NY Judge Shredded Over 'Extremely Dubious' Fine, Ruling In Trump Fraud Case Photo of Martin Walsh Martin WalshMarch 14, 2024
The New York judge who handed down a staggering $355 million fine in a civil fraud case against former President Donald Trump continues to get an outsized share of criticism from attorneys and other legal experts.
In addition to levying the massive fine, Judge Arthur Engoron also barred Trump
from running a business in the state for three years while barring his sons Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump for two years. He also fined the two sons $4 million apiece after ruling last fall that the Trump Organization regularly committed fraud by altering the value of assets to get more favorable loans.
In an interview with Fox News host Judge Jeanine Pirro last week following the
ruling, former deputy independent counsel Sol Wisenberg called the ruling "extremely dubious" and the award "completely out of proportion."
"I certainly don't see how the part of the decision that imposes a $355 million
judgment is supported by the evidence because, as the judge points out in the very first paragraph of his opinion, and as you pointed out, there's no loss from the bank," Wisenberg told Pirro who was guest-hosting for Laura Ingraham.
"The loans were repaid. Now, certainly, you can legally engage in fraud of all
kinds if the victim doesn't lose money, but to impose a penalty of $355 million
and to bar him for three years and his sons for two years seems to me to be completely out of proportion to the actual loss here, which was zilch," he said.
"I have a question for everybody, which is where were all of these people during the 35 years before Donald Trump became an announced candidate for president?" Wisenberg asked. "Why weren't these people investigating this alleged fraud? People, if there is fraud going on, the U.S. attorney's office in the Southern District of New York, the district attorney's office in Manhattan, it doesn't seem like they were doing their job at all, it appears there was no effort whatsoever to even look at former President Trump until he
became a controversial political figure."
"It strikes me to be constitutionally extremely dubious to basically impose a $355 million judgment in a case where there is no loss," Wisenberg added. "That
is just mind-boggling to me. I have never seen a case where that happened."
For her part, Pirro said that a ruling of this kind "has never happened before."
WATCH:
https://youtu.be/F9gIez5DhIc
Trump attorney and spokeswoman Alina Habba fired back at a column by a legal authority that claimed her client's appeal of a massive and uncharacteristic fine levied by a New York judge in a civil fraud trial earlier this month won't
fully succeed.
Writing in the National Review, former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy wrote
that he expected that the massive fine would likely be reduced, but that would
be it as far as an appeal goes.
"To my mind, it is unlikely that Trump's appeal will result in a clean win for
either side," he wrote in the Feb. 20 article.
"I anticipate that he will get material relief in terms of the dollar amount, but I wouldn't hold my breath on the rest of the penalties. And those penalties
matter a lot," he added.
That said, McCarthy also wrote that he thought the case was "nakedly partisan"
and that he hoped it would be "overturned on appeal."
McCarthy's viewpoint was relayed to Habba by Fox News host Martha MacCallum during a show segment on Thursday, to which Habba responded that she would "welcome him to be part of the legal team if he knows the case better than the
team that tried it for 11 weeks."
"I've been on this case for the better of three years, and I can tell you right
now there are truly no facts that support any of these decisions, and that, again, I can say will be made very clear in our appeal," Habba argued.
On 3/16/24 23:51, AlleyCat wrote:
NY Judge Shredded Over 'Extremely Dubious' Fine, Ruling In Trump Fraud Case >> Photo of Martin Walsh Martin WalshMarch 14, 2024
The New York judge who handed down a staggering $355 million fine in a civil >> fraud case against former President Donald Trump continues to get an outsized
share of criticism from attorneys and other legal experts.
In addition to levying the massive fine, Judge Arthur Engoron also barred Trump
from running a business in the state for three years while barring his sons >> Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump for two years. He also fined the two sons $4 >> million apiece after ruling last fall that the Trump Organization regularly >> committed fraud by altering the value of assets to get more favorable loans. >>
In an interview with Fox News host Judge Jeanine Pirro last week following the
ruling, former deputy independent counsel Sol Wisenberg called the ruling
"extremely dubious" and the award "completely out of proportion."
"I certainly don't see how the part of the decision that imposes a $355 million
judgment is supported by the evidence because, as the judge points out in the
very first paragraph of his opinion, and as you pointed out, there's no loss >> from the bank," Wisenberg told Pirro who was guest-hosting for Laura Ingraham.
"The loans were repaid. Now, certainly, you can legally engage in fraud of all
kinds if the victim doesn't lose money, but to impose a penalty of $355 million
and to bar him for three years and his sons for two years seems to me to be >> completely out of proportion to the actual loss here, which was zilch," he >> said.
