So what happened today? The 11th Circuit Court eviscerated Aileen Cannon, the Trump lackey who serves on the federal district court of Mar-a-Lago. The attorney general of New York filed a civil suit against the entire Trump family for various acts of mopery and dopery. The Fed raised interest rates another slug in its shadow boxing contest with inflation. Trump told Sean Hannity that (a) maybe the FBI actually searched Mar-a-Lago looking for Hillary's emails, (b) the FBI stole his will, (c) he can declassify documents just by thinking the thought, and (d) and . . . um, something else ridiculous that I can't remember. And Vladimir Putin has apparently doubled down on Ukraine by instituting a new draft. He would be wise to remember how well that worked out for us during the Vietnam War.
In other words, two bits of bad news and three bits of news I don't care about (i.e., all things Trump). Oh well.
It was a day.
Hillary's server is apparently in an adjacent universe which occasionally coincides with ours; one day it's in Ukraine, another day it's in Florida.
There are some things in my garage which act like that. I can only find them if I'm not looking for them.
Well, the Fed really wants to Whip Inflation Now.
Ignore any time lag. We're not real inflation fighters unless we crash the economy....
Oh, Ginni Thomas is going to testify to the Jan 6th committee.
1. The 11th Circuit was only asked to rule on documents marked “classified,” but their reasoning indicates that they would have shut down the entire review process if the Justice Department had asked for that.
2. I wouldn't say that the “11th circuit court eviscerated Aileen Cannon” because that language suggests the opinion attacked Cannon. The opinion overruled Cannon, but doesn't contain any language hinting that Cannon is incompetent or unprofessional.
"[T]his [...] factor in the Richey analysis is reason enough to conclude that the district court abused its discretion in exercising equitable jurisdiction."
That's a direct blow against Cannon. That's not the only one.
“Abuse of discretion” is the legal standard, so they were going to write that if they overturned the stay.
For the record, “we cannot discern a reason why there is a possessory interest” is a paraphrase, not a direct quote. Ruralhobo calls this “polite legalese” for “we don't even know what judge Cannon is talking about,” but the Court didn't appear to have any trouble following Cannon's analysis. They listed Cannon's reasons for believing that Trump might have a possessory interest in materials taken during the search, and concluded that these reasons were not applicable to the documents marked classified.
The 11th Circuit disagreed with a lot of Cannon's analysis. If the 11th Circuit's analysis is correct (and it appears correct to me), Cannon got a lot wrong. I would not go as far as to say that, “the 11th circuit court eviscerated Aileen Cannon's analysis,” but if Drumm had written that, I wouldn't have a serious disagreement.
What Drumm actually wrote was: “The 11th circuit court eviscerated Aileen Cannon.” To me, that implies more than polite disagreement with her ruling.
"we cannot discern a reason why there is a possessory interest".
Polite legalese for "we don't even know what judge Cannon is talking about".
T'was no tiny lawsuit AG Letitia James filed against Trumps. If the State of NY is successful, it will have effectively shut out Trump organization from doing business in NY and severely limits access to the world's biggest banks.
Of course, none of that will happen. They’ll likely settle and we’ll never hear about it again.
As I understand it Trump’s lawyers did try to settle and James refused.
She did recently say she was open to it. Methinks the offer was too low. She's going for 250 million after all and won't settle for the kind of scraps Trump typically gives.
I wonder if Joe Biden realizes that his job for the next 2 years is to defeat and destroy Russians and red state Americans? Otherwise, he’s going to end up in prison.
The attorney general of New York filed a civil suit against the entire Trump family for various acts of mopery and dopery.
Trump is up to his eyeballs in legal trouble. I personally think the odds are fairly decent at this point that at least one of the cases against him results in serious consequences (like jail) or perhaps sinks his presidential ambitions.
But, the NY AG's civil case is a bit of a head-scratcher for this non-lawyer. If tax evasion is found I guess that would be something (although nine times out of ten they just make you pay the fine, because you were filing on the advice of accountants, right?). But the case of "puffery to get better loan terms" seems...I dunno...weak? Weren't these banks making plenty off him and weren't they free to walk away if they thought his evaluations were BS? Relatedly, don't financial institutions have their own people to do appraisals? Would they really be taking Trump's word on all this?
Mind you I'm not complaining, because the more legal trouble he's in the better. This latest one, though, strikes me as weaker tea than Documentgate or Georgia or the January 6th treason case.
Would love to have someone with legal knowledge weigh in...
Just to add...I'm well aware it violates various laws to lie about finances when trying to get loans. So, to the extent there's been a criminal referral (and the press is reporting the AG has indeed made such a referral), that also might be something. But why, exactly then, is the Trump Organization being sued by the state instead of flat-out charged with crimes? Wouldn't the logical plaintiff be the banks (if they thought he had defrauded them)? But apparently (again) the Trump organization paid plenty in interest and fees on these various deals, so the banks weren't complaining.
It also seem a bit baroque.
The only thing differentiating donnie from many rich in New York is how far over "the line" he went. If "the banks" started with donnie, he would say (truthfully) that they need to prosecute everyone stepping over the line.
Personally, I am "for" what you said, but, the realities of our corporate capitalist system might lead to major changes most would not tolerate.
Try that everyone does it defense next time you get a speeding ticket.
Not sure what the fuck is complicated about insurance or bank fraud.
