Stormy Wednesday...
I heard of a song Stormy Monday and I heard of an adult model Stormy Daniels, but today the New York courtroom Stormy Wednesday... or was that Stormy Donald?Not a good day for Donald J. Trump as he was fined $10,000 for violating a gag order by speaking to reporters outside the courthouse.
After, Michael Cohen was on the stand and said Trump never directly instructed him to inflate the value of his assets. Trump's lawyers asked the judge to issue a direct verdict in Trump's favor on the grounds that their case had been proved. The judge denied the motion.
It was reported Trump threw up his hands, said "I'm leaving" and walked out of the courtroom.
Out side, he told reporters "The witness just admitted that we won the trial... and the judge should end this trial immediately.
That said, It won't surprise me if another fine for gag order violation is forthcoming.
Link:
Comments (29)
Now they are up to FINES. Let's see when and what will be the next step.
Others with less money would have already know how jail smells.
If Cohen admitted he didn't get direct orders, it doesn't mean he didn't get indirect orders, implied orders, or that Trump didn't know about the inflated/deflated value of properties.
It might demonstrate that Cohen wasn't totally clear, or totally truthful in his testimony, but it doesn't prove Trump's innocence.
It might damage Cohen's testimony, but that can be cleaned up with corrobrating evidence. Cohen might be a large cog, but there will be other parts to this machine.
The BBC describes Cohen being subject to a steady staccato questions by defense attorney Alina Habba. At one point Cohen asked her, "I answered every question that you want, why are you screaming at me?"
The Guardian reported that Trump was asked to keep his voice down by Jude Engoron, particuarly when conferring with his counsel was intended to influence witness examination.
It desn't sound like a balmy day in court, it has to be said.
I was out of town for 5 days and now trying to catch up on my business while only skimming a few news stories.
I think Trump's lawyers were trying to catch Cohen in a lie and the response of not having received direct orders was Trump's way of saying he's not guilty. To everyone's surprise he abruptly leaves the courthouse and blurts out to the news media in the hallway that "the witness just admitted we won the trial"
It's about 55 seconds into the video in this link:
The way I see this is, he's already been found guilty and the trial is to determine how much the penalty is.
By Trump speaking to the press and announcing a false statement that the case is over would be ANOTHER violation of his gag order.
I was out of town for 5 days and now trying to catch up on my business while only skimming a few news stories.
I think Trump's lawyers were trying to catch Cohen in a lie and the response of not having received direct orders was Trump's way of saying he's not guilty. To everyone's surprise he abruptly leaves the courthouse and blurts out to the news media in the hallway that "the witness just admitted we won the trial"
It's about 55 seconds into the video in this link:
The way I see this is, he's already been found guilty and the trial is to determine how much the penalty is.
By Trump speaking to the press and announcing a false statement that the case is over would be ANOTHER violation of his gag order.
I'm not sure Trump's statement to the press, although a blatant lie, is a breach of that gag order.
Whether it might count as another form of contempt of court, Trump having been told to be quiet and then storming out during procedings and then lying to the press, remains to be seen.
It certainly comes across as witness tampering and attacking the judge, but those items are not specified in this gag order as far as I know.
Surely if the judicial system is to be seen as fair and just they should seek out all guilty parties in these questionable transactions otherwise it might appear to be a witch-hunt especially when one man can deliver a pre-trial guilty verdict and then ignore Cohens statement which casts some doubt on the guilty decision.
Maybe it would have been more transparent to have had a trial with witness interrogation to determine guilt.
Surely if the judicial system is to be seen as fair and just they should seek out all guilty parties in these questionable transactions otherwise it might appear to be a witch-hunt especially when one man can deliver a pre-trial guilty verdict and then ignore Cohens statement which casts some doubt on the guilty decision.
Maybe it would have been more transparent to have had a trial with witness interrogation to determine guilt.
The summary judgement was about the existence of fraud. It's largely a documents case and the documents have proven the existence of persistent fraud within the Trump business empire for which the Trumps are responsible.