"I have a question for everybody, which is where were all of these people
during the 35 years before Donald Trump became an announced candidate for
president?" Wisenberg asked. "Why weren't these people investigating this
alleged fraud? People, if there is fraud going on, the U.S. attorney's office
in the Southern District of New York, the district attorney's office in
Manhattan, it doesn't seem like they were doing their job at all, it appears >> there was no effort whatsoever to even look at former President Trump until he
became a controversial political figure."
"It strikes me to be constitutionally extremely dubious to basically impose a
$355 million judgment in a case where there is no loss," Wisenberg added. "That
is just mind-boggling to me. I have never seen a case where that happened." >>
For her part, Pirro said that a ruling of this kind "has never happened
before."
WATCH:
https://youtu.be/F9gIez5DhIc
Trump attorney and spokeswoman Alina Habba fired back at a column by a legal >> authority that claimed her client's appeal of a massive and uncharacteristic >> fine levied by a New York judge in a civil fraud trial earlier this month won't
fully succeed.
Writing in the National Review, former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy wrote
that he expected that the massive fine would likely be reduced, but that would
be it as far as an appeal goes.
"To my mind, it is unlikely that Trump's appeal will result in a clean win for
either side," he wrote in the Feb. 20 article.
"I anticipate that he will get material relief in terms of the dollar amount,
but I wouldn't hold my breath on the rest of the penalties. And those penalties
matter a lot," he added.
That said, McCarthy also wrote that he thought the case was "nakedly partisan"
and that he hoped it would be "overturned on appeal."
McCarthy's viewpoint was relayed to Habba by Fox News host Martha MacCallum >> during a show segment on Thursday, to which Habba responded that she would >> "welcome him to be part of the legal team if he knows the case better than the
team that tried it for 11 weeks."
"I've been on this case for the better of three years, and I can tell you right
now there are truly no facts that support any of these decisions, and that, >> again, I can say will be made very clear in our appeal," Habba argued.
This entire fraud trial is just another "get Trump" attempt, and should
not only be overturned, but the judge involve should be disciplined.
NY Judge Shredded Over 'Extremely Dubious' Fine, Ruling In Trump Fraud Case >Photo of Martin Walsh Martin WalshMarch 14, 2024
The New York judge who handed down a staggering $355 million fine in a civil >fraud case against former President Donald Trump continues to get an outsized >share of criticism from attorneys and other legal experts.
In addition to levying the massive fine, Judge Arthur Engoron also barred Trump
from running a business in the state for three years while barring his sons >Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump for two years. He also fined the two sons $4 >million apiece after ruling last fall that the Trump Organization regularly >committed fraud by altering the value of assets to get more favorable loans.
In an interview with Fox News host Judge Jeanine Pirro last week following the >ruling, former deputy independent counsel Sol Wisenberg called the ruling >"extremely dubious" and the award "completely out of proportion."
On 3/16/24 23:51, AlleyCat wrote:
NY Judge Shredded Over 'Extremely Dubious' Fine, Ruling In Trump Fraud Case >> Photo of Martin Walsh Martin WalshMarch 14, 2024
The New York judge who handed down a staggering $355 million fine in a civil >> fraud case against former President Donald Trump continues to get an outsized
share of criticism from attorneys and other legal experts.
In addition to levying the massive fine, Judge Arthur Engoron also barred Trump
from running a business in the state for three years while barring his sons >> Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump for two years. He also fined the two sons $4 >> million apiece after ruling last fall that the Trump Organization regularly >> committed fraud by altering the value of assets to get more favorable loans. >>
In an interview with Fox News host Judge Jeanine Pirro last week following the
ruling, former deputy independent counsel Sol Wisenberg called the ruling
"extremely dubious" and the award "completely out of proportion."
"I certainly don't see how the part of the decision that imposes a $355 million
judgment is supported by the evidence because, as the judge points out in the
very first paragraph of his opinion, and as you pointed out, there's no loss >> from the bank," Wisenberg told Pirro who was guest-hosting for Laura Ingraham.
"The loans were repaid. Now, certainly, you can legally engage in fraud of all
kinds if the victim doesn't lose money, but to impose a penalty of $355 million
and to bar him for three years and his sons for two years seems to me to be >> completely out of proportion to the actual loss here, which was zilch," he >> said.
"I have a question for everybody, which is where were all of these people
during the 35 years before Donald Trump became an announced candidate for
president?" Wisenberg asked. "Why weren't these people investigating this
alleged fraud? People, if there is fraud going on, the U.S. attorney's office
in the Southern District of New York, the district attorney's office in
Manhattan, it doesn't seem like they were doing their job at all, it appears >> there was no effort whatsoever to even look at former President Trump until he
became a controversial political figure."
"It strikes me to be constitutionally extremely dubious to basically impose a
$355 million judgment in a case where there is no loss," Wisenberg added. "That
is just mind-boggling to me. I have never seen a case where that happened." >>
For her part, Pirro said that a ruling of this kind "has never happened
before."
