'A lot of money': Trump owes $87K in interest per day until he pays the fine in his civil fraud case

https://lemmy.world/post/12246127

'A lot of money': Trump owes $87K in interest per day until he pays the fine in his civil fraud case - Lemmy.World

Former President Donald Trump owes an additional $87,502 in post-judgment interest every day until he pays the $354 million fine ordered by Judge Arthur Engoron in his civil fraud case, according to ABC News’ calculations based on the judge’s lengthy ruling in the case. Judge Engoron on Friday fined Trump $354 million plus approximately $100 million in pre-judgment interest in the civil fraud case brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James, after he found that Trump and his adult sons had inflated Trump’s net worth in order to get more favorable loan terms. The former president has denied all wrongdoing and has said he will appeal. Engoron ordered Trump to pay pre-judgment interest on each ill-gotten gain – with interest accruing based on the date of each transaction – as well as a 9% post-judgment interest rate once the court enters the judgment in the case.

Everyone ITT: “unreasonable and excessive punishment is great as long as it happens to someone I hate”
What’s unreasonable and excessive about any of this?

Because it was literally a victimless crime.

  • He overstated is net worth in a loan application to obtain a lower interest rate
  • The bank approved, gave him the money, and he paid it all back, with interest
  • The bank, upon finding out, declined to sue him and even said they’d be happy to work with him again in the future
  • The NYC AG decided to sue anyways because it’s technically not allowed to misrepresent your income on a bank form
  • The judge decides on an excessive amount of fines simply because they hate him and want to ruin his campaign

I don’t care how much you hate Trump, this is just plain dirty, like kicking your opponent in the nuts in a fist fight.

I dunno. Lying to the government/banks about your finances to the tune of billions of dollars is a huge waste of time and resources, which are paid for by the average taxpayer/bank customer who actually pays taxes and doesn’t inflate their holdings. Victimless in the sense that no one was physically harmed, but not harmless.

“The subject loans made the banks lots of money, but the fraudulent [financial statements] cost the banks lots of money. The less collateral for a loan, the riskier it is, and a first principal of loan accounting is that as risk rises, so do interest rates. Thus, accurate [financial statements] would have allowed the lenders to make even more money than they did,” Engoron wrote in his summary judgment ruling.

www.cnn.com/2023/11/01/politics/…/index.html

You’re literally cheering for big banks to make extra profit just because you want to stick it to someone you hate. And I’m sure you’ve also never inflated your skillset or exaggerated your past experience on a resume in order to get a job that would make you more money… right?

  • The NYC AG decided to sue anyways because it’s technically not allowed to misrepresent your income on a bank form

By “technically” you mean legally. In accordance with the law.

The judge decides on an excessive amount of fines simply because they hate him and want to ruin his campaign

Prove it. And then send that proof to Trump, in sure whatever ambulance chaser is representing him now would interested to have that proof .

It’s also legally not allowed to cross an intersection on a red light in order to get to work faster when you’re running late, but who’s keeping track?
The police, so by extension tge government
So no proof the judges acted out of malice? Just more bullshit your made up? I’ll contain my surprise.

I don’t know if the judge did, but the AG likely acted out of malice. Just ask yourself who benefits from this ruling? As far as I can tell, the bank doesn’t even get any of the money, it all goes to the state. And the Democrat party, of which Letitia James is a member, gets to hurt a political rival in the upcoming federal elections at a critical time in their campaign.

Yes, I know that’s not proof, but there’s certainly motive.

So now you’re saying politicians should only be prosecuted by members of their own party. Go to a doctor, tell them your brain fell out, ask for help.

It’s not just the party affiliation, it’s also the timing.

Perhaps you should take your own advice there.

Why didn’t Trump just not break the law? Why is that too much to ask?
And if fined by a cop nobody would disagree with it.
Yeah, right.
And Trump was caught and fined for his “running of the red light”. Stop making mental gymnastics to cover for this rapist.

So your legal defence on behalf of Trump is, “your honour, who did my law-breaking hurt?”

You’re myopically fixated on a single case, too. Do the other 90 open cases against him somehow bolster your confidence in his innocence here? He’s being “attacked” because he’s a fucking crook. They will win some and lose others, but where he legally fucked up, he’ll face consequences. Period.

“Who’d he hurt?” Ri-goddamned-diculous.

No, that’s literally his own defense, I just happen to agree with it.

Imagine you lie on your resume and inflate your experience in order to get a certain job. They hire you and pay you 20% over what you would have qualified for based on your actual experience, but you do a good job and your manager just happy with your performance, and when you leave, they give you a good recommendation for you next job. Five or ten years later, you’re just about to make a downpayment for your first house, and suddenly, not your employer, but the government shows up and sues you because lying on your resume is illegal, and they demand you pay all the extra money you earned PLUS interest and fines.

