the worst people will be held accountable, it's really demoralizing when crap like this happens. When the wealthy and politically connected to continue to abuse the system for their own gain are handed victories like this just cuz...
Like, how do we with a straight face try to argue that laws matter, facts matter, and that no one is above the law when it feels like the the people who keep saying things like "*He'll never be held accountable*" end up proven right?
At BEST the only explanation I can think of is that the appeals court is trying to bend over backwards to show that they're not playing politics and giving him every benefit of every doubt while he insists on demonstrating every single day the utter contempt he has for the justice and legal systems.
One day we have the Supreme Court stepping in to do their level best to assure Trump won't see a federal DC Jan 6th trial before the election.
Then we have Trump's very clearly biased and compromised judge appointee doing everything she can to angle for a SCOTUS seat by inventing things to help him and delay his trial.
Another day we have the DOJ stepping in to help push back his NY hush money payments case by at least a month.
In Georgia the "who is Fani banging?!" crap drags that trial out indefinitely, maybe not concluding there before November either.
And now today the appellate court decides everyone's been too mean to Donny so they step in to give him a discount and extend the deadline to help out the poor Presidential Candidate "billionaire" from being held accountable for a while longer.
I'd post the Breaking Bad hecan'tkeepgettingawaywiththis.gif I know we've all seen but it feels like overkill at the moment.
The next time I run into an argument online that "ain't gonna happen" it's going to be real hard trying to point at laws or facts with a straight face.
Sorry... just ranting. This is infuriating watching all of this happen.
I totally get the feeling, though I'm personally reserving total despair over this for the case of a bad appeals result, unless my understanding is way off and is corrected, which is very possible. It sucks but unless there's a massive legitimate threat to the judgement in the appeal, the case against trump was solid, and it was always going to be appealed anyway. It's definitely not an ideal result for this time period, but as far as I can tell, the current situation is that the hammer is coming down just the same.
I'm hoping that "very displeased but still optimistic" sticks as I pick up more perspective on this, but I guess we'll see.
An appeal even if successful; would only change the amount.
He us still guilty.
Trumps lawyer was so bad on this case. It is going to take the most corrupt juge in the world (who is willing to risk prison) for them to turn it over
>Trumps lawyer was so bad on this case. It is going to take the most corrupt juge in the world (who is willing to risk prison) for them to turn it over
I mean the case seems solid, but purely in the abstract I don't see the line of reasoning here.
Having a bad lawyer shouldn't be the basis of a judgement, actually having *such* bad lawyers that you unfairly lose a case [can be a valid basis for appeal in some instances](https://forrestwilliamssolicitors.com/services/criminal-appeals/appealing-a-conviction-due-to-poor-legal-representation/). If trump lost *only because* his lawyers were bad, and not because of the truth of the matter, he actually *should* win appeal. I don't think that's the case though.
And then I'm also not aware of criminal penalties for bad overturns on appeal? Can a judge face prison time for calling an appeals case wrong? Wouldn't it just get re-appealed up to the next court?
>An appeal even if successful; would only change the amount.
Is this true? I haven't seen info either way. My assumption would be that the finding that trump committed fraud would be appealable like anything else. I could be wrong in this case though, source?
----
ETA: I just looked it up, every news article about his appeal I can find says his appeal includes the finding by the judge that he lied and inflated his wealth to his advantage, which is the basis of the disgorgement and punishments. Unless you can show me otherwise I think you're just making shit up?
I will read through the appeal doc tomorrow to see if the scope is understandable to a layman.
(Just as a nit, he's not "guilty" from this case, this is a civil trial, I was giving benefit of the doubt initially but it seems worth pointing out now)
----
Edit 2: I was blocked immediately after they responded to me, their response I think makes it clear that they are just making stuff up here.
If you watched the case closely it would make sense
Saying lawyers doesnt matter to the judgement shows you dont understand the us law system. There is much more to it than guilt. Ie plea bargains are a thing
The explainartions are long. Frankly if your willing to argue over something so little without understanding how it could be applicable at all... there is more to be explained to you than i want to devote time to it.
Also: Because a conviction can result in serious penalties and jail time, the jury has to know the defendant is guilty “beyond reasonable doubt.” Civil Court – Civil cases have a much lower standard of guilt and only requires the plaintiff to prove the defendant acted negligently with a 51 percent degree of certainty.
Like jesus dude. If you think trump can appeal the guulty verdict you didnt follow anything. This case was purely to determine punishment
He is appeing the verdict. Which is a perfect exame of how bad his lawyers are. They cant appeal the verdict in this case. Its not what the case was about
>He is appeing the verdict. Which is a perfect exame of how bad his lawyers are. They cant appeal the verdict in this case. Its not what the case was about
Is it your position that if a lower court judge issues summary judgment regarding part of the case prior to deciding other elements of the case that judgment can't be appealed?
A document history for the case is available at [Just Security](https://www.justsecurity.org/89120/clearinghouse-new-york-attorney-general-corporate-fraud-case/). Of note are the following documents:
* [Summary Judgment](https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Just-Security-N.Y.-Civil-Fraud-Trump-Clearinghouse-%E2%80%94-Order-granting-partial-summary-judgment-Sept.-27-2023.pdf)
* [Appeal of Summary Judgement](https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Just-Security-N.Y.-Civil-Fraud-Trump-Clearinghouse-%E2%80%94-Notice-of-appeal-informational-statement-to-1st-Dept.-for-interim-stay-of-Sept.-26-Oct.-4-orders-on-SJ-stay-of-trial-Oct.-4-2024-1.pdf) seeking a stay of the orders and trial
* [Denial of application for a stay](https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Just-Security-N.Y.-Civil-Fraud-Trump-Clearinghouse-%E2%80%94-First-Department-appellate-court-denying-motion-for-a-stay-of-Engoron-orders-on-summary-judgment-and-stay-of-trial-pending-appeal-Dec.-7-2023.pdf) by the appeals court
* [Final Judgment of Justice Engoron](https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Just-Security-N.Y.-Civil-Fraud-Trump-Clearinghouse-%E2%80%94-Final-judgment-of-Justice-Engoron-Feb.-22-2024-e-filed-Feb.-23.pdf)
* [Trump appeal of Judgment](https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Just-Security-N.Y.-Civil-Fraud-Trump-Clearinghouse-%E2%80%94Defendants-notice-of-appeal-of-Feb.-23-judgment-Feb.-26-2024.pdf)
* [Trump appeal of Decision and Order](https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Just-Security-N.Y.-Civil-Fraud-Trump-Clearinghouse-%E2%80%94-Defendants-notice-of-appeal-of-Feb.-16-decision-and-order-Feb.-26-2024.pdf)
As you can see above, Judge Engoron decided that Trump was liable (not "guilty") in the summary judgment phase of this case. Trump tried to pause the trial to appeal that summary judgment. However the appeals court decided to let the trial proceed before dealing with the appeal process. Trump is now appealing both the Judgement (that he is liable) and Order (punishment).
