Liberal Forum

Judge fines Trump $354 million

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... r-AA1hyBsB

Former President Donald Trump must pay $354 million for fraudulent business practices, Judge Arthur Engoron has ruled.

Additional details from the decision are forthcoming.

 Engoron's decision follows an 11-week civil trial in New York, where Trump and three of his adult children testified.New York Attorney General Letitia James sued Trump, his two adult sons, and Trump Organization executives in September 2022 for issuing fraudulent financial statements -- including over 200 false and misleading asset values between 2011 and 2021 -- to get better loan terms and business deals.
 

Everyone knows the social views of that judge. Just another day in reality societal evolution corrupting the people everywhere.

OdeToJoy » 16 Feb 2024, 3:18 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2024, 3:18 pm

Judge fines Trump $354 million

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... r-AA1hyBsB

Former President Donald Trump must pay $354 million for fraudulent business practices, Judge Arthur Engoron has ruled.

Additional details from the decision are forthcoming.

 Engoron's decision follows an 11-week civil trial in New York, where Trump and three of his adult children testified.New York Attorney General Letitia James sued Trump, his two adult sons, and Trump Organization executives in September 2022 for issuing fraudulent financial statements -- including over 200 false and misleading asset values between 2011 and 2021 -- to get better loan terms and business deals.

This is a terrible ruling.

Who exactly was the victim?
 

BooRadley » 16 Feb 2024, 3:31 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2024, 3:31 pm

This is a terrible ruling.

Who exactly was the victim?

Binngo

All of which is overturned on appeal.

The real losers: New York City taxpayers for funding this witch Hunt     
 

BooRadley » 16 Feb 2024, 3:31 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2024, 3:31 pm

This is a terrible ruling.

Who exactly was the victim?

Hillary Clinton... in 2016.

This is political payback, plain and simple... and the progressives love it.

They cheer on the Banana Republic of America that they have ushered in.



 

Can one of you business types explain to me why this was fraud when the banks never complained and they got their money back?

Unlike a couple of posters around who think they are experts on everything I am not.

Oh man where is he going to come up with that amount of cash?

BooRadley » 16 Feb 2024, 3:31 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2024, 3:31 pm

This is a terrible ruling.

Who exactly was the victim?

Donald Trump.

BuckNaked » 16 Feb 2024, 4:05 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2024, 4:05 pm

Oh man where is he going to come up with that amount of cash?

He most likely won't ever pay a dime of it... just like with the E Jean Carroll thing.

This is is all being to to try and hurt Trump politically, but it's not working.

He will be the GOP nominee in November and stands a very strong chance of landing back in the WH in 2025... and the "progressive" establishment are losing their ever loving minds over it.


 

If trump wins the election can he pardon himself?

RedheadedStranger » 16 Feb 2024, 4:08 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2024, 4:08 pm

He most likely won't ever pay a dime of it... just like with the E Jean Carroll thing.

This is is all being to to try and hurt Trump politically, but it's not working.

He will be the GOP nominee in November and stands a very strong chance of landing back in the WH in 2025... and the "progressive" establishment are losing their ever loving minds over it.

my guess is he loses the election 

Huey » 16 Feb 2024, 4:01 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2024, 4:01 pm

Can one of you business types explain to me why this was fraud when the banks never complained and they got their money back?

Unlike a couple of posters around who think they are experts on everything I am not.

I seem to remember, back when this case started, seeing a segment that this is the first time the statute is being applied.  This particular statute doesn't require a party be injured.  However, that flies in the face of all other NY fraud laws.  Those laws require that five elements of a fraud claim must be shown by clear and convincing evidence: (1) a material misrepresentation or omission of fact (2) made by defendant with knowledge of its falsity (3) and intent to defraud; (4) reasonable reliance on the part of the plaintiff; and (5) resulting damage to the plaintiff.  Since Trump is the first to be charge under the statute, nobody has had legal standing to challenge the law itself until now. My guess, the law itself will be the first thing challenged on appeal. 

ConsRule » 16 Feb 2024, 4:10 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2024, 4:10 pm

I seem to remember, back when this case started, seeing a segment that this is the first time the statute is being applied.  This particular statute doesn't require a party be injured.  However, that flies in the face of all other NY fraud laws.  Those laws require that five elements of a fraud claim must be shown by clear and convincing evidence: (1) a material misrepresentation or omission of fact (2) made by defendant with knowledge of its falsity (3) and intent to defraud; (4) reasonable reliance on the part of the plaintiff; and (5) resulting damage to the plaintiff.  Since Trump is the first to be charge under the statute, nobody has had legal standing to challenge the law itself until now. My guess, the law itself will be the first thing challenged on appeal.

Thank you.

ConsRule » 16 Feb 2024, 4:10 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2024, 4:10 pm

I seem to remember, back when this case started, seeing a segment that this is the first time the statute is being applied.  This particular statute doesn't require a party be injured.  However, that flies in the face of all other NY fraud laws.  Those laws require that five elements of a fraud claim must be shown by clear and convincing evidence: (1) a material misrepresentation or omission of fact (2) made by defendant with knowledge of its falsity (3) and intent to defraud; (4) reasonable reliance on the part of the plaintiff; and (5) resulting damage to the plaintiff.  Since Trump is the first to be charge under the statute, nobody has had legal standing to challenge the law itself until now. My guess, the law itself will be the first thing challenged on appeal.

Agreed .

That Judge looks like a sloppy drunk to me, the moron can't even get a haircut.

BuckNaked » 16 Feb 2024, 4:05 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2024, 4:05 pm

Oh man where is he going to come up with that amount of cash?

isn't he a billionnaire?

Buck Naked » 16 Feb 2024, 4:09 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2024, 4:09 pm

my guess is he loses the election 

I guess he wins. Only because world elites believe this country would go into civil war day after Donald wins the election. That final nail. Media, MSM, social media, Global consensus all stacked and working for that outcome since November 4, 2016.

America was set to fall with Hillary being president 2017-2021.

RebelGator » 16 Feb 2024, 4:12 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2024, 4:12 pm

That Judge looks like a sloppy drunk to me, the moron can't even get a haircut.

He looks like he spent many Summers on Epstein's Island enjoying all you can eat mini cocktail wieners

BuckNaked » 16 Feb 2024, 4:09 pm » wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2024, 4:09 pm

my guess is he loses the election

I think we are passed the point of elections being decided by the actual electorate.

It's just a matter of who out cheats who at this point.