The $354.9M as far as I can work out is entirely a disgorgement order.
It's the amount of money Trump and the Trump Organisation made through fraud.
It's like stealing £10 out of the till and having to pay £10 back.
Trump made an extra $354.9M through fraud and now he has to pay $354.9 back.
The money doesn't go to the banks, but they can sue him separately if they think it's worth their while.
The money will go to 'the people', aka the state of NY to be used for the benefit of NY and NYers.
As far as I can work out, there are no punitive money damages; penalties are in the form of sanctions.
It's like losing your job after stealing £10 out of the till, except Trump has had his business licence in NY revoked for a mere three years. Having the independent monitor to oversee the businesses is another punitive measure given Trump can no longer fart without asking permission from Barbara Jones. She's there because Trump can't be trusted not to commit more fraud.
The $83.3M in the second defamation suit is considerably larger that the first $5M simply because Trump didn't have the sense to keep his mouth shut. He continued to defame Carroll after the first case, so the increase in the penalty reflected that.
Another aspect was Trump informing the court under oath that he had $400M in cash and however many billion in assets, whereupon Judge Kaplan instructed the jury that was the pool of money they had to work within. If Trump inflated his assets for the sake of appearances and doesn't actually have that much, he's only himself to blame for that, too.
You can't claim someone has violated the Act, but have no idea what crime they may, or may not have committed.
The RICO Act is very specific about which combination of crimes come under it's jurisdiction. You'd know that if you had read anything from the link I cited as you asked.
I realise there are no pictures in the RICO manual, but surely you can see that holding an impeachment inquiry where no one has any idea what crime may have been committed, is not what you might expect from grown-arsed politicians who are being paid relatively handsomely for their expertise.
If you are, it's because it's a civil case, not a criminal one. The objective was to disgorge fraudulently obtained profits and give that money back to 'the people' of NY.
The hush money case is criminal, but it's a very low level felony. A prison sentence of up to four years could be imposed in the event of a guilty verdict, but my understanding is that it's unlikely.
Having obtained a civil ruling of widespread and persistent fraud in the Trump Organisation, it's possible that a criminal trial could follow, especially with the independent monitor in place who has to report any discrepancies. This would be an expensive and pointless exercise however, if any of his other pending cases landed him enough jail time to be a life sentence in effect.
If the federal Supreme Court and Judge Aileen Cannon get his criminal cases dismissed between them, then it may become relevant to pursue a criminal conviction for fraud, assuming no statute of limitations have passed, or that he isn't voted back into office where he can dismantle everything that doesn't suit him.
It'll be interesting to see what comes out of Trump's reporting of his bond issues to Barbara Jones.
He said he had $400M cash.
He paid $5.3M in cash to be held in escrow to appeal the first E.Jean Carroll case.
He tried to negotiate and then posted $91M bond via Chubb at the 11th hour to appeal the second E. Jean Carroll case. He must have backed that bond with something, possibly cash.
He put $100M cash on the table in the fraud case and tried to negotiate with the courts about the rest. Was that cash the same cash used as surety for the Chubb bond?
Did he really apply to 30 different bond companies through four brokers, or were his applications reasonable? Or was he just trying to negotiate with the courts based on false information?
I can see why Judge Engoron increased her independent monitor powers. It's to ensure that Trump can't defraud anyone else over these money judgements, including the courts, the bond companies, the prosecution and the state of NY. Trump isn't going to give a flying feck who he defrauds here, is he? He maybe thinks he can cut a deal down the road paying less than 100 cents on the dollar, or just quash it all if he's re-elected.
I've heard that Letitia James has liens on all his properties and that Seven Springs is the first asset in her sights.
1:56 NOW, SOME OF THE CHARGES 1:57 INVOLVING MR. TRUMP DOWN IN 1:59 GEORGIA ARE RICCO-RELATED.
Do you see the word 'CHARGES'?
'Charges' are the crimes that people are charged with.
'RICCO-RELATED' at the end of the sentence refers to the RICO Act. The RICO Act is not a criminal charge. It is a document that sets out the type of crimes that are in this category which is what AOC was also saying.
When the Fox 'expert says:
2:37 18 USC 1961 THROUGH 68.
He is stating the code of the RICO Act —18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-68. He is not stating a specific crime.
The Fox 'expert says:
2:54 VERY WORD RACKETEERING IN ITS
2:58 ACRONYM CONJURES UP SERIOUS
3:00 CRIMINALITY.
Criminal charges are not to do with the imagination. They are specific.
AOC was asking what crimes Tony Bobulinski had personally witnessed and what charges the impeachment inquiry are specifically investigating. She was not asking how people feel about the RICO Act and what it invoked in their imaginations.
An impeachment inquiry is about investigating crimes. It is not a group therapy session.
Knowingly co-ordinating with others who did break the law is a crime, specifically, it's a crime of conspiracy, so prosecutors would have to prove that.
For example, you can't observe a professional hit and declare the spouse, or business partner ordered it without evidence that they did. You have to prove that active conspiracy to murder.
Trump provided financial statements under oath that he had $400M cash, so the bulk of all his bond requirements readily available.
If he lied about that, he may be in contempt of court.