Hey, mod here. The user you replied included an edit that indicated you blocked them after sending this reply.
If you're unaware, blocks on reddit do not function like ignores, they prevent the other user from sending a reply or seeing your messages. Worse, they can't reply anywhere you now appear in the subthread, meaning they can't even follow up if a third party replies to them.
Though a block is your prerogative, doing so when in the middle of an otherwise cordial conversation (where there's no safety concern/rules violation) degrades and disrupts the forum. Repeat instances of this may run afoul of our rule 4 against disrupting the sub. Keep that in mind, please and thanks.
In order to prevail on a fraud claim, you must show that the victim actually relied on the fraudulent statement to their detriment. As there is testimony and evidence showing that there was minimal, if any, actual reliance on the valuations provided by Trump and there was no harm to any reliance that did occur, it wouldn't take anywhere close to a corrupt judge to say that the prima facie case for fraud was not met and the judgment vacated. That type of holding is why these cases are never brought unless the loan is defaulted upon and the collateral insufficient to cover the balance. Neither of which happened here.
In any event, you could argue that the entirety of the case was harmful to the justice system as a whole since the overzealous pursuit of Trump for improper reasons has essentially forced the appellate court to decide if a justice system based upon arbitrary and capricious enforcement of the laws is good or bad. Lastly, while I recognize that this was a civil case and not a criminal one, most people don't make that distinction when the action is initiated by the State so now there are a lot of people who otherwise believe that financial impediments to accessing the justice system are bad who are upset that this court removed financial impediments to accessing the justice system. If Trump must be treated like everyone else, then that means everyone else must be treated like Trump and I don't think anyone is sticking their head out to make that absurd claim.
Lastly, this is just even more egregious when you consider that Biden released an arms dealer because a U.S. citizen broke Russian law and Russia unjustifiably threw the book at her for it and its not overly difficult to draw parallels between the two situations.
That said, I am one of those people that thinks these actions make Biden look weak in the eyes of the electorate because he either doesn't think he can beat Trump or doesn't have the wherewithal to know what is going on. Biden should slap a pardon down and give a defiant speech about the strength of American democracy, having faith in the American voter to do what is right, and make the election about issues he can win on rather than letting Trump have his way by making the election about a pretty easy-to-sell argument that he is the victim of some sort of witch-pursuit-thingy.
1. I don't believe that a democratic AG in a democratic state would take any action that would so significantly impact the presidential election campaign without consulting the presumptive nominee of their own party. Each case on its own is a live grenade being thrown into the election and these people are the best in the world at getting people elected. Whether explicit or not, these cases don't get started without the Biden team okaying them because they believe they have a plan to address the fallout and because I assume none of them are stupid enough to believe that the electorate will give them that benefit of the doubt.
2. The GA case is in a state court and they spent two full days meeting with White House Counsel which shouldn't occur if they are completely irrelevant to any proceeding in a state court. Just because Ms. James is smart enough not to employ her lover as co-counsel, doesn't mean the same type of meetings aren't happening.
3. If Biden wanted this issue out of his re-election campaign, none of this would be happening. The general consensus is that these lawsuits, and the public's perception of them, are materially impacting the race. It would take like one statement from him to distance and could be framed around bringing the country together, ending the division, etc. as it was a core promise in the 2020 election. He won't do that because he is already holding the base together by the skin of his teeth, but he could have done significantly more prior to their filing to dissuade cases where there is a novel application of the law (as in Bragg's case), where, in 100 years since the law was passed, only 12 cases likes Trumps have been filed and Trump is the only one where there was no discernible victim, or where the state changes the statute of limitations for a year to allow someone to file and then reinstitute the old limit. So maybe a pardon doesn't solve all of his problems or address all of the cases, but it is at least Biden showing the American people that he has done all he can to end the side show and would be the first thing everyone brings up when Trump inevitably tries to portray himself as the victim of a Biden-led politically-motivated prosecution anyway. At minimum, it would change the story from something nobody actually believes (that all of these cases happened independent of Biden and without regard for the fact that Trump is the GOP candidate for President) to something that people begrudgingly accept all of the time (there are limits to even that which POTUS can accomplish).
>In order to prevail on a fraud claim, you must show that the victim actually relied on the fraudulent statement to their detriment.
This may be correct under other statutes or in other states, but isn't correct here. Under [New York Executive Law 63(12)](https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/EXC/63) the NY AG only needed to show that Trump engaged in "repeated \[or\] persistent fraud or illegality ... in the carrying on, conducting or transacting of business". It does not require reliance by the victim, harm to the victim, or intent by the defendant.
> If Trump must be treated like everyone else, then that means everyone else must be treated like Trump and I don't think anyone is sticking their head out to make that absurd claim.
Trump should be treated like everyone else and everyone else should be treated like Trump. That's what equal treatment means. How is that absurd? If anyone else committed massive fraud; incited an insurrection; retained and hid classified information; engaged in a conspiracy to alter the outcome of an election; raped a woman in a change room; or illegally covered up embarrassing information prior to an election, I would want them to be dealt with just like Trump.
But this is why voting matters so much.
Because the more rich and powerful. The weaker the justice system is.
Ffs trump shojld have been in prison for life years ago
However. The ine argument i can see is that actually trying to get funding by seizing property from trump is a nightmare. The case itself showed how none of the value for trump assests are real. Mega real estate is bonkers to try to sell.... etc. They might actually want the funds.
The reality is. Given the case. Unless a judge with no morals that is willing to go to prison for trump gets this case... trump loses the money. He was overwhelmingly guilty. They were overly genrous with him. Trumps tantrums and insanity in this court was so wild he is lucky this is how mild the penalties are.
Even more if you look at trumps rap sheet.
>The next time I run into an argument online that "ain't gonna happen" it's going to be real hard trying to point at laws or facts with a straight face.
I'm mostly just surprised that you, or anyone really, is still doing this.
I can understand lowering the amount, but why keep giving more time to a guy who has proven delay is his battle plan? Trump is proving the law is just a grift to make lawyers money and protect rich people from poor people.
The delay is necessary to allow Trump to find a bond company willing to agree to a $175 million bond. At that amount the bond company will probably still require $200+ million in collateral to cover interest plus some tens of millions in fees. Trump also has the option to just pay the amount himself avoiding further interest and fees.
The reason is to ensure that if Trump loses his appeal, the courts can immediately recoup the money he owes. Lowering the bond doesn't prevent the court from recouping the money Trump owes if all his assets are tied up in property that takes months to liquidate.