WATCH:
https://youtu.be/F9gIez5DhIc
Trump attorney and spokeswoman Alina Habba fired back at a column by a legal >> authority that claimed her client's appeal of a massive and uncharacteristic >> fine levied by a New York judge in a civil fraud trial earlier this month won't
fully succeed.
Writing in the National Review, former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy wrote
that he expected that the massive fine would likely be reduced, but that would
be it as far as an appeal goes.
"To my mind, it is unlikely that Trump's appeal will result in a clean win for
either side," he wrote in the Feb. 20 article.
"I anticipate that he will get material relief in terms of the dollar amount,
but I wouldn't hold my breath on the rest of the penalties. And those penalties
matter a lot," he added.
That said, McCarthy also wrote that he thought the case was "nakedly partisan"
and that he hoped it would be "overturned on appeal."
McCarthy's viewpoint was relayed to Habba by Fox News host Martha MacCallum >> during a show segment on Thursday, to which Habba responded that she would >> "welcome him to be part of the legal team if he knows the case better than the
team that tried it for 11 weeks."
"I've been on this case for the better of three years, and I can tell you right
now there are truly no facts that support any of these decisions, and that, >> again, I can say will be made very clear in our appeal," Habba argued.
This entire fraud trial is just another "get Trump" attempt, and should
not only be overturned, but the judge involve should be disciplined.
Any trial that begins with "he's guilty now let's try him" should be
tossed immediately.
NY Judge Shredded Over 'Extremely Dubious' Fine, Ruling In Trump Fraud Case Photo of Martin Walsh Martin WalshMarch 14, 2024
The New York judge who handed down a staggering $355 million fine in a civil fraud case against former President Donald Trump continues to get an outsized share of criticism from attorneys and other legal experts.
In addition to levying the massive fine, Judge Arthur Engoron also barred Trump
from running a business in the state for three years while barring his sons Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump for two years. He also fined the two sons $4 million apiece after ruling last fall that the Trump Organization regularly committed fraud by altering the value of assets to get more favorable loans.
In an interview with Fox News host Judge Jeanine Pirro last week following the
ruling, former deputy independent counsel Sol Wisenberg called the ruling "extremely dubious" and the award "completely out of proportion."
"I certainly don't see how the part of the decision that imposes a $355 million
judgment is supported by the evidence because, as the judge points out in the very first paragraph of his opinion, and as you pointed out, there's no loss from the bank," Wisenberg told Pirro who was guest-hosting for Laura Ingraham.
"The loans were repaid. Now, certainly, you can legally engage in fraud of all
kinds if the victim doesn't lose money, but to impose a penalty of $355 million
and to bar him for three years and his sons for two years seems to me to be completely out of proportion to the actual loss here, which was zilch," he said.
"I have a question for everybody, which is where were all of these people during the 35 years before Donald Trump became an announced candidate for president?" Wisenberg asked. "Why weren't these people investigating this alleged fraud? People, if there is fraud going on, the U.S. attorney's office in the Southern District of New York, the district attorney's office in Manhattan, it doesn't seem like they were doing their job at all, it appears there was no effort whatsoever to even look at former President Trump until he
became a controversial political figure."
"It strikes me to be constitutionally extremely dubious to basically impose a $355 million judgment in a case where there is no loss," Wisenberg added. "That
is just mind-boggling to me. I have never seen a case where that happened."
For her part, Pirro said that a ruling of this kind "has never happened before."
WATCH:
https://youtu.be/F9gIez5DhIc
Trump attorney and spokeswoman Alina Habba fired back at a column by a legal authority that claimed her client's appeal of a massive and uncharacteristic fine levied by a New York judge in a civil fraud trial earlier this month won't
fully succeed.
Writing in the National Review, former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy wrote
that he expected that the massive fine would likely be reduced, but that would
be it as far as an appeal goes.
"To my mind, it is unlikely that Trump's appeal will result in a clean win for
either side," he wrote in the Feb. 20 article.
"I anticipate that he will get material relief in terms of the dollar amount, but I wouldn't hold my breath on the rest of the penalties. And those penalties
matter a lot," he added.
That said, McCarthy also wrote that he thought the case was "nakedly partisan"
and that he hoped it would be "overturned on appeal."
McCarthy's viewpoint was relayed to Habba by Fox News host Martha MacCallum during a show segment on Thursday, to which Habba responded that she would "welcome him to be part of the legal team if he knows the case better than the
team that tried it for 11 weeks."
"I've been on this case for the better of three years, and I can tell you right
now there are truly no facts that support any of these decisions, and that, again, I can say will be made very clear in our appeal," Habba argued.
