Trump’s business empire could collapse ‘like falling dominoes’ after ruling

[Valletta]

You said the law had been twisted. It's the same law that's been on the books since the middle of the last century. Many people have been convicted for breaking it. Trump broke it. Evidence was presented. By prosecution and defence. The figures speak for themselves. You have been given copious examples. There was no doubt that be would be found guilty. He has been found guilty.

Your only complaint is 'But it's Trump. It's not fair! They are picking on him.' Well, yeah. The law does tend to pick on those who break it.

How many individuals have been convicted using this law for making an estimate different than the government tax assessment? What I have seen is Democrats spending a lot of time, and government resources, trying to come up with any law that they can use in order to get Trump. I want Trump to be treated like any other citizen under the law--no worse, no better. If there were over 150 suspicious financial transactions for the Bidens or the Trumps, I would expect with due process that the same amount of scrutiny would be applied. And I don't see that by a long shot.

 

[The Barbarian]

You must be concerned and disapproving of the statement Mr. Trump has been making in speeches over the last two years about the different people he intends to go after when he is reelected president, correct?

THAT'S DIFFERENT!!

 

[Bradskii]

How many individuals have been convicted using this law for making an estimate different than the government tax assessment? What I have seen is Democrats spending a lot of time, and government resources, trying to come up with any law that they can use in order to get Trump. I want Trump to be treated like any other citizen under the law--no worse, no better. If there were over 150 suspicious financial transactions for the Bidens or the Trumps, I would expect with due process that the same amount of scrutiny would be applied. And I don't see that by a long shot.

More paranoia.

 

[Mayzoo]

How many individuals have been convicted using this law for making an estimate different than the government tax assessment? What I have seen is Democrats spending a lot of time, and government resources, trying to come up with any law that they can use in order to get Trump. I want Trump to be treated like any other citizen under the law--no worse, no better. If there were over 150 suspicious financial transactions for the Bidens or the Trumps, I would expect with due process that the same amount of scrutiny would be applied. And I don't see that by a long shot.

It is not fraud because his estimates are different than the government tax assessment. It is fraud because he has one set of numbers for the banks and one set of books for the government. Having two differing sets of books for the same business has always been illegal. It used to be called "cooking the books."

 

[Whyayeman]

It is not fraud because his estimates are different than the government tax assessment. It is fraud because he has one set of numbers for the banks and one set of books for the government. Having two differing sets of books for the same business has always been illegal. It used to be called "cooking the books."

And still is here in the UK.

 

[Valletta]

They most definitely were. This is the paperwork submitted for the case by the AG. It tells Trump's team that there will be no jury unless they specifically request one. They were fully entitled to. They didn't.

From here: Trump isn't getting a jury in his $250 million civil fraud trial because his lawyers failed to ask for one

"We are having a non-jury trial because we are hearing a non-jury case," Engoron said, adding, "It would have not helped to make a motion. Nobody forgot to check off a box."​

Trump legal news brief: Trump expected in court next week to watch Michael Cohen testify in New York fraud trial

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis offers another harsh rebuke of House Judiciary Committee chairman Jim Jordan, who has launched an investigation into her indictment of former President Donald Trump.

www.yahoo.com

​

I thought that you would better accept the explanation I provided if it came from Engoron himself. As I also explained, you can litigate anything and make a motion for anything, the judge also said it would not have done any good in this case.

 

[Bradskii]

​

I thought that you would better accept the explanation I provided if it came from Engoron himself. As I also explained, you can litigate anything and make a motion for anything, the judge also said it would not have done any good in this case.

That doesn't contradict any thing I said. They were fully entitled to ask for a jury. Fact. They didn't. Fact. And the fact that the judge says that he wouldn't have granted it doesn't change that in the slightest.

You can't complain 'Hey, he refused to give us a jury' if you didn't ask for one.

 

[The Barbarian]

You can't complain 'Hey, he refused to give us a jury' if you didn't ask for one.

If that's all they have to defend him, it's understandable that they'd try it.

 

[Ceallaigh]

That doesn't contradict any thing I said. They were fully entitled to ask for a jury. Fact. They didn't. Fact. And the fact that the judge says that he wouldn't have granted it doesn't change that in the slightest.

You can't complain 'Hey, he refused to give us a jury' if you didn't ask for one.

Sure you can when you know for certain ahead of time that the request will be refused.

