The Verdict

Either way, the genie can't be stuffed back into the bottle, eh?

E. Jeannie Carroll's nemesis...?

Eric a Don jr. are banned from doing business in NY state for two years.

The prosecution had asked for a lifetime ban for Donald Trump and the revocation of business licences, but Judge Engoron ruled that a permanant monitor over the Trump organisation was sufficient.

I suppose the Trump organisation, or Trump's freedom isn't expected to last all that long.

The independent monitor isn't permanant, but the two-tiered oversight team including retired judge Barbara Jones was appointed for three years.

By not revoking Trump et al's business licences, Judge Engoron has avoided the dissolution of the Trump Organisation and that particular opportunity to appeal the verdict.

It has been reported that the oversight team would be able to decide if such steps were necessary in the future, however.

Like I said, the Trump Organisation is not expected to last very long. It will more than likely have to be liquidated to pay for fines and lawyers.

I'm not sure if you misunderstand the word 'balance', or have just misused it.

This thread is reporting the details with respect to the verdict in the NY civil fraud trial against Trump, his associates and the Trump Organisation.

Relaying information about a recent event is not 'unbalanced' if the intention is to relay information about a recent event.

A youtube short bitchin' about other people, complete with pantomime gnarly facial expressions is the Trumpist '...but what about..?' technique of redirection and obsfucation. I like to keep my Trump-related blogs on topic for this very reason.

If you wish to put the blog topic in some kind of context, maybe you could compare the legal proceedings and outcome with another NY civil fraud case, explaining where you think the similarities, or differences lie with respect to the application of the law.

I would also consider speculation about the potential consequences of the verdict as on topic, such as whether appealing the verdict is a viable option, or how this verdict may impact on Trump's upcoming criminal trials.

Again, you misunderstand: I am not a lawyer.

I'm just sensible.

That's why I don't think disinformation pantomime posts are the logical, or fun balance to factual information and reasoned discussion in a time of existential crisis.

I don't need your permission, thank you.

That's a sweeping statement Gal. Are you saying that your judicial system is totally corrupt

Do you actually believe that All the charges against Trump were manufactured? His shady dealing in the hotel and casino businesses leave a lot to be desired.

Be careful what you wish for Gal. Whether or not he wins the presidency again, the Age of Trump isn’t over. The challenge his return could pose for US policy is already here.

Do you think I have reported the verdict in a biased way, or for the purposes of a scam that I am involved in?

I thought your National Debt had increased


The national debt on Jan. 19, 2017, the day before Donald Trump was inaugurated president, was $19,944,429,217,107.

On Jan. 19, 2021, the day before Joe Biden was inaugurated, the debt was: $27,752,835,868,445 — about $7.8 trillion higher.

As of July 14, 2023, more than halfway through Biden’s term, the debt had risen by another roughly $4.7 trillion, to $32,542,410,783,067.

Oh so the fines are warranted then.

You misunderstand.

If you read Chat's comment it explains that Trump signed a Deed of Conservation and Preservation on the property.

Having a choice of two possibilities before he legally opted for one doesn't mean he can legally use both options at the same time, particularly after he bindingly opted for one.

Like much of Team Trump's clutching at straws, your argument is frivolous.

It's possible that Trump won't be able to appeal the civil fraud verdict even if he has some non-frivolous basis to do so. Judging by the E. Jean Carroll case, Trump et al will have to deposit the disgorgement amount totalling $364 + interest according to NY civil law before appealing.

As he deposited the full $5M+ to appeal the first E. Jean Carroll case, it's likely he won't be able to access a company to back a 10% bond deposit, particularly given his history of financial fraud and non-payment.

The full amount of $83M+ from the second defamation trial and $364M+ from the civil fraud case wil total in excess of $500M, more than the available $400M cash Trump has stated he has.

That means, in order to appeal both verdicts he must either sell assets which will have to be approved by the independent monitor Barbara Jones, or he'll have to raise the money from other sources.

As to the former, I'm going to hazard a guess that Barbara Jones has an obligation to approve liquidation of assets to cover moneys owed, but not neccesarily for throwing good money after bad. I imagine retired federal judge Barbara Jones has an obligation to manage assets prudently: unless Team Trump can justify realistic grounds for appeal to her, she perhaps can't approve releasing funds for frivolous expenditure.

With respect to the latter, there have been questions hanging over Trump's use of campaign funds for legal fees, plus there's very little left in the coffers for actual campaigning. Without a massive influx of funds from his supporters, many of whom probably struggle to cover their own expenses, something has to give. Trump is now between a rock and a hard place trying to juggle his legal and campaign commitments both financially and with respect to hours in the day.

There's certainly no news yet about Trump appealing the second E. Jean Carroll case, never mind this civil fraud verdict.

Are you saying that the mainstream media is lying about the verdict?

There are perhaps other consequences to this verdict.

I believe Trump has 30 days to appeal the verdict, so that will take us up to mid-March and will use Trump's resources.

Having been found civilly liable for persistent fraud in his Trump Organisation, his first criminal case starting on the 25th March involves 34 counts of falsifying business records in the same. A civil liability for persistent fraud does not bode well for the trial outcome of these felony charges.

Further to that, the subject and timing of the alleged felony fraud suggests an element of election interference - Trump didn't want the electorate to know that he had sex with Stormy Daniels around the time of his son's birth in case it lost him votes in 2016.

After this criminal case, Trump may face both a state and a federal trial relating to election interference allegations in 2020.

I realise many people were of the opinion that the DC conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election case should have been the first to be tried and I understand why, but it looks to me like each case is naturally leading into and supporting the next. That can't very well be blamed on a justice department grand plan given it was Team Trump who created the delays in the DC federal case with interlocutry motions and appeals.

Of course, it's still possible for Trump to be a convicted felon before the next election and it's still possible for the DC trial to be over before the same.

A delayed DC trial isn't necessarily in Trump's best interests if it's ongoing at the peak of presidential campaigning (assuming Trump has any money to campaign), but again, he created the delay.

That wasn't my question, but I'll humour you:

If Trump is legally entitled to run for, and take presidential office wouldn't stopping him illegally involve lying?