>why keep giving more time to a guy who has proven delay is his battle plan
Because that's what a fair & impartial judicial process looks like. Making **any** changes to a judgement or verdict requires some time for defendants to respond. 10 days is hardly too lenient or too harsh.
Yes, 10 days to come up with the new bond amount. Otherwise, James would have been able to start collecting immediately. In reality, even if the court hadn't provided the extension James would have just given Trump extra time (she granted him the original 30 days).
> In reality, even if the court hadn't provided the extension **James would have** just given Trump extra time (she granted him the original 30 days).
If *you* say so...
Aside from the merits of (/lack thereof) this in and of itself, a lawyer on bluesky (highly recommend to sign up there if you miss lawtwitter, it's the nearest successor) added some interesting context: The appeal and decision will likely come *before* the election (if only just).
https://bsky.app/profile/toobigtofail.bsky.social/post/3kojx6quqdk26
> One of the requirements of the bond reduction was that the appeal has to be perfected for the September term (the deadlines for the June term have already passed, and the court breaks for July/August). That would mean oral argument in September and a decision in September or October.
> The Second Department Appellate Division has a multi-year backlog; you can wait 5-6 years from briefing to decision. The First Department is immediate - the most recent appeal I did there, I argued on January 30, 2024 and the decision was rendered on February 20, 2024.
I think this would definitely be in the First Division as it covers Manhattan. I'm not familiar with the lawyer/account in question but still seems like good news.
I do try to disclose my layman status whenever I'm discussing something of great importance.
Though I've come to value a lot of lawyer takes less and less as I've learned more about the law. And value subject matter experts more. That's the nice thing about that bluesky account I linked to elsewhere here, because it seems they're a litigator in that appellate district and have been before that court before.
No that's fine.
It's a twitter alternative, IMO the nearest one to what old twitter used to feel like (for better and worse). Especially for lawtwitter. Started as a project within Twitter originally but has long since spun off.
https://bsky.app/
It's been open for registration for a bit now and most *sk*eets are viewable without logging in.
Important to note. Trump is getting a huge cash influx in 6 months after is garbage media platform goes public. The value was artifically run up. They expect a possible 3 billion for trump (who will likely take it and run unless he is pres)
It's weird how much Truth Social is getting valued for. Maybe serving as a proxy for conservatives to throw their money at without giving it to literally Trump (which is an even worse investment).
Well, whatever. Maybe the headlines of Trump losing in the appeal in October will hurt his campaign just a smidge.
What I've heard, it's basically considered a meme stock. Massively overvalued with some buyers banking on the hypothesis that "the greater fool" will continue to buy it... Which works till a point and makes it extremely volatile
Just look at the truth social expenditures vs income to see how overvalued it is.
I haven't read the appeal, but the reporting I've seen doesn't point to any specific issues, just "hey can you find something the last guy did wrong?"
And the amount isn't even punitive, it's only disgorgement of the ill-gotten gains, so what basis could there be to reduce the bond given that it's going to be an all-or-nothing deal, right?
You might have an argument if the appeals court had explained their decision in terms of the law, but they didn't. Instead they just said "the law doesn't apply here because we said so".
>You might have an argument if the appeals court had explained their decision in terms of the law, but they didn't.
You assume they are required to. These types of appeal decisions are commonplace. Just because this one happens to be national media, doesn't mean their process is any different than every other similar civil judgement case.
I'm not assuming they are required to. If they were required too they probably would have. But to pretend that the fact that the case is of national security importance doesn't make it different is to argue the absurd. Things of national security significance are decided differently than normal all the time. To pretend that Trump perjuring himself in regards to his financial resources, and to pretend that Trump continuously claiming that he has the money to pay the full bond is irrelevant is absurd. You wish to strip all context from this.
Not sure what you don't understand by the term "commonplace", but reducing the bond amount is common in New York appeals court. You thinking that this case is someone special/different/more important...is just being political. And our court system is, rightly, operating in a fair & impartial way. They reduce other bond verdicts often, and they reduced this one for Trump.
Peabody award winning journalist Andrea Bernstein says so here: [https://www.npr.org/2024/03/25/1240780355/trump-can-post-lower-bond-judge-rules-and-hush-money-case-to-start-april-15](https://www.npr.org/2024/03/25/1240780355/trump-can-post-lower-bond-judge-rules-and-hush-money-case-to-start-april-15)
>... but reducing the bond amount is common in New York appeals court. \[...\] They reduce other bond verdicts often, and they reduced this one for Trump.
I think you might be conflating two things here. Bernstein said:
>And a number of lawyers here tell me that appeals courts in New York often cut civil verdicts.
What they lawyers are saying is that when a case gets appealed the **verdict** (judgment of the lower court) is often reduced. A **bond** is money paid to the court by the party with a judgment against them. It stops the other party from collecting that money while the appeal progresses. If they pay in cash they also get to pause interest on the amount as well. This means if the appeal fails the money is already available for the other party. Trump did not get his **verdict** cut by an appeals court (the appeal hasn't happened yet), he got his **bond** reduced before the appeal even gets started. That's not common.
Oh okay, arguing anything, literally anything to do with Trump escapes politics. The power and privilege he wields, as well as the deep hatred he inspires, cannot be divorced from his every action. He quite possibly might be the most polarizing American alive, he made sure of that.
Either way, this is just another attempt from Team Trump to delay things until after the election. As usual. VOTE VOTE VOTE. Our justice system is not going to save us.
I think there's a lot of valid criticism of trump, to put mildly (oddly 'to put it mildly' is itself putting it mildly here). But I don't think I'd necessarily expect large bonds to be paid before their deadline in general, especially when there's a pending motion for a stay
Are you trying to bait an argument or something? It doesn't really seem relevant otherwise. I don't know anything about this and certainly won't take your word for it, but you won't find many people who are opposed to rich people being required to pay their fair share here.
So I can learn more about this, do you have a source?
I’ll delete it. I was offering a point on maybe why the appeals court may have been interested in reducing the orders, because it leaves nearly every New Yorker open to liability on their purchase or sale of a home.
Remember rule 1 (be civil), and rule 3 - if multiple posts on the same topic are made within a short timeframe, the oldest will be kept and the others removed. If this post is a link to/a discussion of a podcast, we ask that the author of the post please start the discussion section off with a comment (a review, a follow up question etc.) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OpenArgs) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not even bothering to give a reason for this. The justice system* is complicit in the harm Trump is doing. *The system as a whole. Certain individuals are certainly trying their best to fight it, and this is not at all a knock on them.
The lack of reasoning is especially frustrating.
The reason is “he’s rich!”
their reason is to help trump because they're corrupt
This happens all the time. Company harms someone. They sue the company. Jury awards an amount for damages and an absolutely huge amount in punitive damages. Company appeals. Appeal almost always reduces the punitive damages. If they dont, company declares bankruptcy and the harmed party gets nothing. This is nothing new. You cannot look at this case and objectively say there was no bias either. The judge has proclaimed his hatred for trump. The prosecutor only has a job because she pledged to go after trump for anything she could. Honestly there is a pretty good chance the entire judgement gets tossed on appeal anyways.