That’s sorta how petty this case is. And if you cheer for this kinda stuff, you deserve for it to happen to you.

but you do a good job and your manager just happy with your performance

Here is where the comparison falls apart

How so? The banks declined to sue and said they’d be happy to work with him again.
Who gives a toss what the banks say? They aren’t the real victim, rules based society is.
Okay, I hope you never end up breaking any rule in our rules-based society, because I ain’t bailing you out.

Okay, I hope you never end up breaking any rule in our rules-based society, because I ain’t bailing you out.

Quick question: What are your thoughts on Hunter Biden?

He should probably be in jail, and definitely on some sort of drug rehab program.

Also, you gotta wonder what sort of shitty dad Joe was for his son to turn out the way he did.

So forgiving past crimes with no victims is only for Trump then?

So those underage prostitutes he filmed himself doing drugs and having sex with don’t count as victims then? Good to know.

How about Joe should be in jail for whatever he did to make Hunter this way, and Hunter should be in closed rehab. My guess is he probably IS a victim of his father in some way, so I’m willing to spare him from prison, but he probably shouldn’t have any access to drugs or unsupervised contact with children or teens.

Does that sound fair?

How about Joe should be in jail for whatever he did to make Hunter this way

The party of personal responsibility everybody!

What did Joe do? Or should Joe be in jail for the crimes you imagine he did, while Trump shouldn’t be fined for the crimes he definitely did?

Hunter is a drug addict, a sex addict, and a pedophile. I imagine you don’t just magically turn out that way if you had a great and unproblematic childhood, but I suppose child abuse isn’t technically illegal unless it’s violent, so… yay Joe?

Anyways, I fail to see how holding Trump accountable while defending your own guy from accusations is supposed to teach me a lesson on how responsibility is supposed to work. Isn’t that precisely the same behavior you’re accusing me of?

Anyways, I fail to see how holding Trump accountable while defending your own guy from accusations is supposed to teach me a lesson on how responsibility is supposed to work. Isn’t that precisely the same behavior you’re accusing me of?

That precisely what you’re doing right now. That’s the point. You’re excusing Trump of convicted crimes for which he has to pay a fine, and at the same time you’re ready to jail Biden for crimes you have imagined. If there was an actual crime then present actual evidence. You know, like the Prosecution did in Trump’s trial: presented overwhelming evidence of crime.

Everyone ITT: “unreasonable and excessive punishment is great as long as it happens to someone I hate”

It’s always projection.

Okay, forget Joe. Let’s focus on Hunter then, because there’s plenty of evidence on that laptop.

Some of the pictures show naked girls who are clearly underage in sexually suggestive poses. That’s evidence of child exploitation, sexual abuse, and potentially possession of child pornography and statutory rape.

Those are all definitely crimes. Should he stand trial for that? Or are you comfortable letting that one slip by the wayside because it’s just so unsightly and imagine the damage it would do to Biden’s image if this went to public trial and was covered in the media even at a fraction of the intensity that Trump gets.

But no, fuck those children, right? Who cares about what they went trough. What’s really important here is that Trump put some wrong numbers on a piece of paper (which the bank testified they didn’t believe ANYWAY) and nobody got hurt.

Well according to you as long as those children say they’re okay with it there’s no victim and no crime right?

there’s plenty of evidence on that laptop.

If there’s evidence then fucking charge him with a crime already. Let the courts look at the evidence and decide. I don’t know why he’s being charged in the court of public opinion, instead of an actual court.

Well according to you as long as those children say they’re okay with it there’s no victim and no crime right?

First of all, has anyone asked them?

Second of all, it’s still a crime, and according to YOU it doesn’t matter if anyone got hurt, doing a crime is ILLEGAL and therefore ought to be punished.

If there’s evidence then fucking charge him with a crime already. Let the courts look at the evidence and decide. I don’t know why he’s being charged in the court of public opinion, instead of an actual court.

Well, as you probably already know, the Justice Department is run by Democrats, and they have more important things to do.

Like, uh… conducting a training on timber and wildlife enforcement in Guatemala.

Yeah. That’s really important stuff, you know.

But honestly, we can keep accusing each other of having double standards till the cows come home, but the fact of the matter is that Trump already HAS been convicted and me arguing that it shouldn’t have happened won’t change anything about that. So as far as I can see, that doesn’t remove the basis on which I’m calling for the law to be equally applied to Democrats and their relatives, even when it is massively inconvenient to them. Because law is law, right? And justice must be served, even if it’s just some wrong numbers on a paper.