By securing such favorable terms, he was defrauding legitimate business. And Trump wasn’t using “puffery” (which laymen might define as adding 10-20%) he was flagrantly engaging in asset inflation at the rates of 200%, 300%, 400%, or more. Then under valuing those assets for taxes. All knowingly and for ill gotten profit. The state attorney general puts that figure at $250 million. Michael Cohen puts it between $250-750 million.
We have laws or we don’t. But we can’t enforce them for some people and not for others. Is that too baroque?
Not sure what the fuck is complicated about insurance or bank fraud.
Not sure what the fuck is complicated about reading the entire comment before responding. My question revolves around the lack of criminal charges.
Then under valuing those assets for taxes.
As I indicated in the comment you skimmed, I believe tax fraud would indeed be a significant matter, although again, why aren't criminal charges involved (NY State collects taxes, too, you know)?
By securing such favorable terms, he was defrauding legitimate business.
That's the part that sounds less than strong to me. Early indications are that they the various lenders did fine: they made plenty in fees and interest. To put it another way, had Trump been more scrupulous, he would've borrowed less and the banks would've made less.
We have laws or we don’t. But we can’t enforce them for some people and not for others.
Absolutely, so, again, where are the criminal charges? Aren't some of these things illegal under NY law?
Also, again, why did these sophisticated operations simply take Trump's word on valuations? Did they not do due diligence?
I'm sure there are answers to my (no doubt naive) questions, but you didn't answer them. You dunked. Good on you!
In NY, the state AG does not file criminal charges. That's up to local DAs or US Attorneys. What James has done is initiated a civil case based on the way Trump's accounting defrauded NY taxpayers and deferred to the Manhattan DA, Alvin Bragg to bring any criminal charges. I'm sure the IRS and folks at the SDNY will be following the case closely, though. Bragg, up until now, has supposedly been hesitant to really pursue the case, but hopefully, now that James has mostly done his homework for him, he will get off his duff and do something.
Thank you.
I will note, though, that, at least according to the early reporting, James is officially referring the criminal cases to federal agencies, and there's no word yet on possible criminal prosecution by NY State authorities. This from WaPo:
While the lawsuit itself is not a criminal prosecution, James said she has referred possible violations of federal law to the Justice Department and the IRS.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/09/21/trump-sued-new-york-letitia-james/
So, evidently, NY State will be holding off on criminal charges for the time being.
Bank fraud is something I have a little experience with based on being an investigator with the California Department of Real Estate during the mortgage loan crash. In order to obtain a criminal conviction for fraud you have to get the “victim” to testify that they would not have made the loan had they known the truth. In the time just before the crash we contacted several banks informing them that we had evidence that loans they had made were to people who misrepresented their incomes. The response we got was usually crickets, but on a few occasions the person we talked to actually said “Ha ha ha! That why they call them liar loans.” We actually had FBI agents in our office who expressed their shock and dismay at the lack of cooperation from the banks.
In Trumps case, as I understand it, the bank was aware of Trump’s shenanigans and lent him the money any way. Thus, it’s not fraud, at least in the criminal sense.
One reason to file civilly is that the standard of evidence is lower. In civil court a preponderance of evidence is sufficient and you don’t have to reach the “beyond a reasonable doubt standard required in criminal court.
Oh, I did read your comment. Both of them.
I just don’t see what’s “baroque” about NewYork citizens conducting legitimate business being harmed when someone wildly misrepresents their financial situation and jumps the line to secure capital.
I predict the next homes to receive busloads of illegal aliens from Govs. Abbott & De Santis will be the domiciles of Judges Kevin Newsom, Elizabeth Branch, Britt Grant, Andrew Brasher, & William H. Pryor, Jr.
RINO the lot of them!
You forgot the Fed smacking the economy stupid with its hammer.
Nevermind. I typed before carefully reading! D'oh! Mea culpa.
In Maryland, a states atty, Marilyn Mosby, is on trial by Feds. One of the charges is lying on her mortgage application. She claimed she was buying a home in Fl for her personal use, and then she listed it with a rental firm. Saying it was personal would get her a lower mortgage rate. Trump falsified applications and statements to get better terms. As a former insurance underwriter, insurance premiums were partially determined on the financial statements of the applicant. If he inflated his financial condition, he would get better rates, but the premium would not be adequate for the exposure.
Which “new draft” was instituted during the Vietnam War?
Not "new draft", just draft, period. Fill the military with people who really don't want to be there, once they're there can see all of the problems of the invasion and the incompetence of their military leaders.
One more thing. In Vietnam, the US was fighting against a culture that was more foreign and therefore more easily dehumanized. Putin doesn't have that advantage while trashing a country that is much more culturally and often personally related to Russian citizens.
And critically the US wasn't facing devastating sanctions hitting everyone, including the elite.
(Reminds me of a scene from Mad Men: Don Draper is dining at one of Manhattan's top restaurants. Someone mentions how "we're losing the War in Vietnam." Draper glances around the room and takes in the scene: the sumptuous, almost decadent decor; the wealthy men in expensive suits; the wives and mistresses in designer frocks and jewels; the fine imported wines; the plates piled high with rich, French cuisine...and he replies, "We are?")
Not the scene in Russia these days, I bet...
Jennifer Rubin has suggested Trump's businesses face the immediate peril of called-in loans. Nobody wants to be the last one to be owed money by the Trumps.
According to this, that’s not true:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2022/07/29/donald-trumps-great-escape-how-the-former-president-solved-his-debt-crisis/?sh=11efe3563970
It’s what leads me to believe that Trump will squirm out of his current trouble with New York.
Anyone interested in an informed take on the legal details of all this should check out the podcast "Serious Trouble". Entertaining and educating!