Couldn’t disagree more. We’ve since the short term impact which will now certainly be lasting. Anyone but Biden. Or progressives. Trump. Haley. Desantis. Manchin. Some centrist Dem. I’ll vote for any of them. Anyone but Biden
Judge puts Trump out of business in NY?
- Thread starter UncleMark
- Start date
Yeah, I just don't agree with your take on what's happened since Biden took office, or that any of it is Biden's doing.
So if it's Trump vs. Biden, it's easy for me. I don't want Trump in charge of the weapons, and I don't want the Federalist Society picking judges. If your party gets their shit together and nominates someone competent, it becomes more difficult. I don't want Haley nominating judges, for example, but I'm sure she'd be a better head of the executive than Biden. You could probably say the same about Christie.
But, whatever. You guys aren't trying to get my vote, anyway.
It’s not just policy. It’s rhetoric. The support, direct and tacit, that gave rise to Covid paranoia, emboldened attacks on cops (Harris), progressives, homelessness, alphabet politics, race baiting, the vow to be transformative. There is no one I wouldn’t vote for over biden.
And I don’t think Dems out there are much different than trump. Trump is less subtle. But Whitmer and Newsom Covid hypocrisy. Newsom has his china visit and is putting himself out there so now before an election he’s going to try to clean up cities and homeless camps. Phony as it gets.
I hope we have an alternative to trump. But I will absolutely vote for him over Biden.
And it’s sad we are at this point. We have better options than Biden Newsom trump Desantis etc
Newsom is a clown, as I've said a million times. He is our DeSantis.
You do blue collar service shit.manage restaurants. Don’t want to practice law. But have a law degree. No snooty history. Are young. Why don’t you run for something
I'm short.
I have too much pride to allow history to record photographs of me standing on a platform behind a podium.
None of that is relevant to the law passed by the (GOP) Legislature in New York, which was actually spearheaded by former GOP Senator Jacob Javits. This has nothing to do with your convoluted definition of "fraud" or any of the nonsense some of you are spouting. Trump chose to live (in the past) in New York, and is trying to continue to do business in New York. That places him under the jurisdiction of New York Law. And guess what he's not the first or only fraudster to be charged under the law...
This case will be decided by a New York judge, the appeals process even all the way to the State level will be ruled on by New York Courts. I guess if Trump loses he can try to appeal it all the way to SCOTUS, but I don't see SCOTUS taking the case.It's a law that's been on the books in New York since last century, and Trump chose to do business in New York.
I don't think it matters if Deutsche Bank feels they were harmed or not. They were the only bank that would do business with Trump in the 90s, and have basically been in bed with him ever since. The question is did he fraudulently game the system to profit at the expense of others, like insurers and the state of New York? Zurich testified that he cost them $$, and the state considers lost revenue they suffered as subject to engorgement.
Regarding former Sen Javits...
"In 1956, his final year in office, he urged the state legislature to pass a new law that would give his office the power to investigate and bring actions against businesses that engage in “repeated fraudulent or illegal acts or otherwise demonstrate persistent fraud or illegality in the carrying on, conducting or transaction of business.” Invoking this broad statute, Section 63(12) of New York’s Executive Law, the attorney general’s office has brought cases ranging from accusing three bus companies of violating New York City regulations on idling to accusing ExxonMobil of misleading investors about the business risks presented by climate change. “The statute gives the attorney general authority to pursue any kind of conduct that she or he considers to be fraudulent,” Jerry H. Goldfeder, a lawyer at Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, who served as special counsel for public integrity to Andrew Cuomo when he was New York attorney general, told me."
Again the GOP Legislature enacted the law. And if it was passed in 1956, I was 1 yr old...
The Powerful New York Law That Finally Brought Trump to Book
In investigating the former President, New York’s attorney general relied on legislation passed at the behest of one of her Republican predecessors, Jacob Javits.
"In the United States, common law generally identifies nine elements needed to establish fraud: (1) a representation of fact; (2) its falsity; (3) its materiality; (4) the representer’s knowledge of its falsity or ignorance of its truth; (5) the representer’s intent that it should be acted upon by the person in the manner reasonably contemplated; (6) the injured party’s ignorance of its falsity; (7) the injured party’s reliance on its truth; (8) the injured party’s right to rely thereon; and (9) the injured party’s consequent and proximate injury."
No reliance whatsoever. No injury whatsoever.
Trump isn't being sued for a common law tort. He's being sued for a statutory one. The state gets to set the elements in the legislation.
No, it's not. The law has been on the books for many years and survived all challenges.
REPORT: dbm thinks he is a lawyer.
Aw poor little victim. And poor dbm who believes anything the nutcases tell him to.
Doral was definitely better post-Trump.
Still a bit too much Miami/Trump/80's gold kitsch for my taste, but definitely fixed the old place up.
Jesus Christ. 😄
DB directly said his values are immaterial to their analysis...they do their own homework.
Hey Don Quixote..
I think you need to re read York's first sentence
"Trump mounts strong defense in trial already lost."
Feel free to continue to tilt at windmills (like Trump and his ridiculous anti-windmill campaign) till the cows come home.
None of what you post is an actual defense to the 50+ yr old statute Trump is being charged under. Hell it's even possible Fred Trump was one of the unscrupulous NY businessmen that Javits had in mind when he proposed the law...
I still think it's weird that some of you are so devoted to Trump that you're willing to just excuse the fact that a great deal of his business "success" is a result of cheating the system and exploiting others. The only thing that rivals the amount of lawsuits filed against Trump is the amount of unscrupulous suits he's filed against ordinary people to get his way...
