No Victim -- No Crime
But Not This Time
It's easier to fix a trial when there's no jury and no defense
A jury trial was never an option
Donald Trump’s attorney, Alina Habba, did not fail to tick a box to request a jury trial in the New York civil fraud case despite widely circulated claims to the contrary. Attorney General Letitia James checked off the “non-jury” box her-own-damned-self before the trial began.
Donald Trump and The Trump Organization never had the option of a jury trial.
Judge Arthur Engoron amended his comment that “nobody asked for” a jury trial last Wednesday following the false reports that Trump' attorneys had asked for one, but he said that if they had, the answer would have still been "no." It is well known that it's easier to get a "guilty" verdict if there's no jury, but no worries!
Before Trump's attorneys could present a defense, Engoron declared Trump guilty and ordered the seizure of all of Trump's properties in New York. He canceled all of the Trump Organization's licenses to operate in New York, and he fined Trump $250 million because it was Wednesday.
We used to think stuff like that couldn't happen in America, but there it is. It's the greatest robbery in American history and the gun was Letitia James perversion of the law to settle a personal jihad.
Then you hide the proceedings
Donald Trump is about to be prosecuted, but unless you’re one of the few people who might be allowed inside the courtroom in Manhattan, you won’t be able to watch. That’s because New York is one of the only jurisdictions in the country that still bans cameras in courts.
Given the political stakes of prosecuting a former president who is again running for office, the public needs to observe the strength of Manhattan DA James’s case rather than rely on others to tell them how the evidence shakes out -- especially given AG James and her allies’ penchant for spreading disinformation. With confidence in the media and courts at an all-time low, will members of the public trust the outcome of the case if they can’t see it for themselves?
America's most famous liberal law professor, defense attorney, and lifelong Democrat doesn't trust the New Yorkers. Dershowitz wants to see it for himself.
No intent or proof needed for a "guilty" verdict
Fraud cases often hinge on “reliance,” or the question of whether banks and insurers really did depend on the alleged misstatements. “Even if Trump overinflated the assets, if they didn’t really rely on those, is there any harm?”
The attorney general is pursuing the case under New York’s Executive Law, which is unusually broad and vague in defining fraud. Unlike for many other fraud cases, there’s no need to prove intent to defraud under the New York law.
All it requires is that the perpetrator provide a false statement. They don’t have to prove that he knew the statement was false or that there was an intent to deceive, they don’t have to prove that the victims relied upon it. And they don’t have to prove that they suffered damages as a result.
The AG is seeing success so far, with the judge granting partial summary judgment and finding already that the documents “clearly contain fraudulent valuations,” which established “liability as a matter of law against the defendants.”
That those charges are based on opinion rather than a fact of law is the core of this trial and it is James' opinion that the Trump family needs to be destroyed. Judge Engoron appears to agree.
The judge is playing fast and lose with evidence
On the first day of the trial, Trump's attorneys pointed out that eight of the ten lending transactions that the state says is evidence of fraud had expired under the statute of limitations.
After first allowing the time-barred claims, the following day Engoron refuted his opinion and ruled that all claims were allowable under the statute of limitations, and said the trial isn’t “an opportunity to re-litigate what I have already decided,” according to the Associated Press.
The judge refused to sign the the defense's proposed motion to bar: “Decline to sign; Defendants’ arguments are completely without merit.”
The eight deals that are barred by New York State law for consideration are still in.
The witness from the bank was a dud
James finally brought a victim out in the Trump case. It was a banking executive who works for a multi billion dollar bank. Even worse for James, he didn’t even say he was hurt. He just said he approved the loans because he knew Trump would pay them back and they accepted his teams valuation on his properties.
Nothing flames commies like James as everybody making money -- except for her millionaire self.
Many want an investiugation into how James, a lifelong "public servant" amassed a net worth of $15 million and generates an annual income of $4 million.
Not everybody in New York is a stark-raving commie
The New York Appellate Division almost immediately stayed Judge Engoron’s overzealous order which erroneously sought to adjudicate the rights of non-party business entities that employ nearly 1,000 hard-working New Yorkers who have never been accused of any wrongdoing and, were never given their day in court in clear violation of their fundamental Constitutional rights and Due Process. So, Trump's lawyers have sued Judge Engoron.
Judge Peter Moulton, an appointee of former Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo, paused that ruling after Trump’s attorneys argued in their motion to appeal that Engoron “clearly does not comprehend the scope of the chaos.”
Judge Moulton’s ruling will remain in effect until a full panel of appeals court judges review the case.
Shame on the Bar Association
The New York State bar association should be embarrassed by the antics of Letitia James, the attorney general who pledged during her campaign for office to “get trump” and is now using her office, with 1,700 staff and over 700 assistant attorneys generals to do it. The fraud claim in James' case is clearly a matter of opinion as to what constitutes fraud.
She is using the court and an obscure law to destroy Trump, his family and his business empire, by claiming fraud, even though there’s been no evidence of any unpaid loans, investors who were hurt or banks that lost money.
Jonathan Turley, the George Washington University law professor who has testified many times before Congress, and even has represented members of Congress, unleashed his criticism., citing James’ campaign pledge to sue Trump and to be a “real pain in the ass” to him. He said there are “serious ethical problems with a prosecutor trying to secure office on the pledge to nail one person.”
Turley said the New York bar should see her comments, and her, as “an embarrassment” for the “recreational use of the laws to pursue unpopular persons” and using all of the levers of her office to go against political opponents with a biased civil court judge."
James' big showdown is a bust!
Trump planned to return to the New York courtroom next week, according to two people with knowledge of the matter, a reappearance that would have brought him face-to-face with his former fixer Michael D. Cohen. The media was on pens and needles with anticipation of the great showdown.
Late Friday afternoon, however, Cohen called in "sick" and will no longer be testifying next week because of a" health-related" issue. It was not immediately clear how long Cohen's testimony would be delayed or in what direction the trial would now go.
It was Cohen's congressional testimony in February 2019 that Mr. Trump inflated the value of his assets is the alleged impetus for Ms. James’s investigation after her three-year attempt to put together a criminal case failed to materialize.
On the first day of the civil fraud trial, a lawyer for the attorney general’s office, Kevin Wallace, played a video of Mr. Cohen saying under oath that he had been involved in preparing years’ worth of the annual financial statements on which the former president listed the value of his assets.
Will James be successful?
If James succeeds in seizing Trump's properties, revoking his right to operate a business in New York State, and fining The Trump Organization $250 million, we are all in deep sneakers.
By claiming fraud rather than a crime, James is denying Trump the protections that the 6th Amendment provides to anyone who has been accused of committing a crime. Those rights include the right to a speedy trial, the right to legal counsel, the right to know all charges against them, the right to a public trial with a jury, the right to know all witnesses and evidence against them.
None of that applies in James' case. It's whatever this judge says and he's already said "guilty," and it doesn't sound like anything is going to change his mind.
The actions of James and Engoron forecast the beginning of the police state era. No one can deny that this is the state taking personal property, controlling assets, inheritances, and businesses. This is illegal in America, or at least it used to be. It is unconstitutional. Such acts are contrary to all things American and U. S. law, but it's happening right in front of all of us.
If an activist New York State attorney general and a civil court judge can do this to a former president they can do it to anybody and for any reason -- no witnesses, no evidence needed.
The only victim in this trial is Donald Trump. James' trial is the crime.