But we both know that’s not likely to happen unless either Trump wins or Democrat voters start demanding an inquiry, but I’m certainly not going to hold my breath for that one.

So in closing, nice to meet you, pot, my name is kettle.

Justice Department Conducts Training on Timber and Wildlife Enforcement in Guatemala

The Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division (ENRD) sent two attorneys to Guatemala to conduct a workshop for Guatemalan law enforcement officials. Approximately 25 Guatemalan officials participated in the workshop. Funding for the trip was provided by the State Department Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs.

Second of all, it’s still a crime, and according to YOU it doesn’t matter if anyone got hurt, doing a crime is ILLEGAL and therefore ought to be punished.

Correct. I was pointing out the absurdity of your “no victims” argument. I’m glad you agree with me that crimes are illegal and should be punished.

In order to decide that punishment there should be a trial in court, not idiots on the internet insisting evidence must exist but some “deep state” is suppressing it.

Well, as you probably already know, the Justice Department is run by Democrats, and they have more important things to do.

Jfc this is the dumbest take. Republicans could bring him to trial if they wanted to and actually had any evidence. Instead they have more important things to do like… Insist on a closed door investigation. Remember when Hunter Biden showed up, willing to answer questions, but insisted it be a public hearing instead of a closed hearing? I wonder why Republicans didn’t take him up on that.

I mean, if the “deep state” is suppressing charges, and they have all this evidence why not air it publicly when the opportunity presents itself and lay the “corruption” bare for all to see? What reason could they possibly have to insist on not doing it publicly? (Other than the obvious one that they have nothing and it’s all made up to fool idiots who don’t question what Republicans tell them.)

I’m calling for the law to be equally applied to Democrats and their relatives, even when it is massively inconvenient to them. Because law is law, right? And justice must be served, even if it’s just some wrong numbers on a paper

I agree. I believe you’ll find I am consistent in my belief that people who do crimes should be charged, bought to trial, and punished for them. Some idiot insisting “they must have done crimes” does not make it so. If there is evidence, then fucking present it and charge them. If they’re not going to charge them, that’s because there is no evidence, and they need to shut the fuck up about it.

Jfc this is the dumbest take. Republicans could bring him to trial if they wanted to and actually had any evidence.

No, they can’t, because they weren’t directly harmed by any of what Hunter’s laptop contains evidence of, so there is no grounds to file a civil suit against him. All they can do (and have, of course, done repeatedly) is say “but there’s evidence of criminal conduct there”, but the decision of whether or not to investigate and bring charges is up to the AG, who despite calling himself an independent, doesn’t seem particularly keen on pursuing any investigation that could potentially harm the image of the Democrat party or the sitting president, especially not in an election year.

Instead, he prefers to go after parents who show up for their local school board meetings, or swat the homes of faithful Catholics for the crime of silently praying in front of abortion clinics. You know, because that’s all very important stuff, just like those trees in Guatemala.

Instead they have more important things to do like… Insist on a closed door investigation. Remember when Hunter Biden showed up, willing to answer questions, but insisted it be a public hearing instead of a closed hearing? I wonder why Republicans didn’t take him up on that.

No, I don’t, and I don’t follow politics closely enough to say I never miss anything, so could you please provide me a link on that?

I believe you’ll find I am consistent in my belief that people who do crimes should be charged, bought to trial, and punished for them.

Okay, that’s great, but simply believing that doesn’t make it so, does it? And looking only at instances where people you hate or disagree with have been brought to trial doesn’t prove that it is, in fact, so. If Democrats are, as you claim, better at doing justice, show me the evidence of Democrats having been brought to trial and indicted by Democrats, unless you also want to claim that Democrats simply don’t do any crime.

Some idiot insisting “they must have done crimes” does not make it so. If there is evidence, then fucking present it and charge them. If they’re not going to charge them, that’s because there is no evidence, and they need to shut the fuck up about it.

Again, in cases where it’s a matter of only a law having been broken, or when no victim has the courage of coming forward and making an allegation, it is on the Attorney General to prosecute. And they have full power to decide what they will and won’t spend their time on. So I’m afraid that “no charges have been brought” is not a good enough indicator of whether or not a law has been broken or a crime has occurred.

All they can do (and have, of course, done repeatedly) is say “but there’s evidence of criminal conduct there”, but the decision of whether or not to investigate and bring charges is up to the AG, who despite calling himself an independent, doesn’t seem particularly keen on pursuing any investigation that could potentially harm the image of the Democrat party or the sitting president, especially not in an election year.