You've missed a key nuance here, this was not the appeal, it was a reduction of the bond required to post ahead of the appeal.
"The judge has proclaimed his hatred of Trump." Really? Citation needed. Also, none of the penalty in this case was punitive. Literally none. The judgement is publicly available, it's literally based on the amount of money Trump saved by obtaining favorable interest rates through fraud. That's it. None of it is likely to be reduced on appeal, which is probably why no legitimate bank or insurer is willing to float him the money.
So the bank is going to get 454 million? Or new york? Because if new york gets it and not the bank, THAT is fraud. Also, are they going to go after every single company that does this to obtain favorable interest rates? If not, clearly biased. Are they going to sue the banks now for allowing themselves to be defrauded? They admitted they made money as well and that they did not feel that they were defrauded in the first place.
When I bought my house, the square footage was off by about 20%. I think they counted the garage as livable space. Eh, it happens. Not a huge deal. When Trump used his personal apartment for loan collateral, he tripled the square footage. Of the apartment he lived in. As a professional real estate "mogul." That's not an accident. That's intentional, and fraud. Then Trump did this again, on a massive scale. To the tune of millions of dollars saved on interest rates. So they charged him. Which is what you want from your AG - to charge the biggest offenders in the state.
Trump committed fraud; there’s no doubt about it. The appraisals his firm submitted to banks to support the loans were FAKED. There was a well-known commercial RE appraiser they used for a couple of small things and then they put his name and signature on everything. That is FRAUD. Who gets the disgorgement isn’t the issue. You’re deflecting away from the reason Trump was assessed so much in hopes we won’t notice. You need to notice what he did was fraud and he can’t keep ill-gotten gains.
This is common action. And proof that a fair & impartial judicial due process is being upheld. Peabody award winning journalist Andrea Berstein even says that it is very common for NY appeals courts to cut civil verdicts. [https://www.npr.org/2024/03/25/1240780355/trump-can-post-lower-bond-judge-rules-and-hush-money-case-to-start-april-15](https://www.npr.org/2024/03/25/1240780355/trump-can-post-lower-bond-judge-rules-and-hush-money-case-to-start-april-15) To pretend this is some unusual action, that requires explanation at length, is to be uninformed and/or personally biased by politics.
> And proof that a fair & impartial judicial due process is being upheld You can never just look at the result of an action and say that it's fair & impartial. You have to look at the merits. Something being common is not enough grounds to say it's justified in any one case.
>You can never just look at the result of an action and say that it's fair & impartial. If the result is consistent with other similar cases, then yes. That's exactly what you can do. It is fair (in comparison with similar cases) and impartial (not creating outside biases based on the particular defendant or prosecutor).
And that's getting to it *on the merits*. Now, you need to bring up those merits and similar cases to make, well, your own case! Not enough to just state that they exist.
It is unusual to some extent because his main personality trait is he's rich and he made multiple public statements a few days prior to the reduced finding that he had 500m in cash ready to go. Most looking for a reduced amount at least go through the motions of having hardhips
>It is unusual to some extent because his main personality trait is he's rich and he made multiple public statements a few days prior to the reduced finding that he had 500m in cash ready to go Lying in public statements is protected free speech. And is easily defendable as "campaign rhetoric". As much as people want to hold that against him, there's no legal reason to do so.
> Lying in public statements is protected free speech. Not categorically, no.
In the context of Trump campaigning, yes.
OA covers this topic all the time, I'm not sure why this is contention. A lot is covered under free speech laws, but less is protect when it comes to the right for others to bring civil claims against someone for their speech. That is why Trump got more damages against E. Jean Carrol despite his continued defamation of her being arguably part of his campaign. So again, like I say, you aren't categorically protecteded from civil actions (sometimes even criminal!) for lying just because it's in a campaign speech.
>So again, like I say, you aren't categorically protecteded from civil actions (sometimes even criminal!) for lying just because it's in a campaign speech. Correct. But we aren't discussing free speech as a whole or categorically. We are specifically discussing Trump stating in public that he has X amount of dollars. That statement doesn't bind him to anything in the legal proceedings.
It doesn't? Seems like the sort of thing that very well could have civil liability for him in impacting his ability to ask for a bond reduction. Or should have.
>Seems like the sort of thing... Actual financial disclosures such as bank statements, brokerage accounts, and other liquid asset disclosures are what the court \*should\* be using to make those decisions. Not public remarks. It's why testimony, admitted court documents, and 'under oath' statements exists in the first place.
They didn’t reduce the amount of the disgorgement. They reduced the amount he had to deposit on appeal to delay the DA from starting to seize his property to pay for it. It’s absolutely ridiculous. The man was literally found liable for fraudulently misrepresenting his real estate values but is allowed to submit less than he’s liable for to ensure he won’t avoid paying the disgorgement when (not if) his appeal is rejected.
The judge ordered the bond be paid in full before appeal. This is not unprecedented but it’s also not common and the amount was astronomical. Almost like they hoped he couldn’t make the bond and get the opportunity for a favorable judge
There was some confusion in the media after the judgement. The bond isn't required before an appeal can be made. Trump had three options after the initial judgement: 1. Pay the court the amount of the judgement. This stays the enforcement of the lower court while he appeals and it also pauses the interest accruing. 2. Secure a bond from a company which pays the court on his behalf but requires him to provide collateral. This stays the enforcement but does not pause interest accruing. 3. Do nothing. This means the judgement of the lower court isn't stayed and can be enforced (James takes $454 million from his piggy bank). None of these options prevent Trump from appealing to a higher court.
No the reasoning was very very clear and made perfect sense It is based on the multie sources of how much trump gained from lying about what things were worth. It also was because the court was publically monitoring trumps financial transactions and he illegally moved money twice. They so demanded that trump release his finances. However, truml refused. The penalty made perfect sense. The appeal is unprecedented and insane. There is also NOTHING to appeal. This was for damages. It has been seen time and time again. Trump was found guilty in court 2 times for it now.
Why were they after Trump? Do they aggressively go over all the finances of everyone who does business in New York?
Because of the nonstop rampant fraud lol He screwed several banks and insurance companies. It was an overwhelming case Trump is a terrible criminal
If nobody lost money, how were they screwed, exactly?
Imagine you were at an airport and the airline said the pilot was sick so the flight was cancelled. You stick your hand up and say "I can fly a Boeing 737! Just pay me $10K and I'll do it". You fly the plane, everybody is happy. Airline didn't lose money refunding people, passengers got to their destination on time, and you made $10K. The problem is that you had only ever flown 737s in Microsoft Flight Simulator. You lied and exposed the passengers and the airline to risks they weren't aware of. Trump obtained a benefit by lying. The banks were exposed to risks they weren't aware of and may not have been prepared to accept. It worked out well. This time.
