• gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      For real, look at this shit

      "Their complete lack of contrition and remorse borders on pathological. They are accused only of inflating asset values to make more money. The documents prove this over and over again. This is a venial sin, not a mortal sin. Defendants did not commit murder or arson. They did not rob a bank at gunpoint.

      “Some will rob you with a six-gun, and some with a fountain pen,” really great to see how far we’ve come since that was written

      But I digress,

      Donald Trump is not Bernard Madoff. Yet, defendants are incapable of admitting the error of their ways," Engoron wrote.

      “Defendants’ refusal to admit error — indeed, to continue it, according to the Independent Monitor — constrains this Court to conclude that they will engage in it going forward unless judicially restrained,” he added.

      The ruling also bars the Trump sons — who’ve been running the company since their father went to the White House — “from serving as an officer or director of any New York corporation or other legal entity in New York for a period of two years.”

      So, yeah, I guess the headline was shitting you, because at best it’s going to be effectively a two year ban for this pack of pathologically remorseless creeps who the judge admits are definitely going to reoffend. Ain’t justice grand? /s

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, I really don’t think people should be celebrating this. This is practically giving people permission to cheat on their taxes considering they still came out on top in terms of profiting overall.

        • gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          I definitely understand wanting to celebrate, people have been waiting for this asshole to get what’s coming to him since at least 2016

          But yeah, this really isn’t the death blow it could/should have been

    • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Think of it like a three year ban from the NFL. In theory it’s not permanent, but in practice it is.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Is it? I mean I’d prefer it if Trump didn’t live to 80, but Rupert Murdoch is 92 and still clinging on to power.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            I would be very surprised if they didn’t have some sort of contingency plan set up for this since they knew it was a possibility.

            • NegativeNull@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              The contingency is getting his Daughter-in-law appointed head of the RNC. She’s already she’d give all RNC funds to trump.

            • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Sure, but it’s still a problem. Trump could abandon New York, but re-entering the NY market after three years would be like starting over. Probably not worth it.

              Or he could turn over control to someone like Ivanka. But for it to survive, she will have to put in her own people and make new contacts of her own. After three years it will effectively be her company, nobody involved will want to see Donald return.

    • stoly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s the death of the company. Nobody in his family can run this business now. It’ll continue on with someone they have hired to manage it, but the judge will keep his eye on them with the monitor for a very long time.

  • riodoro1@lemmy.worldBanned from community
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    But if you grow weed you to prison for life. How are people ok with this?

      • 4lan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        That’s not true, people regularly get a decade in jail for growing cannabis in prohibition states

        You can literally beat your wife nearly to death and get less time

        The only reason it is kept illegal is to keep our prisons filled

  • Evade5415@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    1 year ago

    The judge also ordered that they pay substantial interest, pushing the penalty for the former president to $450 million, according to the attorney general, Letitia James.

    • ki77erb@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      I can hear the donation emails and text messages getting typed up as we speak. You know them suckers are gonna pay too!

  • eluminx@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    So much winning!! /s

    I like that last part where he’s barred from running businesses in NY.

  • Custoslibera@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    Will he actually have to pay this in any realistic time frame?

    Or does he get to lodge a Supreme Court appeal that takes another 5 years to get a decision?

  • DandomRude@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    So is this another OJ Simpson-type situation? Don’t go to jail for what you did, just pay a fine for what you did? So no criminal consequences, but some civil ones for the same offense? I mean fraud must be a criminal offense in the US too, right?

    • ggBarabajagal@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      This case involved charges of fraud made against Trump’s company by the State of New York. This was a civil case, not a criminal case. The consequences were not supposed to be criminal.

      The defamation lawsuits brought by E. Jean Carroll were also civil cases. She was not charging Trump with the crime of raping her many years ago; She was suing him (twice) for lying about whether he raped her many years ago. (She won both times.)

      I think I get where you are coming from, though. When a person is rich enough to pay the fine, and also shameless enough to revel in the infamy of being found liable in a civil dispute, it can seem like that person doesn’t end up suffering any significant consequence for their actions at all.

      $355M is a lot of money. Add in the $83M owed to Carroll and these recent fines top $400M, which is an estimated amount of Trump’s liquid assets. Trump is now likely running out of cash-on-hand, which could explain his recent takeover of the Republican National Committee – the GOP’s fundraising (and fund-spending) organization.

      Criminal consequences come from criminal cases. Trump has invested most of his legal defense against the criminal cases he is facing. Pending criminal cases involving Trump include:

      1.) A RICO (“Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations”) case charged by the State of Georgia, against Trump and several others who allegedly conspired to steal the state’s 16 electoral votes, including by having the President call (Republican) Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and ask him to “find 11,780 votes” for him. Four people in that case have already accepted a plea deal. This case is currently delayed by a motion to disqualify the DA because she had a romantic relationship with a lawyer her office hired to help prosecute the case.

      2.) A federal case against Trump for retaining classified documents. A year or so ago, it was found that former President Trump and former VP Mike Pence had kept classified documents after they left office, and that when Joe Biden left the office of VP in 2017, he also kept some classified documents. Both Pence and Biden complied with federal investigation and surrendered the documents immediately when asked. Unlike Pence and Biden, Trump did not comply with federal investigation, and instead took action to conceal the classified documents in his possession. This case is being heard in a Florida courtroom, because Trump was storing these stolen national secrets in a spare bathroom at Mar-A-Lago. The judge is a Trump appointee, and has demonstrated a tendency to rule in Trumps favor whenever she can, but if she shows too much bias she may get taken off the case.

      3.) A federal case against Trump for his involvement in the insurrectionist attempt to disrupt the electoral vote count in congress on January 6, 2021. Trump has been indicted on four charges in this case: “conspiracy to defraud the United States; conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding; and conspiracy against rights.” Trump’s defense has been that he has “absolute immunity” for any actions he took while serving as President. This claim of immunity has been denied and appealed multiple times. Trump has now asked the SCOTUS to hear his appeal, but they haven’t said if they will yet. Until they do, that case is on hold, but there’s no one else to appeal to higher than them. If SCOTUS chooses not to hear Trump’s immunity appeal, the lower court’s denial of it will stand and the case will go forward.

      • Brekky@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Could you do these as regular posts? It was the perfect length and relevance to help me feel up to speed on all the cases!

      • DandomRude@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yes, but why no criminal lawsuit as well? Defrauding people for hunderts of millions of dollars sure sounds like a offence to me that could/should lead to criminal charges. I don’t get how this would not be obvious now that a judge already has found Trump guilty in a civil lawsuit.

  • ripcord@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    Wow. He lucked out big time by not having the businesses claimed and broken up. That sucks.

  • Gazumi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    Somewhat like the Al Capone case, in that Capone was ultimately handled for tax evasion. Financial clamps can be the most successful.