Letitia James fires back after Donald Trump's bond reduction

After an appeals court ruled on Monday that Donald Trump could proceed with a much lower amount than the $454 million penalty against him in his civil fraud case, New York Attorney General Letitia James fired back at the former president.

“Donald Trump is still facing accountability for his staggering fraud. The court has already found that he engaged in years of fraud to falsely inflate his net worth and unjustly enrich himself, his family, and his organization. The $464 million judgment – plus interest – against Donald Trump and the other defendants still stands,” James said in a statement.

blazera,
@blazera@lemmy.world avatar

“Donald Trump is still facing accountability for his staggering fraud"

has a single cent left his net worth yet? If that judgment stands, then enforce it or hide in shame.

FenrirIII,
@FenrirIII@lemmy.world avatar

The RNC will pay all of his bills.

givesomefucks,

People spend over a year in jail before trial because they can’t afford 10k bail…

There’s two tiers of justice in America:

  1. Wealthy
  2. Everyone else

We need actual criminal justice reform, but neither side wants to hold the wealthy accountable for their crimes. Because it sets the precedent other wealthy people may be held accountable.

homesweethomeMrL,

There are people in jail right now who can’t afford $100 cash bail. Sometimes for years. And, yeah, that’s very very wrong and yeah “they” know about it.

Buffalox, (edited )

We need actual criminal justice reform,

True, but this is not a criminal case.

snooggums,
@snooggums@midwest.social avatar

The fact that this is civil fraud and not criminal fraud is an example of the two tiers of justice.

Buffalox, (edited )

No, it was because of different requirements in evidence, and this was the best option against Trump.
It’s sad to see such a misinformed opinion upvoted so much here IMO.

There are enough cases to prove the sentiment, that it’s unnecessary to make shit up. Letitia James absolutely did a good job here, representing the state and justice, and it was her decision to make it civil for best chance of success.

snooggums,
@snooggums@midwest.social avatar

Where did I say she did a bad job or made the wrong choice?

Feel free to use quotes.

Buffalox,

The fact that this is civil fraud and not criminal fraud is an example of the two tiers of justice.

It’s right there. By claiming this is part of the 2 tier justice, you directly accuse Letitia James since it was her decision, of going soft on Trump by making the case civil. That’s very clearly implied.

snooggums,
@snooggums@midwest.social avatar

The fact that hundreds of millions of dollars of fraud is civil and not criminal is what I was criticizing. Not the prosecutor who is working with what is available.

There was no implication.

At best you inferred that it was about the prosecutor based on your assumptions about something I neither said nor existed on the context of the comment chain.

Jaysyn, (edited )
Jaysyn avatar

Why New York state is suing Trump instead of charging him with crimes

James seems to be taking this approach, as opposed to a criminal indictment, because New York law empowers the AG to seek damages caused by fraudulent business behavior as a form of consumer protection. The law doesn’t require the AG to identify a victim or even demonstrate anybody suffered harm. Plus, the burden of proof is lower in civil cases than in criminal ones.

“What makes this statute particularly powerful is that there doesn’t have to be a loss,” Will Thomas, a law professor at the University of Michigan’s Ross School of Business, told Yahoo Finance. “This statute has been used to disgorge profits illegally gained. The government can be allowed to claw back all of those profits. Provable nature is lower, and you don’t have to prove intent or willfulness.”

A civil suit also prevents James from bumping into the criminal case against Trump’s company that the Manhattan district attorney is prosecuting. Those two offices sometimes work together on criminal cases, as they’re doing on the recent indictment of former Trump adviser Steve Bannon. With regard to Trump, however, they seem to be pursuing complementary approaches instead of overlapping ones.

So the answer is: it's easier to win, it's easier to punish Trump & they can still file criminal charges after a successful civil case if more crimes are uncovered.

KevonLooney,

She has already given her evidence of bank fraud to the Justice Department. Every time this fat loser lied on a loan application, it’s a felony. You can get up to 30 years in prison per offense, but I believe it’s usually something like 2 years per instance and rarely prosecuted.

If they have enough evidence that Trump knowingly lied about the value of his properties, the Justice Department can charge him with a crime for each loan application.

snooggums,
@snooggums@midwest.social avatar

It would be great if they moved on those criminal charges now that this trial has wrapped up except for the consequences part.

macarthur_park,

Even worse, a 16 year old spent 3 years in Rikers Island because his family couldn’t afford $3k bail.

Charges were eventually dropped and he was released, but then he committed suicide

crusa187,

So true, except I would slightly modify this to be:

  1. Wealthy and Powerful

They almost always go hand-in-hand anyway. This was perfectly exemplified when Obama stated he would not be looking to prosecute W Bush for war crimes at Abu Graib, Guantanamo, etc. “We look forward, not backward.” Considering there is not future/thought crime, I’m pretty sure this logic is flawed as all crimes which have occurred occur in the past.

And then of course Obama proceeded to do extra-judicial killings of US citizens by drone strike.

We seriously need that criminal justice reform, as justice no longer appears to exist in our society at all.

Theprogressivist,
@Theprogressivist@lemmy.world avatar

You guys really shat the bed with this one, no matter how you try to frame it.

ganksy,
@ganksy@lemmy.world avatar

You’re referring to the appellate court ?

Theprogressivist,
@Theprogressivist@lemmy.world avatar

Yes.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • politics@lemmy.world
  • DreamBathrooms
  • magazineikmin
  • InstantRegret
  • GTA5RPClips
  • ethstaker
  • Youngstown
  • everett
  • slotface
  • osvaldo12
  • rosin
  • mdbf
  • kavyap
  • thenastyranch
  • ngwrru68w68
  • megavids
  • Durango
  • modclub
  • cubers
  • khanakhh
  • Leos
  • tacticalgear
  • cisconetworking
  • vwfavf
  • tester
  • anitta
  • normalnudes
  • provamag3
  • JUstTest
  • All magazines
    •