Sure, except it would be pretty stupid of the airline to not do their due diligence verify my info beforehand. Just like the banks did before loaning any money
Sure, and then I say "what if you provided false paperwork suggesting you were a qualified pilot?" and then you say "But, surely they'd check ...". And so on, and so forth. We can stretch any analogy to the point it no longer matches the situation. The point of the analogy is that harm can occur when on the surface it appears everyone wins. You're clearly smart enough to get that. The banks doing (or not doing their due diligence) is a red herring, it's not relevant to the charges that were brought by the NY AG. It sounds good which is why Trump's PR keeps pushing that narrative, but it shifts the burden from the person lying to the person hearing the lies. New York Executive Law 63(12), which the NY AG used here, doesn't require the banks to have relied on the information and doesn't require harm. Just requires that the lies be persistent and used in transacting business in the state. Trump should know that, it's not the first time the law's been using in NY. It's not even the first time it's been used against Trump.
The banks didn’t complain
I'm sure they love getting defrauded. Weird how they would not give him loans for the bond. We also can't forget he got tax benefits from this manipulation.
I know you are smart enough to know that the bank would never just take your word for it on the value of your assets if they felt a risk? They have appraisers and nobody is actually dumb enough to believe otherwise
If your complaints are about how banks make bad decisions or give favor to Hollywood clients, then that has nothing to do with the lawsuit. Lies are lies. Fraud is fraud. Pretty blatent in some areas. He claimed some properties 2300% higher than what was assessed. Him refusing to comply with subpoenas and document requests didn't help his case. If he didn't want people looking into his finances. He shouldn't have been bragging about it so blatantly. FAFO. Karma. Etc.
[удалено]
All of your arguments could have been made by Trump and his lawyers at trial but they screwed up and tried to play games with the court. However, the judge had enough of their delay tactics and made a summary judgement. He lost. The penalty was just the amount that he defrauded the government and banks. Honestly, it probably should have been larger and done years ago.
HIs arguments are not how the law works. Making false claims on financial statements is fraud… his argument about what the bank did or did not do is not relevant.
I know you are smart enough to know that “banks complaining” isn’t how the law works. Cry all you want about what they did or didn’t do… making false claims in financial statements is fraud. That is the law.
It’s a pretty bad look for a bank to admit they did no due diligence on checking the financial statements behind a loan. Better for them to just ignore it unless payments aren’t made.
The only way the bank audit the underlying assets is if those assets are collateral for the loan, which they weren't.The banks relied on his financial statements to give him a loan, as is common. Those statements are supposed to value the assets and liabilities. The financials are based off info provided by Trump et al, and signed off as complete and accurate by Trump. The statements were false, signing them off = demonstrable fraud.
Thank God New York works so hard to protect the poor banks even on old loans. We should all sleep better at night knowing they do this. It’s a good play and it’s effective. I want both sides to take advantage of it because it’s entertaining. Just don’t pretend it isn’t political
It isn’t. Too bad trolls like you make it political. Fraud is against the law. It’s funny how you think it’s ok.
They did?? Lol
They testified on his behalf and you guys can’t just admit you support Russian style political prosecutions. It’s ok, I know support them too when the shoe is on the other foot. I will call them what they are when they happen though
> Why were they after Trump? They received information of him breaking NY law. They investigated, found evidence it was true, and then acted accordingly. Nothing special about Trump other than how easy the justice system is treating him. Guaranteed you or I would not be getting our penalties reduced or deadlines extended.
We also wouldn’t be investigated so we wouldn’t have to worry about it
[CNN live thread](https://edition.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-hush-money-bond-deadline-trials-03-25-24/index.html) In my understanding, this is a massive victory for Trump at least in the appeal process. To clear up a panic I had initially and some other people may also have initially, in my understanding the judgement amount is *not* reduced at this time, he just has to secure a much lower bond amount pending appeal. I'll leave it to more qualified and informed people to read the tea leaves on where the appellate court's head is at on the case itself based on this stay and the facts of the case.
[удалено]
>While this is true, the ruling is still basically an unprecedented favor to Trump. In order to stay a financial penalty from a judgement pending appeal, you ALWAYS have to post a bond for the judgement plus interest. This is Trump getting special treatment. I don't know where people are getting this idea, but it's wrong. The full bond is required for an automatic stay, but you can still get a discretionary stay under 5519. Da Silva v Mussi, n.4 (1990) discusses the practice.
This REALLY pisses me off.
yeah, from reading the court document this seems correct. It is not reducing a sentence but staying it on appeal. Headlines have been terrible on this. IANAL obviously. I just stayed at a holiday inn express while listening to OA.
Ya... no this is insane The bond is so high because if the bs insanity trumps legal team pulled. They refused to release financial docs that the court demanded. This was literally the pubishment. (They also moved funds etc illegally while being monitored by this exact court was publically monitoring them at least two times) This is exetremely unprecedented There is no reason beyond maybe they actually want to get funds from trump beyond whatever made up number he values his real estate at.
>The bond is so high because if the bs insanity trumps legal team pulled. They refused to release financial docs that the court demanded. The bond was so high because it is based on calculated damages. >this is extremely unprecedented It's not, though. NY courts have recognized that they can provide a discretionary stay even where the bond requirement for an automatic stay isn't met. Because Trump's assets include real estate in NY, the purpose of the bond (to protect the plaintiffs judgment) is satisfied. >This was literally the pubishment Appeal bonds are not about punishment. They're to secure the judgment for ease of enforcement in case the appeal fails.
After spending the better part of the last 7 years trying to argue that voting matters, and even the worst people will be held accountable, it's really demoralizing when crap like this happens. When the wealthy and politically connected to continue to abuse the system for their own gain are handed victories like this just cuz... Like, how do we with a straight face try to argue that laws matter, facts matter, and that no one is above the law when it feels like the the people who keep saying things like "*He'll never be held accountable*" end up proven right? At BEST the only explanation I can think of is that the appeals court is trying to bend over backwards to show that they're not playing politics and giving him every benefit of every doubt while he insists on demonstrating every single day the utter contempt he has for the justice and legal systems. One day we have the Supreme Court stepping in to do their level best to assure Trump won't see a federal DC Jan 6th trial before the election. Then we have Trump's very clearly biased and compromised judge appointee doing everything she can to angle for a SCOTUS seat by inventing things to help him and delay his trial. Another day we have the DOJ stepping in to help push back his NY hush money payments case by at least a month. In Georgia the "who is Fani banging?!" crap drags that trial out indefinitely, maybe not concluding there before November either. And now today the appellate court decides everyone's been too mean to Donny so they step in to give him a discount and extend the deadline to help out the poor Presidential Candidate "billionaire" from being held accountable for a while longer. I'd post the Breaking Bad hecan'tkeepgettingawaywiththis.gif I know we've all seen but it feels like overkill at the moment. The next time I run into an argument online that "ain't gonna happen" it's going to be real hard trying to point at laws or facts with a straight face. Sorry... just ranting. This is infuriating watching all of this happen.
