The money will be better spent relocating to other more business-friendly states.
Posted on 02/18/2024 5:45:14 AM PST by devane617
New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) addressed New York business owners in a new interview and told them there was “nothing to worry about” after former President Trump was hit with a $355 million fine and the inability to conduct business in New York for three years.
Hochul joined John Catsimatidis on “The Cats Roundtable” on WABC 770 AM where she was asked if other New York businesspeople should be worried that if “they can do that to the former president, they can do that to anybody.”
“I think that this is really an extraordinary unusual circumstance that the law-abiding and rule-following New Yorkers who are business people have nothing to worry about because they’re very different than Donald Trump and his behavior,” Hochul responded.
A New York judge on Friday ordered Trump to pay the massive sum in penalties in a civil fraud case. The decision came just weeks after closing arguments wrapped up a months-long trial after New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) sued Trump for alleging he falsely altered his net worth to receive tax and insurance benefits.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
The money will be better spent relocating to other more business-friendly states.
there were probably accounting teams pulling extra hours to assure they haven’t done what Trump did
what Trump did, aka "common business practice".
Thanks for the laugh, man!
I don't want to bash you, I just want an honest debate of the issues.
I'm probably guilty of one or two cases of inserting assumptions like "probably" or "likely" or "possibly" in debates, but I try to limit that to hypothetical cases to make a point and not make assumptions about how we got to where we are (and everyone knows I'm not prefect...)
So I'm going to ask you how far are you willing to go to concoct edge cases in support of this being a legitimate use of the law against Trump? By my reckoning, you cited shaky edge case that were themselves loose interpretations of law, you suggested that the fines were not going to harmed entities as the law requires but would go to the general fund (against the law), and now you're assuming "accounting teams" who "pulled extra hours" for something that "Trump did" and lawyers "were consulted" about risks "if they did."
How many assumptions do you have to load into one sentence to justify this abuse of the consumer law? Why can't you take a step back and admit that, maybe this one time, Trump is being victimized by an abuse of the law?
-PJ
Let me add this now so I don't have to launch another iteration of response...
Do you realize that this law was passed 68 years ago in 1956? When we argue over one or two or three cases where it has been applied outside the general consumer protection intent, can you answer why now and not at all in the prior 60+ years?
Can you suggest why Attorneys General in recent years are finding what AGs and DAs in the past 68 years didn't see?
-PJ
I see now in this post on another thread that you are aware of how old this law is.
Following that debate from earlier today...
You said:
In regard to #1, there were some charges filed. Standard & Poors paid a 1.5 billion dollar fine for their role. Kareem Serageldin was the only banker in the United States who was sentenced to jail time for his role in the 2008 financial crisis. He was convicted of hiding losses by mismarking bond prices. Countrywide head man Angelo Mozilo paid $67.5 million to settle with the SEC on insider trading charges.
Were these charges pursuant to New York state 63(12) that we're discussing now or did you conflate different charges for different offenses at different times?
We're talking about a civil trial where Trump was found "liable," but you're citing criminal trials with convictions and prison sentences, and SEC insider trading crimes.
I just want to be sure that we're having an "apples to apples" debate, but I'm sadly finding out that you've been slipping criminal citations into the mix in other posts. It makes me wonder how consistent you are across threads or if you're just playing me in our own thread?
The bank’s admission that they knew Trump gave fraudulent numbers by cutting his claims in half. They in doing so ratted Trump out as submitting fraudulent financial documents. While they did business, it’s still against NY law to do what Trump did.
I have to say here, as much as it pains me to do so, that this reeks of classic yellow journalism.
What you call "The bank’s admission" is hardly that. It was testimony; it's your characterization that it was an "admission" of some sort.
You characterized: "they knew Trump gave fraudulent numbers by cutting his claims in half." If this were a Morracan Bazaar, I'd say this trinket was worth $20 and you'd offer $10. We'd agree on $15 and then you'd sue me because your offer of $10 was proof that my price of $20 was fraudulent?
You said: "While they did business, it’s still against NY law to do what Trump did."
What is the law? Is it 63(12) that we're debating now? That law was about scammers repeatedly using a scheme to defraud people. Was the haggling about price fraudulent because one party started at a higher point than the other when the all knew they would end up in the middle somewhere?
Are you not aware of game theory? Are you suggesting that game theory in negotiations is really a consumer scam that is prosecutable in the state of New York?
-PJ
As for the age of the law, it is what it is. The claim is only Trump has been charged under it. There have been others.
As for your Morrocan market and other negotiating situations, you’re comparing apples to concrete slabs. Yes the bank admitted in testimony that they knew Trump was submitting dubious numbers because they gave them a haircut (their term) as to what they believed the true value to be.
The question is not did Trump submit "dubious numbers," the question is did Trump do anything different from what any other borrowers have done in similar situations?
-PJ
Did he? N.Y. says law abiding businesses have nothing to fear.
-PJ
joesbucks: "Trump is a fraud".
joesbucks: "N.Y. says law abiding businesses have nothing to fear." - by implication, Trump is a "criminal".
Nicolle Wallace couldn't have vomited out the lie any better herself.
Maybe O'Leary is intentionally putting a target on his back (publicly defending Trump)
- to see if he becomes the next victim of the New York AGs office, or
- to see if his and other RE wheelers & dealers' freedoms to conduct business as usual are safe since Gov. Hochul promised no other NY RE developer will be harrassed like Orange-Man-Bad.
O'Leary would want to find out one way or another whether the Guvs "don't worry" stance just BS (as should be expected).
At the end of the day these guys say a lot of things that they end up doing just the opposite. Their mouths get in front of their skies. Sort of like the truckers who were going to refuse to haul into the city because of the Trump ruling. That fizzled pretty quickly.
I trust his experience in the world of mega-banking over yours or mine.
-PJ
It doesn’t take talent. Just guts. Again, let’s watch how he invests in the future.
He's a Last Worder, to the Nth degree.
It probably has affected his personal life, too, in unpleasant ways.
I trust his [Kevin O'Leary's] experience in the world of mega-banking over yours or mine.
joesattainders knows more than all of us.
Just ask him - he'll tell you.
It reminds me of the old joke: Why do you keep banging your head against the wall? Because it feels so good when I stop!
-PJ
A “cash equivalent” is an asset that can be converted into cash within 3 months. It seems that Trump would leverage these two properties for cash if need be. But YOUR lying, ludicrous, corrupt Judge Enron is not allowing Trump to work with any bank that does business in NYC to do that.
You two along with PeeBrain Nicole Wallace, the BBB AG, Biden, etc. are disgusting Americans who support the Putin/Soviet/CCP style persecution of political adversaries. You are too dumb to be ashamed of yourselves. Pray for America. With fellow citizens like you America requires each and every prayer.
It’s that their SFC’s were often in conflict with the professionals they hired to appraise the same asset. If the asset list didn’t identify them as a cash equivilant, that’s a material misrepresentation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.