============================================================================
THIS is Joe Biden when not on drugs or stimulants and acts like himself:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/xPhZcMYekKs?feature=share
https://youtu.be/NDdNDLvvk1g?t=27
https://youtu.be/NDdNDLvvk1g?t=36
https://youtu.be/hiDRFTVH0rY?t=20
https://youtu.be/KuhR-Nqv6Wg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5JF7PupC58andpp=ygUSam9lIGJpZGVuIHNsZWVwaW5n
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gsMTe0Nr4Yandpp=ygUSam9lIGJpZGVuIHNsZWVwaW5n
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBUgHkbtm9Iandpp=ygUSam9lIGJpZGVuIHNsZWVwaW5n
=====
Ladies and Gentlemen... I give you the Democrats' best: Old-Rich-White- Religious Freak, Joe Biden
Or As Old-Rich-White-Religious Freak, Joe Biden Would Say: "Labadies and Gntlmn... I gve yu the Dmcrts' bst."
=====
Truinnerashuvvaduprezure!
https://i.imgur.com/vtb7SuM.mp4
https://youtu.be/Slm5bvO-_5I
=====
Joe Bidden Completely Forgets What He's Talking About In Excruciating Press Conference
https://youtu.be/SdfvIvYPPRo?t=32
Joe Biden Gets Completely LOST in Middle of a Story https://rumble.com/vgbxnh-joe-biden-gets-completely-lost-in-middle-of-a- story.html?mref=22lbp&mc=56yab
Biden tries to explain the Covid bill. This moron is President? Wow. https://twitter.com/i/status/1368292670372683776
Biden's Dementia Flares Up, Has Complete Mental Short-Circuit During Speech https://rumble.com/ve8jlz-biden-briefly-malfunctions-again.html
Out-Performed Every Presidential Challenger In US History? https://twitter.com/i/status/1364024001736155144
Joe Biden: You Just Wonder
https://youtu.be/Uj0ccJgJsPA
Joe Biden Fumbles Through Speech
https://youtu.be/0xwoaagXFyU
Joe Biden Embarrassingly Delivers his WORST Speech while 'President Elect' https://youtu.be/oHI__YneMuE
Barely There Biden Makes No Sense
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxxAyHgBiNU
Joe Biden Stumbles, Makes No Sense
https://youtu.be/X1byHpkSmYc
Joe Biden Makes No Sense, Forgets When The 1918 Flu Pandemic Occurred https://youtu.be/vt7WPjsYl44
Joe Biden making Zer0 sense
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYch-1fRhiE
Joe Biden Told Voters To "Go To" A Phone Number. Now, He Still Makes Zero Sense!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qg4OUk0qyWM
NoBody wrote:
Any trial that begins with "he's guilty now let's try him" should be
tossed immediately.
Cite the precedent.
On Sun, 17 Mar 2024 10:58:53 -0700, Siri Cruise
<chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
NoBody wrote:
Any trial that begins with "he's guilty now let's try him" should be
tossed immediately.
Cite the precedent.
Tell us any of any other case where the judge declaired the defendant
guilty and then held the trial.
NY Judge Shredded Over 'Extremely Dubious' Fine, Ruling In Trump Fraud Case Photo of Martin Walsh Martin WalshMarch 14, 2024
The New York judge who handed down a staggering $355 million fine in a civil fraud case against former President Donald Trump continues to get an outsized share of criticism from attorneys and other legal experts.
On Sun, 17 Mar 2024 10:58:53 -0700, Siri Cruise
<chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
NoBody wrote:
Any trial that begins with "he's guilty now let's try him" should be
tossed immediately.
Cite the precedent.
Tell us any of any other case where the judge declaired the defendant
guilty and then held the trial.
On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 17:23:37 -0700, Alan says...
It's going to be tricky for him to appeal...
...when he can't post the bond, loser.
Something about a cart and a horse?
On Sun, 17 Mar 2024 10:58:53 -0700, Siri Cruise
<chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
NoBody wrote:
Any trial that begins with "he's guilty now let's try him" should be
tossed immediately.
Cite the precedent.
Tell us any of any other case where the judge declaired the defendant
guilty and then held the trial.
On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 15:06:53 -0600, Gronk <invalide@invalid.invalid> wrote:
NoBody wrote:
On Sun, 17 Mar 2024 10:58:53 -0700, Siri Cruise
<chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
NoBody wrote:
Any trial that begins with "he's guilty now let's try him" should be >>>>> tossed immediately.
Cite the precedent.
Tell us any of any other case where the judge declaired the defendant
guilty and then held the trial.
Cite the precedent...
Someone explain to the moron that there were two trials held. The one that determined
guilt, and the longer, more reported one with Judge Engeron that was about determining
damages.
https://www.gocomics.com/robrogers/2024/03/21
Swill
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 110:13:31 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,335,826 |