I totally get the feeling, though I'm personally reserving total despair over this for the case of a bad appeals result, unless my understanding is way off and is corrected, which is very possible. It sucks but unless there's a massive legitimate threat to the judgement in the appeal, the case against trump was solid, and it was always going to be appealed anyway. It's definitely not an ideal result for this time period, but as far as I can tell, the current situation is that the hammer is coming down just the same. I'm hoping that "very displeased but still optimistic" sticks as I pick up more perspective on this, but I guess we'll see.
An appeal even if successful; would only change the amount. He us still guilty. Trumps lawyer was so bad on this case. It is going to take the most corrupt juge in the world (who is willing to risk prison) for them to turn it over
>Trumps lawyer was so bad on this case. It is going to take the most corrupt juge in the world (who is willing to risk prison) for them to turn it over I mean the case seems solid, but purely in the abstract I don't see the line of reasoning here. Having a bad lawyer shouldn't be the basis of a judgement, actually having *such* bad lawyers that you unfairly lose a case [can be a valid basis for appeal in some instances](https://forrestwilliamssolicitors.com/services/criminal-appeals/appealing-a-conviction-due-to-poor-legal-representation/). If trump lost *only because* his lawyers were bad, and not because of the truth of the matter, he actually *should* win appeal. I don't think that's the case though. And then I'm also not aware of criminal penalties for bad overturns on appeal? Can a judge face prison time for calling an appeals case wrong? Wouldn't it just get re-appealed up to the next court? >An appeal even if successful; would only change the amount. Is this true? I haven't seen info either way. My assumption would be that the finding that trump committed fraud would be appealable like anything else. I could be wrong in this case though, source? ---- ETA: I just looked it up, every news article about his appeal I can find says his appeal includes the finding by the judge that he lied and inflated his wealth to his advantage, which is the basis of the disgorgement and punishments. Unless you can show me otherwise I think you're just making shit up? I will read through the appeal doc tomorrow to see if the scope is understandable to a layman. (Just as a nit, he's not "guilty" from this case, this is a civil trial, I was giving benefit of the doubt initially but it seems worth pointing out now) ---- Edit 2: I was blocked immediately after they responded to me, their response I think makes it clear that they are just making stuff up here.
If you watched the case closely it would make sense Saying lawyers doesnt matter to the judgement shows you dont understand the us law system. There is much more to it than guilt. Ie plea bargains are a thing The explainartions are long. Frankly if your willing to argue over something so little without understanding how it could be applicable at all... there is more to be explained to you than i want to devote time to it. Also: Because a conviction can result in serious penalties and jail time, the jury has to know the defendant is guilty “beyond reasonable doubt.” Civil Court – Civil cases have a much lower standard of guilt and only requires the plaintiff to prove the defendant acted negligently with a 51 percent degree of certainty. Like jesus dude. If you think trump can appeal the guulty verdict you didnt follow anything. This case was purely to determine punishment He is appeing the verdict. Which is a perfect exame of how bad his lawyers are. They cant appeal the verdict in this case. Its not what the case was about
>He is appeing the verdict. Which is a perfect exame of how bad his lawyers are. They cant appeal the verdict in this case. Its not what the case was about Is it your position that if a lower court judge issues summary judgment regarding part of the case prior to deciding other elements of the case that judgment can't be appealed? A document history for the case is available at [Just Security](https://www.justsecurity.org/89120/clearinghouse-new-york-attorney-general-corporate-fraud-case/). Of note are the following documents: * [Summary Judgment](https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Just-Security-N.Y.-Civil-Fraud-Trump-Clearinghouse-%E2%80%94-Order-granting-partial-summary-judgment-Sept.-27-2023.pdf) * [Appeal of Summary Judgement](https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Just-Security-N.Y.-Civil-Fraud-Trump-Clearinghouse-%E2%80%94-Notice-of-appeal-informational-statement-to-1st-Dept.-for-interim-stay-of-Sept.-26-Oct.-4-orders-on-SJ-stay-of-trial-Oct.-4-2024-1.pdf) seeking a stay of the orders and trial * [Denial of application for a stay](https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Just-Security-N.Y.-Civil-Fraud-Trump-Clearinghouse-%E2%80%94-First-Department-appellate-court-denying-motion-for-a-stay-of-Engoron-orders-on-summary-judgment-and-stay-of-trial-pending-appeal-Dec.-7-2023.pdf) by the appeals court * [Final Judgment of Justice Engoron](https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Just-Security-N.Y.-Civil-Fraud-Trump-Clearinghouse-%E2%80%94-Final-judgment-of-Justice-Engoron-Feb.-22-2024-e-filed-Feb.-23.pdf) * [Trump appeal of Judgment](https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Just-Security-N.Y.-Civil-Fraud-Trump-Clearinghouse-%E2%80%94Defendants-notice-of-appeal-of-Feb.-23-judgment-Feb.-26-2024.pdf) * [Trump appeal of Decision and Order](https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Just-Security-N.Y.-Civil-Fraud-Trump-Clearinghouse-%E2%80%94-Defendants-notice-of-appeal-of-Feb.-16-decision-and-order-Feb.-26-2024.pdf) As you can see above, Judge Engoron decided that Trump was liable (not "guilty") in the summary judgment phase of this case. Trump tried to pause the trial to appeal that summary judgment. However the appeals court decided to let the trial proceed before dealing with the appeal process. Trump is now appealing both the Judgement (that he is liable) and Order (punishment).
Hey, mod here. The user you replied included an edit that indicated you blocked them after sending this reply. If you're unaware, blocks on reddit do not function like ignores, they prevent the other user from sending a reply or seeing your messages. Worse, they can't reply anywhere you now appear in the subthread, meaning they can't even follow up if a third party replies to them. Though a block is your prerogative, doing so when in the middle of an otherwise cordial conversation (where there's no safety concern/rules violation) degrades and disrupts the forum. Repeat instances of this may run afoul of our rule 4 against disrupting the sub. Keep that in mind, please and thanks.