The ball is entirely in Engoron's court regarding this. He's 100% responsible for there not being a jury as that was his formal decision all along. And it's one of a few other things that's going to give the defense grounds for seeking an appeal.

 

[Arcangl86]

Sure you can when you know for certain ahead of time that the request will be refused.

A good lawyer would try anyway. Especially in regard to the disgorgement component there is an argument that could have been made that the AOG was actually asking for damages in disguise. That would make it a legal issue, not equitable one and thus eligible for a jury. The business certificate portion would still have been only a bench trial decided by motions probably, but it would have been somehting.

The ball is entirely in Engoron's court regarding this. He's 100% responsible for there not being a jury as that was his formal decision all along.

No he's not 100% responsible. The type of case determined the procedural rules and posture of the case. He couldn't spontaneously have impaneled a jury even if he wanted to.

And it's one of a few other things that's going to give the defense grounds for seeking an appeal.

This is not grounds for appeal. It's an action in equity, which means it's not eligible for a jury to begin with. Even if it was, the fact that they didn't make the request in the first place will be treated as a waiver. What they should have done was submit a demand, and when it was denied, litigate the issue. But the fact that they didn't do so is going to be read as it being something they actually didn't care about in the first place.

 

[Bradskii]

Sure you can when you know for certain ahead of time that the request will be refused.

The ball is entirely in Engoron's court regarding this. He's 100% responsible for there not being a jury as that was his formal decision all along. And it's one of a few other things that's going to give the defense grounds for seeking an appeal.

I don't know what your day job is but I'll bet my house it isn't a lawyer.

 

[Bradskii]

A good lawyer would try anyway.

Exactly right. A good lawyer uses whatever he can to his or her advantage. If the legal team is certain that the judge will not allow a jury, then whether you want one or not, you ask for one. You say it is plainly disadvantageous to your case and justice is not being served. You take it to the point where the judge has to put you in your place for overstepping the mark in demanding one.

It won't affect the case in the slightest and it doesn't matter if you actually wanted one or not or whether you knew that it wasn't going to be approved. You're ahead of the game with some people in the court of public opinion. You're planting a seed of doubt in that the judge appears to be against you before the case starts.

But they didn't ask. And it's no good now complaining that they didn't get one. They missed the opportunity.

 

[Ceallaigh]

I don't know what your day job is but I'll bet my house it isn't a lawyer.

That's a really weak argument.

 

[Bradskii]

That's a really weak argument.

It wasn't an argument.

 

[Ceallaigh]

It wasn't an argument.

I know. You obviously don't have one to present.

 

[Bradskii]

I know.

Then don't it criticise as such.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Then don't it criticise as such.

I was being sarcastic regarding the snark you resorted to because you didn't have an argument. Since you lecture so much on getting sarcasm, I naturally figured you would have gotten my sarcasm.

Let's get back on topic.

 

[BPPLEE]

I was being sarcastic regarding the snark you resorted to because you didn't have an argument. Since you lecture so much on getting sarcasm, I naturally figured you would have gotten my sarcasm.

Let's get back on topic.

Evidently some people only understand sarcasm when Hillary is speaking

 

[Ceallaigh]

Exactly right. A good lawyer uses whatever he can to his or her advantage. If the legal team is certain that the judge will not allow a jury, then whether you want one or not, you ask for one. You say it is plainly disadvantageous to your case and justice is not being served. You take it to the point where the judge has to put you in your place for overstepping the mark in demanding one.

It won't affect the case in the slightest and it doesn't matter if you actually wanted one or not or whether you knew that it wasn't going to be approved. You're ahead of the game with some people in the court of public opinion. You're planting a seed of doubt in that the judge appears to be against you before the case starts.

But they didn't ask. And it's no good now complaining that they didn't get one. They missed the opportunity.

Do you have a full transcript of everything brought up between the defence attorneys and the judge? Including what was said in any instances where they approached the bench or while in the judge's chambers? Since the judge made it perfectly clear there would be no jury, the defence can petition for an appeal based on that. Them not requesting something that was formerly denied ahead of time is moot. The lack of a jury is entirely due to the judge denying them one ahead of time.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Evidently some people only understand sarcasm when Hillary is speaking

Some people claim sarcasm or tongue-in-cheek, when they want to deny the fact that the speaker was being perfectly serious.