'A lot of money': Trump owes $87K in interest per day until he pays the fine in his civil fraud case
Former President Donald Trump owes an additional $87,502 in post-judgment interest every day until he pays the $354 million fine ordered by Judge Arthur Engoron in his civil fraud case, according to ABC News' calculations based on the judge's lengthy ruling in the case.
Judge Engoron on Friday fined Trump $354 million plus approximately $100 million in pre-judgment interest in the civil fraud case brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James, after he found that Trump and his adult sons had inflated Trump's net worth in order to get more favorable loan terms. The former president has denied all wrongdoing and has said he will appeal.
Engoron ordered Trump to pay pre-judgment interest on each ill-gotten gain -- with interest accruing based on the date of each transaction -- as well as a 9% post-judgment interest rate once the court enters the judgment in the case.
Okay, I hope you never end up breaking any rule in our rules-based society, because I ain't bailing you out.
Being an average law abiding citizen and not an infamous, law breaking billionare, I'm not too worried. See, rules-based societies work great for people who can follow the rules.
Okay, let's do a little thought exercise here, shall we?
Smoking and selling marijuana was illegal for much of the last century or so. Now both is legal in many states. While it was still illegal, many people all over the country were convicted under that law. Do you agree, then, that because what they did was illegal at the time, them being punished was justice being served AT THE TIME, regardless of whether it is now legal?
Should people who were convicted unter the old law be forced to sit out their sentences in full because at the time, their conviction was fully in accordance with rules-based society, or is it possible that rules can be wrong, regardless of how technically legal they are?
Your thought exercise is about something legal that used to be illegal. Has fraud suddenly become legal? No? So what's your point? Your 'lying on a resume' example made more sense, even if it was ridiculous.
They made voting without an ID legal in some states. Isn’t that basically legalizing fraud, or at least inviting or enabling it?
Sorry, but I’m afraid “this would never happen” a bad excuse. This change would have been unthinkable ten years ago.
They key phrase is "they made it... legal."
Right. You rejected my thorough experiment on the basis that fraud would never be made legal, so I gave you an example where this has literally happened, and your response is “then it’s no longer fraud”?
My God, are you literally this stupid or are you being paid to pretend you are?
No I rejected it on the basis that fraud is currently illegal.
It doesn't matter if it remains illegal. You get tried for things that are currently illegal. If they decide to repeal those laws about investor fraud, then your comparison to pot users makes sense. AFTER they repeal those laws Donald might be able to seek some recourse. And right after that you can kiss the economy goodbye, since it's all built on investor confidence.
And saying that some states have 'legalized fraud' basically shows that you don't understand or accept the legal definition of fraud.
No and no
How would you feel if you didn’t have breakfast this morning?
How would YOU feel?
I would feel like you’re either smart enough to have recognized the implication of answering that question truthfully, in which case you’re also smart enough to have understood the previous analogy and you were just pretending to be too dumb, or you’re just habitually manipulative because it tends to get you what you want most of the time, but you don’t really understand why.
In either case, this conversation is over because you’re clearly a liar and unwilling to admit when you’ve been caught. Have a good day.
I would feel like you answered my substantive response with a question about breakfast, and given your track record on analogies I thought I'd just skip the part where I try to figure out if it makes sense and ask you the answer directly.
You're one of these people who seems to think the world works how they think it should work.
And you’re one of those people who’s happy to use “the world doesn’t work the way you think it should work” as an excuse to lie, manipulate, and abuse others.
Quick question: What are your thoughts on Hunter Biden?
He should probably be in jail, and definitely on some sort of drug rehab program.
Also, you gotta wonder what sort of shitty dad Joe was for his son to turn out the way he did.
So forgiving past crimes with no victims is only for Trump then?
So those underage prostitutes he filmed himself doing drugs and having sex with don’t count as victims then? Good to know.
How about Joe should be in jail for whatever he did to make Hunter this way, and Hunter should be in closed rehab. My guess is he probably IS a victim of his father in some way, so I’m willing to spare him from prison, but he probably shouldn’t have any access to drugs or unsupervised contact with children or teens.
Does that sound fair?
The party of personal responsibility everybody!
What did Joe do? Or should Joe be in jail for the crimes you imagine he did, while Trump shouldn't be fined for the crimes he definitely did?
