So is this another OJ Simpson-type situation? Don't go to jail for what you did, just pay a fine for what you did? So no criminal consequences, but some civil ones for the same offense? I mean fraud must be a criminal offense in the US too, right?
This case involved charges of fraud made against Trump's company by the State of New York. This was a civil case, not a criminal case. The consequences were not supposed to be criminal.
The defamation lawsuits brought by E. Jean Carroll were also civil cases. She was not charging Trump with the crime of raping her many years ago; She was suing him (twice) for lying about whether he raped her many years ago. (She won both times.)
I think I get where you are coming from, though. When a person is rich enough to pay the fine, and also shameless enough to revel in the infamy of being found liable in a civil dispute, it can seem like that person doesn't end up suffering any significant consequence for their actions at all.
$355M is a lot of money. Add in the $83M owed to Carroll and these recent fines top $400M, which is an estimated amount of Trump's liquid assets. Trump is now likely running out of cash-on-hand, which could explain his recent takeover of the Republican National Committee -- the GOP's fundraising (and fund-spending) organization.
Criminal consequences come from criminal cases. Trump has invested most of his legal defense against the criminal cases he is facing. Pending criminal cases involving Trump include:
1.) A RICO ("Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations") case charged by the State of Georgia, against Trump and several others who allegedly conspired to steal the state's 16 electoral votes, including by having the President call (Republican) Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and ask him to "find 11,780 votes" for him. Four people in that case have already accepted a plea deal. This case is currently delayed by a motion to disqualify the DA because she had a romantic relationship with a lawyer her office hired to help prosecute the case.
2.) A federal case against Trump for retaining classified documents. A year or so ago, it was found that former President Trump and former VP Mike Pence had kept classified documents after they left office, and that when Joe Biden left the office of VP in 2017, he also kept some classified documents. Both Pence and Biden complied with federal investigation and surrendered the documents immediately when asked. Unlike Pence and Biden, Trump did not comply with federal investigation, and instead took action to conceal the classified documents in his possession. This case is being heard in a Florida courtroom, because Trump was storing these stolen national secrets in a spare bathroom at Mar-A-Lago. The judge is a Trump appointee, and has demonstrated a tendency to rule in Trumps favor whenever she can, but if she shows too much bias she may get taken off the case.
3.) A federal case against Trump for his involvement in the insurrectionist attempt to disrupt the electoral vote count in congress on January 6, 2021. Trump has been indicted on four charges in this case: "conspiracy to defraud the United States; conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding; and conspiracy against rights." Trump's defense has been that he has "absolute immunity" for any actions he took while serving as President. This claim of immunity has been denied and appealed multiple times. Trump has now asked the SCOTUS to hear his appeal, but they haven't said if they will yet. Until they do, that case is on hold, but there's no one else to appeal to higher than them. If SCOTUS chooses not to hear Trump's immunity appeal, the lower court's denial of it will stand and the case will go forward.
Thank you very much for the explanation and the great summary. 👍
Could you do these as regular posts? It was the perfect length and relevance to help me feel up to speed on all the cases!
It's not a criminal lawsuit I don't think jail was in the cards.
Yes, but why no criminal lawsuit as well? Defrauding people for hunderts of millions of dollars sure sounds like a offence to me that could/should lead to criminal charges. I don't get how this would not be obvious now that a judge already has found Trump guilty in a civil lawsuit.
Different standards of evidence, for one. The same evidence may not prove his guilt based on criminal statutes.
That's clear. If I understand it correctly, all it would take is a public prosecutor to bring criminal charges. Even if the criminal case against Trump in this fraud case ended in an acquittal, the civil judgment would still stand. I'm just trying to understand what the prosecution's thinking might be. Perhaps that they wanted to wait for the civil trial first in order to have a better chance with the jury in a criminal trial (even if the jury should in theory decide completely impartially, someone who has already been convicted of fraud will probably seem less credible). Another consideration could be related to the strange fact that an acquittal in the US prevents a retrial of the same case (as far as I know). Either way, it's all rather strange, I think.
It's not the easiest thing to sort out without being able to ask local DAs.
That’s coming. Dude has like 91 felony counts awaiting trial. First trial happens in March.
Aren't all of the 91 pending felony charges about other things?
It's hard to keep track of all the laws Trump has broken...