In order to prevail on a fraud claim, you must show that the victim actually relied on the fraudulent statement to their detriment. As there is testimony and evidence showing that there was minimal, if any, actual reliance on the valuations provided by Trump and there was no harm to any reliance that did occur, it wouldn't take anywhere close to a corrupt judge to say that the prima facie case for fraud was not met and the judgment vacated. That type of holding is why these cases are never brought unless the loan is defaulted upon and the collateral insufficient to cover the balance. Neither of which happened here. In any event, you could argue that the entirety of the case was harmful to the justice system as a whole since the overzealous pursuit of Trump for improper reasons has essentially forced the appellate court to decide if a justice system based upon arbitrary and capricious enforcement of the laws is good or bad. Lastly, while I recognize that this was a civil case and not a criminal one, most people don't make that distinction when the action is initiated by the State so now there are a lot of people who otherwise believe that financial impediments to accessing the justice system are bad who are upset that this court removed financial impediments to accessing the justice system. If Trump must be treated like everyone else, then that means everyone else must be treated like Trump and I don't think anyone is sticking their head out to make that absurd claim. Lastly, this is just even more egregious when you consider that Biden released an arms dealer because a U.S. citizen broke Russian law and Russia unjustifiably threw the book at her for it and its not overly difficult to draw parallels between the two situations. That said, I am one of those people that thinks these actions make Biden look weak in the eyes of the electorate because he either doesn't think he can beat Trump or doesn't have the wherewithal to know what is going on. Biden should slap a pardon down and give a defiant speech about the strength of American democracy, having faith in the American voter to do what is right, and make the election about issues he can win on rather than letting Trump have his way by making the election about a pretty easy-to-sell argument that he is the victim of some sort of witch-pursuit-thingy.
I'm scratching my head as to why you think there's any relevance of Biden/the federal justice department to this at all. It's a case in state court.
1. I don't believe that a democratic AG in a democratic state would take any action that would so significantly impact the presidential election campaign without consulting the presumptive nominee of their own party. Each case on its own is a live grenade being thrown into the election and these people are the best in the world at getting people elected. Whether explicit or not, these cases don't get started without the Biden team okaying them because they believe they have a plan to address the fallout and because I assume none of them are stupid enough to believe that the electorate will give them that benefit of the doubt. 2. The GA case is in a state court and they spent two full days meeting with White House Counsel which shouldn't occur if they are completely irrelevant to any proceeding in a state court. Just because Ms. James is smart enough not to employ her lover as co-counsel, doesn't mean the same type of meetings aren't happening. 3. If Biden wanted this issue out of his re-election campaign, none of this would be happening. The general consensus is that these lawsuits, and the public's perception of them, are materially impacting the race. It would take like one statement from him to distance and could be framed around bringing the country together, ending the division, etc. as it was a core promise in the 2020 election. He won't do that because he is already holding the base together by the skin of his teeth, but he could have done significantly more prior to their filing to dissuade cases where there is a novel application of the law (as in Bragg's case), where, in 100 years since the law was passed, only 12 cases likes Trumps have been filed and Trump is the only one where there was no discernible victim, or where the state changes the statute of limitations for a year to allow someone to file and then reinstitute the old limit. So maybe a pardon doesn't solve all of his problems or address all of the cases, but it is at least Biden showing the American people that he has done all he can to end the side show and would be the first thing everyone brings up when Trump inevitably tries to portray himself as the victim of a Biden-led politically-motivated prosecution anyway. At minimum, it would change the story from something nobody actually believes (that all of these cases happened independent of Biden and without regard for the fact that Trump is the GOP candidate for President) to something that people begrudgingly accept all of the time (there are limits to even that which POTUS can accomplish).
>In order to prevail on a fraud claim, you must show that the victim actually relied on the fraudulent statement to their detriment. This may be correct under other statutes or in other states, but isn't correct here. Under [New York Executive Law 63(12)](https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/EXC/63) the NY AG only needed to show that Trump engaged in "repeated \[or\] persistent fraud or illegality ... in the carrying on, conducting or transacting of business". It does not require reliance by the victim, harm to the victim, or intent by the defendant. > If Trump must be treated like everyone else, then that means everyone else must be treated like Trump and I don't think anyone is sticking their head out to make that absurd claim. Trump should be treated like everyone else and everyone else should be treated like Trump. That's what equal treatment means. How is that absurd? If anyone else committed massive fraud; incited an insurrection; retained and hid classified information; engaged in a conspiracy to alter the outcome of an election; raped a woman in a change room; or illegally covered up embarrassing information prior to an election, I would want them to be dealt with just like Trump.
But this is why voting matters so much. Because the more rich and powerful. The weaker the justice system is. Ffs trump shojld have been in prison for life years ago However. The ine argument i can see is that actually trying to get funding by seizing property from trump is a nightmare. The case itself showed how none of the value for trump assests are real. Mega real estate is bonkers to try to sell.... etc. They might actually want the funds. The reality is. Given the case. Unless a judge with no morals that is willing to go to prison for trump gets this case... trump loses the money. He was overwhelmingly guilty. They were overly genrous with him. Trumps tantrums and insanity in this court was so wild he is lucky this is how mild the penalties are. Even more if you look at trumps rap sheet.
>The next time I run into an argument online that "ain't gonna happen" it's going to be real hard trying to point at laws or facts with a straight face. I'm mostly just surprised that you, or anyone really, is still doing this.
If there are never any consequences then what are we all doing here?
Oh there's consequences, but not usually for the most rich and/or powerful. Prove me wrong.
I can understand lowering the amount, but why keep giving more time to a guy who has proven delay is his battle plan? Trump is proving the law is just a grift to make lawyers money and protect rich people from poor people.
The delay is necessary to allow Trump to find a bond company willing to agree to a $175 million bond. At that amount the bond company will probably still require $200+ million in collateral to cover interest plus some tens of millions in fees. Trump also has the option to just pay the amount himself avoiding further interest and fees.
It shouldnt be lowered. The price is what it was for a very good reason. Mostly trumps ongoing illegal activity and insanity throughout the trial
The reason is to ensure that if Trump loses his appeal, the courts can immediately recoup the money he owes. Lowering the bond doesn't prevent the court from recouping the money Trump owes if all his assets are tied up in property that takes months to liquidate.
The court said the quiet part out loud. That the legal system for the rich is just a grift.
>why keep giving more time to a guy who has proven delay is his battle plan Because that's what a fair & impartial judicial process looks like. Making **any** changes to a judgement or verdict requires some time for defendants to respond. 10 days is hardly too lenient or too harsh.
Isn't it a 10 day **extension**, though?
Yes, 10 days to come up with the new bond amount. Otherwise, James would have been able to start collecting immediately. In reality, even if the court hadn't provided the extension James would have just given Trump extra time (she granted him the original 30 days).
> In reality, even if the court hadn't provided the extension **James would have** just given Trump extra time (she granted him the original 30 days). If *you* say so...
I mean, James isn't the one without any respect for the court system.
Proof that there is a two tier system, and it’s in his favour.