The reason why summary judgements are issued is because no other testimony, or evidence is required.
Cohen is testifying in the rest of the case consistng of six other charges and the size of the disgorgement order that will be issued.
Surely if the judicial system is to be seen as fair and just they should seek out all guilty parties in these questionable transactions otherwise it might appear to be a witch-hunt especially when one man can deliver a pre-trial guilty verdict and then ignore Cohens statement which casts some doubt on the guilty decision.
Maybe it would have been more transparent to have had a trial with witness interrogation to determine guilt.
Your argument is a bit like Trump claiming it wasn't fraud because he paid everythng back. There doesn't have to be a victim to establish the existence of fraud, and fraud is a crime in it's own right.
Even if the banks knowingly accepted false documentation, that would be their separate fraudulent behaviour. It wouldn't negate, or lessen the fraud committed by Trump.
He too said, banks have people to verify correctness when making appraisals.
Is said Trump was very influential, if you didn't play his way, he could find another bank to do business with. I'm sure they knew his scheme and went along. Bigger loans was more money for them.
I stated it was fraud and his reply: there aren't any laws that he broke. His analogy was an unscrupulous used car dealer selling cars over priced.
I said, not true as a small-time car deal isn't a good example because devaluation of property value to get a lower property tax rate and pumping it up to get preferred loans is fraud. We're talking about millions.
He had the same opinion that Trump doing business with Russians and overcharging them for real estate wasn't against the law. Sure, maybe not. Knowing much of that money was probably laundered. How they got the money to pay for real estate wasn't of Trump's concern.
He too said, banks have people to verify correctness when making appraisals.
Is said Trump was very influential, if you didn't play his way, he could find another bank to do business with. I'm sure they knew his scheme and went along. Bigger loans was more money for them.
I stated it was fraud and his reply: there aren't any laws that he broke. His analogy was an unscrupulous used car dealer selling cars over priced.
I said, not true as a small-time car deal isn't a good example because devaluation of property value to get a lower property tax rate and pumping it up to get preferred loans is fraud. We're talking about millions.
He had the same opinion that Trump doing business with Russians and overcharging them for real estate wasn't against the law. Sure, maybe not. Knowing much of that money was probably laundered. How they got the money to pay for real estate wasn't of Trump's concern.
If a used car salesperson inflated the value of their stock to get a loan it would be fraud. If they failed to repay the loan, the bank could find that the sale of the stock wasn't enough to cover the outstanding debt. That's different from someone being persuaded, or prepared to pay over the odds for a used car.
One of Trump's arguments in his defense was that his asset evaluations weren't over-inflated because someone might be prepared to pay over the odds for his assets, but like a used car salesperson, grifting buyers is not the same as guarenteeing a loan.
Banks will likely have different standards with respect to appraising information than a fraud investigation that has been going on since 2019. If it took that much effort to verify information, people would have to wait years to get a loan and banks would make a loss having invested that much time and money into investigating.
The deception on Trump's part wasn't necessarily obvious,, nor straight forward either. For example, he gained a tax reduction for Mar-a-Lago in part by designating some of the land to nature, whilst inflating the value by claiming all of it could be developed.
So are you saying they just went along with Trump’s figures in ignorance?
One can get the recommended three valuations in a matter of days, that is the reality.
Regarding my post your responce didn't address my points.
Also, banks have a finite amount to lend, so had Trump not received such large loans at favourable rates, other loan applicants may have received loans at less favourable rates increasing the banks' profits.
I can't think of why it might have been an advantage to any bank to agree to very large loans at favourable rates without enough asset security.
Not this one, up to $80 Billion to "circulate".
"I can't think of why it might have been an advantage to any bank to agree to very large loans at favourable rates without enough asset security."
Really?
Not this one, up to $80 Billion to "circulate".
"I can't think of why it might have been an advantage to any bank to agree to very large loans at favourable rates without enough asset security."
Really?
So are you saying they just went along with Trump’s figures in ignorance?
One can get the recommended three valuations in a matter of days, that is the reality.
