It's notable that you're contending the amount of the Disgorgement Order, but not disputing the adjudicated persistent fraud.
Have you got any calculations for that, Conrad, or is it just a gut reaction to the enormity of the award?
Only I don't think, "Golly, that's a whopper!" is grounds for appeal, neither is, "S'not fair!"
I'm not sure openly campaigning on the promise to put a loathsome fraud in his rightful place is grounds to appeal adjudicated fraud, either.
If James had brought charges frivolously, that would be different, but given the evidence was so compelling one charge was adjudicated by summary judgement and the other seven successfully tried, your attempt at claiming victimisation is moot.
I was prescribed vitamin D some time ago, and whilst I acknowledge I was moderately to severely deficient post-lockdown illness and isolation, I didn't much appreciate the remedy.
It was to the point where I was wondering why people snort illegal, addictive and expensive stimulants when they can just pop down to their local Holland & Barrett for a packet of gummies.
You know the way horses instinctively nibble the herbs they need from the hedgerow? I reckon when I crave a plate of peas several days in a row and woe betide anyone who stands between me and the petite pois, there's probably good reason for it.
If I can't handle a few crumbs grated off a supplement without experiencing insomnia, or some other side effect for three days afterwards, there's probably a reason for that, too.
It's perhaps worth noting that whilst we have something of a B12 deficiency epidemic here in Wales, I'm not one of them despite my plant based diet.
First off, it's not Trump's money. That's the point of a Disgorgement Order.
Trump engorged himself and his business empire through fraud; the law allows for disgorgement.
The thing is, Trump's claims of being a multi-billionaire are largely based upon his assets. If he sells a property he'll have to pay capital gains tax, transfer costs, any mortgage on the property, etc.
Anything brand based might be difficult to shift, like his 7.79 million shares in his media outlet, given there are already companies backing away from any association with the Trump name.
The $5M+ held on bond will go to E. Jean Carroll assuming Trump's appeal flops.
The remaining $500M+ might not get paid in full even if Barbara Jones puts the Trump Organisation into liquidation, but as there'll be taxes going back into the state and federal coffers, maybe that will make up for it in a round-about way.
I don't suppose E. Jean Carroll will see much of the $83M+ except, assuming Trump can't, or won't stump up the amount plus interest to appeal, she can start the process of collecting the award in 17 days time. There may be some advantage for her in the timing and amount given Trump stated to the court that he has $400M cash.
Not that getting the money was the point: the size of the defamation award was to shut Trump up, which it did.
I don't know how accurate this is because very occasionally the source I got this from makes errors, but apparently, the gold Trump sneakers haven't been made yet and the sales address is a unit on some obscure industrial estate.
I guess the pair Trump had at the Sneaker Con was a sample pair and possibly the same pair he autographed and auctioned off for $9,000.
Apparently on the website for said sneakers, Trump claims they're sold out at $400 a pop.
It might not be a case of not getting paid, so much as not getting what they've paid for.
Yeah, that could be tricky given the work that has been done by the Democracy Docket Team challenging gerrymandering and the fact that Cambridge Analytica no longer (at least officially) exists.
Trump might not be able to try and scupper the USPS this time, either.
I refer you the comment that was a reply to you anyway:
So, your answer, at least in one instance, appears to be 'piss poorly'.
Perhaps there needs to be a review of how lenders make their own assessments. Clearly, assuming every customer lies and halving the claimed assets is a very risky practise.
Oh yeah, you didn't explain what the banks agreed with Trump about.
You have to think a little deeper than looking at the pictures to understand why people may have more concern about Tucker Carlson interviewing Putin than anyone else.
Okay, that's enough.
You don't want to do yourself an injury.
Best you go back to just looking at the pictures again.
I'm pretty sure one lender testified that they more, or less halved Trump's claimed asset total and it still wasn't enough to reflect the level of fraudulent over-inflation.