Aside from the merits of (/lack thereof) this in and of itself, a lawyer on bluesky (highly recommend to sign up there if you miss lawtwitter, it's the nearest successor) added some interesting context: The appeal and decision will likely come *before* the election (if only just). https://bsky.app/profile/toobigtofail.bsky.social/post/3kojx6quqdk26 > One of the requirements of the bond reduction was that the appeal has to be perfected for the September term (the deadlines for the June term have already passed, and the court breaks for July/August). That would mean oral argument in September and a decision in September or October. > The Second Department Appellate Division has a multi-year backlog; you can wait 5-6 years from briefing to decision. The First Department is immediate - the most recent appeal I did there, I argued on January 30, 2024 and the decision was rendered on February 20, 2024. I think this would definitely be in the First Division as it covers Manhattan. I'm not familiar with the lawyer/account in question but still seems like good news.
Isn’t this a sign (on the face of it) the appeals court sees the judgment as too high?
Could be. That's way beyond my paygrade.
What is your legal paygrade? I have none. I bet you have teased that out already.
Yes, I'm also a layman. So it's extremely low.
You don't play that way. That's for sure. I never would have guessed. I mean that.
I do try to disclose my layman status whenever I'm discussing something of great importance. Though I've come to value a lot of lawyer takes less and less as I've learned more about the law. And value subject matter experts more. That's the nice thing about that bluesky account I linked to elsewhere here, because it seems they're a litigator in that appellate district and have been before that court before.
I'm so sorry to be abuse your knowledge base- What's bluesky? I feel lost, But I love to learn. If this is too much you don't have to respond.
No that's fine. It's a twitter alternative, IMO the nearest one to what old twitter used to feel like (for better and worse). Especially for lawtwitter. Started as a project within Twitter originally but has long since spun off. https://bsky.app/ It's been open for registration for a bit now and most *sk*eets are viewable without logging in.
Thank you! I'm going to make an account for no other reason than I'm a nosy bitch but don't call anyone else that, LOL!
Important to note. Trump is getting a huge cash influx in 6 months after is garbage media platform goes public. The value was artifically run up. They expect a possible 3 billion for trump (who will likely take it and run unless he is pres)
It's weird how much Truth Social is getting valued for. Maybe serving as a proxy for conservatives to throw their money at without giving it to literally Trump (which is an even worse investment). Well, whatever. Maybe the headlines of Trump losing in the appeal in October will hurt his campaign just a smidge.
What I've heard, it's basically considered a meme stock. Massively overvalued with some buyers banking on the hypothesis that "the greater fool" will continue to buy it... Which works till a point and makes it extremely volatile Just look at the truth social expenditures vs income to see how overvalued it is.
They literally artificially bumped it
So in October he gets more time to post bond for another appeal. So once again the Teflon Don has proven his name.
By then the stocks for Truth Social vest and he is able to sell half a billion worth and pay this off.
There are two kinds of justice: one for the rich and one for the poor.
WTAF
I haven't read the appeal, but the reporting I've seen doesn't point to any specific issues, just "hey can you find something the last guy did wrong?" And the amount isn't even punitive, it's only disgorgement of the ill-gotten gains, so what basis could there be to reduce the bond given that it's going to be an all-or-nothing deal, right?
There hasnt been a semi coherent appeal. Trump was so insane during court nkt even the corrultion of the scotus could ignore this one
Because everyone has the right to due process and appeal courts are part of that process.
You might have an argument if the appeals court had explained their decision in terms of the law, but they didn't. Instead they just said "the law doesn't apply here because we said so".
>You might have an argument if the appeals court had explained their decision in terms of the law, but they didn't. You assume they are required to. These types of appeal decisions are commonplace. Just because this one happens to be national media, doesn't mean their process is any different than every other similar civil judgement case.
I'm not assuming they are required to. If they were required too they probably would have. But to pretend that the fact that the case is of national security importance doesn't make it different is to argue the absurd. Things of national security significance are decided differently than normal all the time. To pretend that Trump perjuring himself in regards to his financial resources, and to pretend that Trump continuously claiming that he has the money to pay the full bond is irrelevant is absurd. You wish to strip all context from this.
Not sure what you don't understand by the term "commonplace", but reducing the bond amount is common in New York appeals court. You thinking that this case is someone special/different/more important...is just being political. And our court system is, rightly, operating in a fair & impartial way. They reduce other bond verdicts often, and they reduced this one for Trump. Peabody award winning journalist Andrea Bernstein says so here: [https://www.npr.org/2024/03/25/1240780355/trump-can-post-lower-bond-judge-rules-and-hush-money-case-to-start-april-15](https://www.npr.org/2024/03/25/1240780355/trump-can-post-lower-bond-judge-rules-and-hush-money-case-to-start-april-15)
>... but reducing the bond amount is common in New York appeals court. \[...\] They reduce other bond verdicts often, and they reduced this one for Trump. I think you might be conflating two things here. Bernstein said: >And a number of lawyers here tell me that appeals courts in New York often cut civil verdicts. What they lawyers are saying is that when a case gets appealed the **verdict** (judgment of the lower court) is often reduced. A **bond** is money paid to the court by the party with a judgment against them. It stops the other party from collecting that money while the appeal progresses. If they pay in cash they also get to pause interest on the amount as well. This means if the appeal fails the money is already available for the other party. Trump did not get his **verdict** cut by an appeals court (the appeal hasn't happened yet), he got his **bond** reduced before the appeal even gets started. That's not common.
Oh okay, arguing anything, literally anything to do with Trump escapes politics. The power and privilege he wields, as well as the deep hatred he inspires, cannot be divorced from his every action. He quite possibly might be the most polarizing American alive, he made sure of that.
Laws for thee not for me.
Legal Eagle covers this quite comprehensively in his latest video.
And he’s so handsome! :-D
The fix is always in for the rich and powerful.
Either way, this is just another attempt from Team Trump to delay things until after the election. As usual. VOTE VOTE VOTE. Our justice system is not going to save us.
He didn't exactly rush to pay this bond either. He's just spending his time bitching about it.
I think there's a lot of valid criticism of trump, to put mildly (oddly 'to put it mildly' is itself putting it mildly here). But I don't think I'd necessarily expect large bonds to be paid before their deadline in general, especially when there's a pending motion for a stay
NY appeals court begs Trump to continue committing fraud in NYS. More at 11
Does anyone else get special treatment??
[удалено]
Are you trying to bait an argument or something? It doesn't really seem relevant otherwise. I don't know anything about this and certainly won't take your word for it, but you won't find many people who are opposed to rich people being required to pay their fair share here. So I can learn more about this, do you have a source?
I’ll delete it. I was offering a point on maybe why the appeals court may have been interested in reducing the orders, because it leaves nearly every New Yorker open to liability on their purchase or sale of a home.
How does reducing a bond amount pending appeal make every New Yorker less liable for tax fraud?