I really wonder what some of you are going to do when the criminal trials begin? Esp the televised trial in GA, where people will be able to see his petulant little kid act up close and personal...
That's true. But if the bank wasn't hurt and didn't rely on his statements, the only reason he is being sued is because the AG is politically motivated. That stinks.
We all know this. We all know the NY AG is not interested in dispassionately carrying out the duties of her office--she ran on getting Trump and is now showing up in the courtroom and tweeting about the trial. This is a terrible precedent.
To be clear, I don't like Trump. Don't want to see him win again. Think he will probably get nailed in the documents case in Florida and should (although jail time would be too harsh). But we can't deform our institutions and trust in them to get one man. It isn't worth it.
I hope after they nail Trump under this statute, they amend it. It's ridiculous to give any prosecutor that kind of discretion to go after a business and shut them down. They should amend it so that it only kicks in after a biz has been found guilty or maybe settled for significant money more than one common law fraud claim or claims under NY GBL 349 or 350 (that doesn't require reliance per se, but does require an injury and deception).
absolutely. absurd for the state to get involved. an absurd statute.
I could put this under the Alinia Haba thread, since (according to the just filed suit) she is extremely complicit...
But it also illustrates perfectly the point I made about Trump, his ethics and the propensity of lawsuits filed against him for some of his common tactics. Talk about taking advantage of people (likely an immigrant) unfamiliar with how the law works...
I'd say this reeks of typical Trump. You know the guy who loves America,is for the little man, and inspires deity like worship from some of the more cultish members of "his base"...
Yay MAGA!! (Make Attorneys Get Attorneys)
Do you ever get tired of being wrong and having your baseless lies exposed? How stupid does someone have to be to Believe A) that a Judge's wife would be so obsessed with an idiot Trump that she'd go after him publicly while he was being tried in her husband's court and B) Anything a lunatic like Laura Loomer would promote as reality?
I remember when you first posted this nonsense, looking at the account in question and realizing that Loomer trying to equate this unknown account to Engoron's wife on the basis of a remotely similar name was lunacy. Of course when you're trying to appeal to people who believe in lizard people and pizzagate, the bar for discernment is pretty low to begin with.
Gagged again:
www.cbsnews.com
Trump gag order in New York fraud trial reinstated as appeals court sides with judge
A New York appellate court has reinstated a limited gag order barring former President Donald Trump from making public comments about court staff in his ongoing civil fraud trial.
www.cbsnews.com
All far left Democrats, right?Gagged again:
Trump gag order in New York fraud trial reinstated as appeals court sides with judge
A New York appellate court has reinstated a limited gag order barring former President Donald Trump from making public comments about court staff in his ongoing civil fraud trial.
Be serious. You know that doesn't matter. The entire court could be made up of Trump appointees and you'd claim they're all leftwing liberals and RINOs. This is a fact.
Why exactly do you think Trump should be free to just blatantly attack a judge and court officers? You'd be abhorred if any other criminal defendant in a court case was allowed to post attacks and incite violent threats against the court he was being tried in.
Trump basically wrecked the lives of two election workers in GA over his baseless attacks on them and claiming they were cheating. Luckily they are being compensated thru the judicial process.
But it's a pattern with Trump to lash out, not because he knows he's innocent, but because he knows his cult is slavishly devoted and loyal. They could watch him shoot someone,and many would not bat an eye and still leap to his defense. It seems that (sadly) you're a perfect example...
You're wrong. I'm not going to look up all the others, but you're wrong,
“Chicago Eight” defendant Bobby Seale gagged during his trial | October 29, 1969 | HISTORY
Following several outbursts, the judge orders “Chicago Eight” defendant Bobby Seale gagged and chained to his chair during his trial. Seale and his seven fellow defendants (David Dellinger, Rennie Davis, Thomas Hayden, Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, Lee Weiner, and John Froines) had been charged...
www.history.com
Unusual, yes.
Extreme cases, yes.
Unheard of, no.
You are very much misinformed and way too late to jump in and try to save Trump's ass in this case -- both sides filed summary judgement motions months ago and Trump already lost big time. Here's the ruling:
DocumentCloud
www.documentcloud.org
Trump had the chance to do discovery and find out what witnesses and documents were in play. He had the chance to read the Atty. General's summary judgment filings and submit his own filings to rebut all the Atty. General's evidence if he could. He was not denied the chance to defend himself. Instead, he just failed.
The judge has ruled against Trump on the issue of Trump's fraud. As has been extensively reported, the main issue remaining for trial is how much Trump will have to pay and it will not be damages measured by losses suffered by the banks.
Read the ruling and learn.
You show promise. Why don't you call Rudy Giuliani and volunteer to be his research clerk?
Rudy needs the help because he can't afford to pay anyone. It would look good on your resume.
C'mon man he enriched himself. The banks saying they would've given him the exact same loans and terms regardless of what he disclosed is irrelevant. He enriched himself!!!
This is worse than Watergate, 9/11, and Pearl Harbor combined.
Keep in mind none of what Bartov said today is any different than the affadavits he submitted and his deposition prior to Judge Engoron's initial summary judgement. And the state will have their own oppty to prsent a rebuttal and call their own experts after Trump testifies on Mon.
I'm guessing Trump's team knows they are losing this case in the courtroom and a single win from their own expert witness, is not likely to reverse that treand and change Engoron's mind. But I'm guessing today was more about firing up the cult and getting the email donation dollars rolling in.