So is this another OJ Simpson-type situation? Don't go to jail for what you did, just pay a fine for what you did? So no criminal consequences, but some civil ones for the same offense? I mean fraud must be a criminal offense in the US too, right?
This case involved charges of fraud made against Trump's company by the State of New York. This was a civil case, not a criminal case. The consequences were not supposed to be criminal.
The defamation lawsuits brought by E. Jean Carroll were also civil cases. She was not charging Trump with the crime of raping her many years ago; She was suing him (twice) for lying about whether he raped her many years ago. (She won both times.)
I think I get where you are coming from, though. When a person is rich enough to pay the fine, and also shameless enough to revel in the infamy of being found liable in a civil dispute, it can seem like that person doesn't end up suffering any significant consequence for their actions at all.
$355M is a lot of money. Add in the $83M owed to Carroll and these recent fines top $400M, which is an estimated amount of Trump's liquid assets. Trump is now likely running out of cash-on-hand, which could explain his recent takeover of the Republican National Committee -- the GOP's fundraising (and fund-spending) organization.
Criminal consequences come from criminal cases. Trump has invested most of his legal defense against the criminal cases he is facing. Pending criminal cases involving Trump include:
1.) A RICO ("Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations") case charged by the State of Georgia, against Trump and several others who allegedly conspired to steal the state's 16 electoral votes, including by having the President call (Republican) Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and ask him to "find 11,780 votes" for him. Four people in that case have already accepted a plea deal. This case is currently delayed by a motion to disqualify the DA because she had a romantic relationship with a lawyer her office hired to help prosecute the case.
2.) A federal case against Trump for retaining classified documents. A year or so ago, it was found that former President Trump and former VP Mike Pence had kept classified documents after they left office, and that when Joe Biden left the office of VP in 2017, he also kept some classified documents. Both Pence and Biden complied with federal investigation and surrendered the documents immediately when asked. Unlike Pence and Biden, Trump did not comply with federal investigation, and instead took action to conceal the classified documents in his possession. This case is being heard in a Florida courtroom, because Trump was storing these stolen national secrets in a spare bathroom at Mar-A-Lago. The judge is a Trump appointee, and has demonstrated a tendency to rule in Trumps favor whenever she can, but if she shows too much bias she may get taken off the case.
3.) A federal case against Trump for his involvement in the insurrectionist attempt to disrupt the electoral vote count in congress on January 6, 2021. Trump has been indicted on four charges in this case: "conspiracy to defraud the United States; conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding; and conspiracy against rights." Trump's defense has been that he has "absolute immunity" for any actions he took while serving as President. This claim of immunity has been denied and appealed multiple times. Trump has now asked the SCOTUS to hear his appeal, but they haven't said if they will yet. Until they do, that case is on hold, but there's no one else to appeal to higher than them. If SCOTUS chooses not to hear Trump's immunity appeal, the lower court's denial of it will stand and the case will go forward.
Thank you very much for the explanation and the great summary. 👍
Could you do these as regular posts? It was the perfect length and relevance to help me feel up to speed on all the cases!
It's not a criminal lawsuit I don't think jail was in the cards.
Yes, but why no criminal lawsuit as well? Defrauding people for hunderts of millions of dollars sure sounds like a offence to me that could/should lead to criminal charges. I don't get how this would not be obvious now that a judge already has found Trump guilty in a civil lawsuit.
Different standards of evidence, for one. The same evidence may not prove his guilt based on criminal statutes.
That's clear. If I understand it correctly, all it would take is a public prosecutor to bring criminal charges. Even if the criminal case against Trump in this fraud case ended in an acquittal, the civil judgment would still stand. I'm just trying to understand what the prosecution's thinking might be. Perhaps that they wanted to wait for the civil trial first in order to have a better chance with the jury in a criminal trial (even if the jury should in theory decide completely impartially, someone who has already been convicted of fraud will probably seem less credible). Another consideration could be related to the strange fact that an acquittal in the US prevents a retrial of the same case (as far as I know). Either way, it's all rather strange, I think.
It's not the easiest thing to sort out without being able to ask local DAs.
That’s coming. Dude has like 91 felony counts awaiting trial. First trial happens in March.
Aren't all of the 91 pending felony charges about other things?
It's hard to keep track of all the laws Trump has broken...
If he doesnt pay is jail on the cards?
Asset seizure is in the cards