If he has the cash, but has since filed motions that he hasn't, he may be liable for fraud (again).
He has recently claimed he neither has the cash he previously swore he had, nor could he secure the amount through any one of 30 bonding companies via four different brokers.
Judge Engoron has now extended Barbara Jones' powers as the independent monitor of the Trump Organisation in a number of different ways. This includes Trump having to inform her in detail of his applications for bonds and what he offered as surety for each application.
It should be noted that it's usual when corporations are obliged to post bonds of this order of magnitude that multiple companies are involved in a carefully structured way to spread the risk.
As for Trump and his co-defendants, they are indicted under the RICO Act, not with the RICO Act.
It means that a group of people are being charged as an organised group, rather than as individuals.
Each of them will have allegedly committed different crimes, but as a group they were working with a common illegal goal.
As such, each of them will charged with all the crimes of the group.
This methodology has two important aims: firstly, the leader of the group who may order crimes can be held accountable for those crimes as if they committed them; secondly, the minor players are more likely to agree to plea and testify for the prosecution rather than suffer a harsh punishment wholly disproportionate to their crime, thus corroborating the evidence in the case.
RICO stands for Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
Defendants can't be charged with an Act because an Act is a document.
You can't be arrested on a suspicion of an Act.
You can't be arrested on suspicion of a document.
You can't be investigated for an Act, or for a document.
It obviously makes no sense.
You can be arrested on suspicion of a crime.
You can be charged with a crime.
You can be investigated for a crime.
AOC was asking what impeachable crime was being investigated by the impeachment inquiry because if you have no idea what the crime might be, you have nothing to investigate.
Since the 'evidence' of an impeachable crime turned out rather embarrassingly to be some chap with Russian connections telling porkies, the impeachment inquiry has not stated any charges for the basis of an investigation. As such, they have nothing to investigate and should close the inquiry.
It's not protocol, nor reasonable to investigate just in case a crime was committed. That is the basis for a Monty Python skit, not an impeachment inquiry.
Do you understand the question AOC was asking now?
Yes, I was just checking because Barbara Jones has been in place within the Trump Organisation as an independent monitor since November 2023, after Judge Engoron made his summary judgement of widespread, persistent fraud.
Judge Engoron provided a short list of available candidates for the position, from which Trump chose Barbara Jones. She is a highly esteemed and in demand retired judge.
Judge Engoron also instructed Barbara Jones to contribute a letter towards the end of the trial regarding her position as the independent monitor. She reported that she continued to find business discrepancies.
At the conclusion of the trial, Judge Engoron withdrew his summary judgement order that the Trump Organisation be dissolved, but instead increased Barbara Jones' powers to include dissolution should she deem it necessary. That reduced Team Trump's options for appealing the trial outcome, whilst allowing that the businesses can be dissolved to meet the disgorgement order and other costs owed by Trump.
Let's get seizing his assets into perspective: Trump has been found liable for persistent fraud over a 15 year period, during which time he gained wealth that was never legally his. He is unlikely to end up without a roof over his head which is all most Americans citizens, or desperate immigrants want, or need.
Of that $454M, approximately $364 is the original sum. The $110M excess is pre- and post judgement interest accrued. Had Trump owned his fraudulent behaviour and not forced a trial, or had he placed the amount in escrow pending appeal (from the $400M he said he had in cash under oath), then he could have avoided a fair bit of that
Of that original carefully calculated approximately $364M, as I understand it, the majority will be a disgorgement order, that is, Trump paying back the money he stole through fraud.
The punitive element of the order (the 'fine') appears to be in the form of sanctions, for example, having his business licence revoked for three years and having to pay for an independent monitor to oversee his business interests.
Don't presidential candidates have a duty to declare foreign interests which could be used to compromise them if they gain office?
Not that ethical, security, or protocol issues would make any difference to Trump, but surely he's canny enough not to jeopardise his election prospects by becoming Putin's, or anyone else's b*tch?
Losing everything is one thing, going to prison for the rest of his natural life is another. The presidency is his lifeline so he'll protect that more than his assets.
I'm part way through watching Don Lemon's interview with Elon Musk, during the course of which Musk denied that he would be making any financial contributions to Trump.
In my first post I covered incidence of gender chromosome differences, for example Klinefelter Syndrome is present in 1 in 500 people assigned male at birth.
I posted that information as a direct response to Blue saying, "You are either XX, or XY" in his op.
A hermaphrodite is a sexually reproducing organism that produces both male and female gametes, or a scientifically specious and offensive term for intersex people.
Would be fun to see a toilet door with the sign 'Ignoramus' though. All that shit could come out of your mouth in private.
Okay, so there's no genetic basis for saying only XX and XY exist (see above.)
There's no physical basis for saying that only male and female physical characteristics exist (because intersex people exist which may include both male and female genitalia, hormones, chromosomes, and reproductive organs.)
There is no empirical data to suggest a purely binary gender model exists (because there is evidence across time and societies of non-binary gender.)
But you think it's the people don't fit into a genetically, physically, emotionally, intellectually and/or stereotypically binary model of gender who are deluded?
jac_the_gripper Blog Comments (2,986)
RE: How to raise $454 Million...
What do you mean 'the other side goes free'?