Another aspect of the ruling is that Judge Engoron rehabilitated Michael Cohen after Team Trump argued he lacked credibility as a witness due to him previously perjuring himself.
Engoron stated that Cohen was comfortable in his testimony and not only appeared truthful in his demeanour, but his evidence was corroborated by other witnesses, documents and evidentiary material.
That's significant given Cohen will obviously be a central witness in Trump's first criminal trial, the Stormy Daniels hush money case.
Also, Alan Weiselberg is in the process of working out a plea having perjured himself in this civil fraud trial. Weiselberg is under pressure given he's an octogenarian and has already spent 100 days in Rikers Island for perjury. A second felony perjury sentence is going to attract a much longer sentence.
Cohen has testified that nothing happened in the Trump Organisation without Alan Weiselberg, or himself knowing about it. The question is, will Weiselberg now flip and testify against Trump in the upcoming felony fraud trial?
The summary judgement only addressed one of eight counts.
Although it was the bulk of the charges, I'm pretty sure there were seven other fraud charges that were a part of the case and the final disgorgement award.
Then there were the discrepancies highlighted by Barbara Jones in her letter to the court as requested by the court just before the close of evidentiary hearing.
It's also been left open for review by Judge Engoron as Barbara Jones continues to monitor the Trump Organisation.
The difference is, you can't heavily edit what I say to suit your misogyny except in your own head.
Why couldn't you bring yourself to admit all the facts that I listed earlier, starting with 'a civil fraud trial against Trump took place'?
Why did you feel the need to edit that in your head as if the list was merely my unsubstantiated opinions?
If you had any sense you'd maybe see an argument for your own cause in that list, rather than trying to make it disappear, or patronise and belittle me.
I'd continue trying to help you out, but why should I play nicely after the above post?
You have no argument and I'm not going to give you one to misuse given your lack of integrity.
Like the privileged from birth, ex-president, multi-billionaire businessman, adjudicated financial fraud and adjudicated rapist who you call the King, Donald Trump?
How does it get more upper class and corrupt without being an actual bastard king, or dictator which he's clearly greedy for?
Do you really think a diet of burgers and verbal trash diarrhoea makes him an honest, working class man?
Perhaps you're muddling being of a class and having class.
We tend to think of victims as individuals who have been traumatised and ruined, so this is a good spin.
However, financial fraud is still financial fraud regardless of whether individuals were directly and obviously traumatised, or ruined.
We also don't know how things may have turned out had Trump not committed financial fraud, nor the consequences had something gone horribly wrong and Trump couldn't pay back the loans because he lied about his ability to do so. Pulling off a scam without obvious damage is not the same as responsible, ethical and law abiding business practise.
Certainly, The ex-president's fraudulent behaviour has had an impact on how NY business and the presidency is perceived. That scepticism and distrust in the public domain would likely be far greater had the US shrugged it's shoulders and said, "Meh, that's how we roll."
But hey, let's see 'how you roll' works on appeal given Team Trump's less than astute lawyering has already been rejected - assuming Trump can raise the cash, or financial backing to rehash the same arguments having been adjudicated a fraud.
And let's face it, even when there is a direct victim, as in the case of Trump being an adjudicated rapist, you don't appear to give a flying feck.
You can't really have it both ways and expect to have any credibility with the grown-ups.
jac_the_gripper Blog Comments (2,986)
RE: What is the final disposition of Trump’s $350 Million fine?
It's notable that you're contending the amount of the Disgorgement Order, but not disputing the adjudicated persistent fraud.Have you got any calculations for that, Conrad, or is it just a gut reaction to the enormity of the award?
Only I don't think, "Golly, that's a whopper!" is grounds for appeal, neither is, "S'not fair!"
I'm not sure openly campaigning on the promise to put a loathsome fraud in his rightful place is grounds to appeal adjudicated fraud, either.
If James had brought charges frivolously, that would be different, but given the evidence was so compelling one charge was adjudicated by summary judgement and the other seven successfully tried, your attempt at claiming victimisation is moot.