If that were true they could just publicly release the evidence. Show the world how the strong the evidence is, shaming the Democrats and AG for not perusing it, and revealing how blatantly partisan they are. It would be a slam dunk for Republicans for public opinion and discrediting corruption. So why don’t they do it? Could it be because their “evidence” isn’t any stronger than the “mountains of evidence” Trump has about the 2020 election being stolen that he’s going to release “any day now”*?.

No, I don’t, and I don’t follow politics closely enough to say I never miss anything, so could you please provide me a link on that?

Of course. You are very concerned about Hunter Biden and have very strong opinions about his “case”, despite not following politics closely enough to be aware of him stating repeatedly that he’d be willing to show up for a public hearing, and even showed up to Capital Hill to answer questions:

“Here I am, Mr. Chairman, taking up your offer when you said we can bring these people in for depositions or committee hearings, whichever they choose. Well, I’ve chosen. I’m here to testify in a public hearing today to answer any of the committee’s legitimate questions,” Hunter Biden said at a press conference near the Capitol.

politico.com/…/hunter-biden-appearance-capitol-hi…

(by the way, in order to “provide you a link” I literally just copied the sentence you quoted into a google search and clicked the first link. Seems like something you trivially could have done on your own if you wanted more information on this topic you are so very concerned about.)

If Democrats are, as you claim, better at doing justice, show me the evidence of Democrats having been brought to trial and indicted by Democrats, unless you also want to claim that Democrats simply don’t do any crime.

Oh, I know this one! It’s called the Gish-gallop: You make a bunch of unsubstantiated claims, provide no source, and insist each and every one of them are true. Then expect me to do the actual research to rebut each and every one of them, and then you pick the weakest rebuttal, or the single one I miss, and use that to declare everything you’ve claimed to be true. I’m not going to waste a lot of time on this when you spent none making an argument. Again, trivial for you to research yourself: I typed “Democrat being brought to trial” into google and this is the first result: cbc.ca/…/us-indictment-bob-menendez-1.6975326

I’m afraid that “no charges have been brought” is not a good enough indicator of whether or not a law has been broken or a crime has occurred.

Again: How about “No evidence has been presented”? For 4 years we’ve been told the 2020 election was stolen, and they had all this evidence, but for some reason none of it has ever been made public or brought to court. This is more of the same and is reaching “girlfriend in Canada” levels of “We totally have it, you just can’t see it or know any details about it, but it definitely exists.”

Hunter Biden defies House GOP subpoena, demanding public hearing at the Capitol

President Joe Biden’s son has insisted, through his attorney, that he wants to testify publicly and not in a private meeting Republicans pushed for.

POLITICO
Fortunately if I break a rule it doesn’t cost taxpayers millions of dollars or threaten the security of the country I’m trying to take over. But yeah, it’s totally the same.

Okay, let’s do a little thought exercise here, shall we?

Smoking and selling marijuana was illegal for much of the last century or so. Now both is legal in many states. While it was still illegal, many people all over the country were convicted under that law. Do you agree, then, that because what they did was illegal at the time, them being punished was justice being served AT THE TIME, regardless of whether it is now legal?

Should people who were convicted unter the old law be forced to sit out their sentences in full because at the time, their conviction was fully in accordance with rules-based society, or is it possible that rules can be wrong, regardless of how technically legal they are?

Your thought exercise is about something legal that used to be illegal. Has fraud suddenly become legal? No? So what’s your point? Your ‘lying on a resume’ example made more sense, even if it was ridiculous.

They made voting without an ID legal in some states. Isn’t that basically legalizing fraud, or at least inviting or enabling it?

Sorry, but I’m afraid “this would never happen” a bad excuse. This change would have been unthinkable ten years ago.

They key phrase is “they made it… legal.”

Right. You rejected my thorough experiment on the basis that fraud would never be made legal, so I gave you an example where this has literally happened, and your response is “then it’s no longer fraud”?

My God, are you literally this stupid or are you being paid to pretend you are?

No I rejected it on the basis that fraud is currently illegal.

It doesn’t matter if it remains illegal. You get tried for things that are currently illegal. If they decide to repeal those laws about investor fraud, then your comparison to pot users makes sense. AFTER they repeal those laws Donald might be able to seek some recourse. And right after that you can kiss the economy goodbye, since it’s all built on investor confidence.

And saying that some states have ‘legalized fraud’ basically shows that you don’t understand or accept the legal definition of fraud.

My God, are you literally this stupid or are you being paid to pretend you are?

No and no

How would you feel if you didn’t have breakfast this morning?
How would YOU feel?