Regarding my post your responce didn't address my points.
I'm saying a bank's due diligence is incomparable a four year criminal investigation.
I'm saying it's easy to say that a bank should have been aware of Trump's persistent fraud after he has been found criminaly liable.
I'm sorry I just picked out bits of your comment that I had thoughts on. What other points would like me to address?
I'm saying a bank's due diligence is incomparable a four year criminal investigation.
I'm saying it's easy to say that a bank should have been aware of Trump's persistent fraud after he has been found criminaly liable.
I'm sorry I just picked out bits of your comment that I had thoughts on. What other points would like me to address?
Some folk look into a bottle for the necessary knowledge and courage much to their own detriment. And I'm not meaning me.
Some folk look into a bottle for the necessary knowledge and courage much to their own detriment. And I'm not meaning me.
Please let it be me, or I'll start to feel left out.
I do impart knowledge that I have gained from information which is not readily available such as original history books written by Lenin, Marx etc. Also books written in modern times by war correspondents etc.
But where information is readily available on the Internet I always recommend people to go to the best original source available thus cutting out the likelihood of bias by intermediaries.
Sometimes I include links but other times I allow people to choose their own source in order not to be influenced by me.
Hope this helps.
Please let it be me, or I'll start to feel left out.
Please be so kind as to show me where I have ever accused ANYONE of being a 'drunk'. I might of got that impression yes but its not my style to accuse.
Some folk look into a bottle for the necessary knowledge and courage much to their own detriment. And I'm not meaning me.
Great match, well done SA.
Great match, well done SA.
Thats beyond what the nervous system is supposed to handle...
but yes, was a great game.
The bank(s) almost certainly accepted the applications (knowing the valuations were fake) after considerable discussion. I don't know what the basis of these charges is, it all seems rather strange. Trump is and has for all this millennium been, a crook. A word he applies daily, even hourly to Potus46. I suggest the banks knowingly accepted the risk, seeing something in it beside the mere interest margin. It is difficult to see the crime in the victimless deceit/fraud, but the DOJ seems to think it worthwhile.
Other ongoing cases against Robus45 seem to have much much much more merit.
I do impart knowledge that I have gained from information which is not readily available such as original history books written by Lenin, Marx etc. Also books written in modern times by war correspondents etc.
But where information is readily available on the Internet I always recommend people to go to the best original source available thus cutting out the likelihood of bias by intermediaries.
Sometimes I include links but other times I allow people to choose their own source in order not to be influenced by me.
Hope this helps.
I'm big enough and ugy enough to d that myself, as my dear old dad says.
Please, you can go ahead and share your knowledge and experience without fear that you'll unduly influence me.
The bank(s) almost certainly accepted the applications (knowing the valuations were fake) after considerable discussion. I don't know what the basis of these charges is, it all seems rather strange. Trump is and has for all this millennium been, a crook. A word he applies daily, even hourly to Potus46. I suggest the banks knowingly accepted the risk, seeing something in it beside the mere interest margin. It is difficult to see the crime in the victimless deceit/fraud, but the DOJ seems to think it worthwhile.
Other ongoing cases against Robus45 seem to have much much much more merit.
I thought it was relevant to state my experience. However you too don't appear to be familiar with the case.
My understanding of a debate is to state your case and present your arguments. Nowhere have I seen advice or instruction to make a case for the other side.
Your sole purpose in entering the conversation is to attempt to ridicule me and that's fine with me so have at it it's no duck off my back, or something like that.
This is NOT A DEBATE. It is a blog thread on a certain topic. I am not privy to the reasoning behind the prosecution, but am mildly interested in knowing something about it. You on the other hand may be perfectly cognisant with all the background by virtue of your deep research...
And no, my purpose is not to ridicule you, but you should at least recognise your own tone, and your bluster when it is so evident to others.
I worked in finance and banking systems for 30 years, in mortgage, high net worth and portfolio management, but never encountered shady business of this ilk, so I may be ingenuous in this area too...