Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
Byron York: It’s all in a case that was suspiciously weak from the very beginning. James alleged that Trump overstated the values of his various properties for purposes of getting better terms for big real estate loans. One big problem in the case was that the banks involved, the alleged victims of Trump’s alleged fraud, testified that 1) they made the loans based on their own assessments of the properties, not Trump’s; 2) they were paid back on time and in full; 3) they made money on the loans; and 4) they would do business with Trump again. All that meant James’s case against Trump was uniquely unfair. ‘An Associated Press analysis of nearly 70 years of civil cases under [New York] law showed that such a penalty has only been imposed a dozen previous times,’ the Associated Press reported in January, ‘and Trump’s case stands apart in a significant way: It’s the only big business found that was threatened with a shutdown without a showing of obvious victims and major losses.’”
Mar 31, 2024, 8:54 AM
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus, firmly in the liberal camp and firmly anti-Trump, expressed worries about the precedent the Trump case could set. From her column this week: “The essence of Trump’s argument on appeal is that the supposed harm he caused was minimal at best — all his lenders were repaid — and that the penalty levied against him was therefore wildly excessive. The conundrum is that the very size of the judgment, and the consequent size of the bond that Trump is required to post, might make him unable to appeal. Trump could pursue his case, but in the meantime, James would be entitled to seize and sell off the former president’s assets. That can’t be right. It would mean that the more outrageous and disproportionate a damages award is, the harder it is to appeal.”
Mar 31, 2024, 8:54 AM