President Biden: The NEW one and only politics thread

A few things: That statute laid dormant for decades and was never used for anything, actually. Even when Elliot Spitzer first dug it out to do his "sheriff of Wall Street" act, the game was a shakedown of businesses ... get them to settle so Spitzer could use their scalps in his bid to run for governor.

Practically, "we" can't vote to change the law. I have no idea if it has ever even been challenged at the appellate level, but if it has, it should have been struck down as unconstitutional as soon as it hit the docket. It's a tyrannical law. If Donald Trump has defrauded anyone -- like people he actually has done business with -- we have a very strong civil court system that was already in place allowing someone who was actually defrauded to sue Trump themselves. Nobody has done that ... and in fact the closest thing to an aggrieved party that the AG came up with (because they didn't have no actually say who was defrauded, they just needed to "allege persistent fraud" and get a judge to agree) was Deutsche Bank, which testified FOR Trump.

I get that it's Donald Trump and people have visceral reactions in wanting to get him, like our justice system should be allowed to used this way like it's a street fight. But that should scare people, not be applauded, and this was a farce. Deutsche Bank not only didn't LOSE money, it made a profit-- it received everything it the two parties voluntarily agreed to, the fees and interest payments -- from the business it did with Trump.

 

Deutsche Bank was fined by regulators for things that had zero to do with this, THEREFORE. ...

I missed that proof in my Logic 101 course.

If Donald Trump has illegally laundered money through Deutsche Bank in a way that violates NY State criminal law. ... that's PRECISELY what Letitia James (or a Federal prosecutor, if there is illegal activity that violates Federal law) could be proving in a court of law. It's what their job should be. Maybe people could go to jail. ... after a fair and just process proved they did something illegal.

Of course, THAT would require an actual burden of proof of something illegal having happened, along with intent, harm, etc. and all the other things she didn't have to do to (precisely why she went with a pliable civil statute to get her target when she couldn't prove anything criminal).

 

Our justice system doesn't work that way. He doesn't need a witness to prove a negative.

The reason Deutsche Bank mattered is that it is the closest thing to an actual victim the AG came up with (pointing to inflated real estate valuations).

This was a voluntary transaction between DB and Trump. DB either did or didn't do its due dilligence in collateralizing their loans to Trump in a way that protected themselves. That is their problem, not Letitia James'. If Trump defaults, they lose money.

They aren't claiming they were defrauded, and the point again is that the actual results here. ... they didn't lose any money (like when fraud happens and there is actual harm to someone). ... to the contrary, they profited to the penny for what they voluntarily had agreed to, and sat there as a witness in a Kangaroo Court that they should never have been a witness in in the first place and said, "We'd do business with him all over again."

"Deutsche Bank has a rich recent history of fraud, deception and criminal practice," (which may or may not be true) has no bearing on that.

Whether Donald Trump is a shitbag, Deutsche Bank is a sleazy organization or whatever. ... they did business with each other privately and neither of them alleged any fraud (DB could have sued Trump if it was defrauded and never has).

Yet, a really bad statute that can be used to target anyone, and what should have been a scary court proceeding to anyone who values their own rights, turned those facts into a summary judgment and a $400 million + fine. But people don't really care because it's Donald Trump, and yay, we got him, so right on, let's use our justice system in "ends justify the means" ways.