I would feel like you’re either smart enough to have recognized the implication of answering that question truthfully, in which case you’re also smart enough to have understood the previous analogy and you were just pretending to be too dumb, or you’re just habitually manipulative because it tends to get you what you want most of the time, but you don’t really understand why.

In either case, this conversation is over because you’re clearly a liar and unwilling to admit when you’ve been caught. Have a good day.

I would feel like you answered my substantive response with a question about breakfast, and given your track record on analogies I thought I’d just skip the part where I try to figure out if it makes sense and ask you the answer directly.

You’re one of these people who seems to think the world works how they think it should work.

And you’re one of those people who’s happy to use “the world doesn’t work the way you think it should work” as an excuse to lie, manipulate, and abuse others.

Is that what I’m doing? Why do you keep responding?

What you’re doing lacks the coherence to even be called ‘projection.’

Who says lying on your resume is illegal? If it was illegal then you broke the law and face the consequences of your actions, the most “conservative” thing you can do: own up to your life choices.

All that said, I personally am “stuck” in the position I’m in because I don’t lie on my resume. I don’t want to suffer the consequences of my lie.

I didn’t say it was. To be honest, I don’t know if it is, I was just trying to draw a comparison that would be easier to relate to for the average person.

But in doing so you illustrate how you miss the point.

We don’t drag Trump through the courts because we hate him. We hate him for his crimes, and the courts are where we prove them.

Do you hate Biden for his crimes as well? Should he be brought to justice too, or is that different?

If he committed crimes and is found to be guilty then toss him in with the rest of the criminals. I don’t think anyone here has an issue with that. The only issue would be with “crimes” that only seem to have evidence in the hands of political actors that never seem to end up in the hands of the justice system so they can actually do something about it, the mysterious hunter laptop that UPS magically lost from the blind repair guy who decided to look into it comes to mind.

Unfortunately in our society we are the only ones that face justice. If you’re rich or in politics you get to point the finger elsewhere and cry “unfair bias!” or for the wealthy, just pay a lawyer to make it all go away.

The laptop was authentic, even the FBI has admitted that by now. Stop spreading misinformation.

…house.gov/…/testimony-reveals-fbi-employees-who-…

www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/…/ar-AA1cUoyd

The 51 intelligence officials who signed a letter saying that it was “Russian disinformation” have since been identified as part of a Biden campaign operation to help get him elected.

nytimes.com/…/republicans-hunter-biden-laptop.htm…

According to some polls, almost 20% of Biden voters said they would have changed their vote to Trump if they had known that the laptop was authentic (disregard the “false” rating here, that applies to the 53% that was originally claimed. I’m referring to the 19.6% figure they say is accurate, because it likely would have still been enough to change the outcome).

So, now that you know this, what should be done about this? Biden clearly lied to the public and obtained his victory under false pretenses. Seems far more serious of a crime than cheating a bank out of a few million dollars in interest, no?

Testimony Reveals FBI Employees Who Warned Social Media Companies about Hack and Leak Operation Knew Hunter Biden Laptop Wasn’t Russian Disinformation

WASHINGTON, D.C. – On July 17, 2023, the House Judiciary Committee and Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government conducted a transcribed interview of Laura Dehmlow, the Section Chief of the FBI’s Foreign Influence Task Force (FITF).

House Judiciary Committee Republicans
How about we do Trump first, and then Biden?
You must see how your scenario differs… It isn’t illegal to lie on a resume, and in this case Trump’s not being asked to give back anywhere near the amount his lies earned him.

Perhaps, but it’s morally objectionable in the same way and for the same reasons as what Trump did. You’re basically just saying “my crime isn’t a crime because it’s technically not illegal”.

Oh and you’re flat out wrong about the last part, because Trump was fined not only the amount of interest the banks lost out on, but additionally also all of the profit he made from transactions that the money helped facilitate. Plus 9% interest.

fortune.com/…/donald-trumps-355-million-civil-fra…

Inside Donald Trump’s $355 million civil fraud verdict and what comes next

The financial penalty adds to Trump's mounting legal debts and could put the Republican presidential front-runner in a serious cash crunch as he campaigns to retake the White House.

Fortune
I mean the definition of crime is literally “an illegal act for which someone can be punished by the government”. So it being “technically illegal” is the basis for it being a crime or not.

Cool, I hope you never get caught doing something that’s technically illegal, such as running a red light on an empty intersection.

Either way, don’t expect my sympathy when you get caught.

You run red on ‘empty’ intersections? Why not just follow the rules…
Not usually, but I’d be lying if I said I’ve never done it.