Hunter is a drug addict, a sex addict, and a pedophile. I imagine you don't just magically turn out that way if you had a great and unproblematic childhood, but I suppose child abuse isn't technically illegal unless it's violent, so... yay Joe?
Anyways, I fail to see how holding Trump accountable while defending your own guy from accusations is supposed to teach me a lesson on how responsibility is supposed to work. Isn't that precisely the same behavior you're accusing me of?
That precisely what you're doing right now. That's the point. You're excusing Trump of convicted crimes for which he has to pay a fine, and at the same time you're ready to jail Biden for crimes you have imagined. If there was an actual crime then present actual evidence. You know, like the Prosecution did in Trump's trial: presented overwhelming evidence of crime.
It's always projection.
Okay, forget Joe. Let’s focus on Hunter then, because there’s plenty of evidence on that laptop.
Some of the pictures show naked girls who are clearly underage in sexually suggestive poses. That’s evidence of child exploitation, sexual abuse, and potentially possession of child pornography and statutory rape.
Those are all definitely crimes. Should he stand trial for that? Or are you comfortable letting that one slip by the wayside because it’s just so unsightly and imagine the damage it would do to Biden’s image if this went to public trial and was covered in the media even at a fraction of the intensity that Trump gets.
But no, fuck those children, right? Who cares about what they went trough. What’s really important here is that Trump put some wrong numbers on a piece of paper (which the bank testified they didn’t believe ANYWAY) and nobody got hurt.
Well according to you as long as those children say they're okay with it there's no victim and no crime right?
If there's evidence then fucking charge him with a crime already. Let the courts look at the evidence and decide. I don't know why he's being charged in the court of public opinion, instead of an actual court.
First of all, has anyone asked them?
Second of all, it’s still a crime, and according to YOU it doesn’t matter if anyone got hurt, doing a crime is ILLEGAL and therefore ought to be punished.
Well, as you probably already know, the Justice Department is run by Democrats, and they have more important things to do.
Like, uh… conducting a training on timber and wildlife enforcement in Guatemala.
Yeah. That’s really important stuff, you know.
But honestly, we can keep accusing each other of having double standards till the cows come home, but the fact of the matter is that Trump already HAS been convicted and me arguing that it shouldn’t have happened won’t change anything about that. So as far as I can see, that doesn’t remove the basis on which I’m calling for the law to be equally applied to Democrats and their relatives, even when it is massively inconvenient to them. Because law is law, right? And justice must be served, even if it’s just some wrong numbers on a paper.
But we both know that’s not likely to happen unless either Trump wins or Democrat voters start demanding an inquiry, but I’m certainly not going to hold my breath for that one.
So in closing, nice to meet you, pot, my name is kettle.
Correct. I was pointing out the absurdity of your "no victims" argument. I'm glad you agree with me that crimes are illegal and should be punished.
In order to decide that punishment there should be a trial in court, not idiots on the internet insisting evidence must exist but some "deep state" is suppressing it.
Jfc this is the dumbest take. Republicans could bring him to trial if they wanted to and actually had any evidence. Instead they have more important things to do like... Insist on a closed door investigation. Remember when Hunter Biden showed up, willing to answer questions, but insisted it be a public hearing instead of a closed hearing? I wonder why Republicans didn't take him up on that.
I mean, if the "deep state" is suppressing charges, and they have all this evidence why not air it publicly when the opportunity presents itself and lay the "corruption" bare for all to see? What reason could they possibly have to insist on not doing it publicly? (Other than the obvious one that they have nothing and it's all made up to fool idiots who don't question what Republicans tell them.)
I agree. I believe you'll find I am consistent in my belief that people who do crimes should be charged, bought to trial, and punished for them. Some idiot insisting "they must have done crimes" does not make it so. If there is evidence, then fucking present it and charge them. If they're not going to charge them, that's because there is no evidence, and they need to shut the fuck up about it.
No, they can't, because they weren't directly harmed by any of what Hunter's laptop contains evidence of, so there is no grounds to file a civil suit against him. All they can do (and have, of course, done repeatedly) is say "but there's evidence of criminal conduct there", but the decision of whether or not to investigate and bring charges is up to the AG, who despite calling himself an independent, doesn't seem particularly keen on pursuing any investigation that could potentially harm the image of the Democrat party or the sitting president, especially not in an election year.
Instead, he prefers to go after parents who show up for their local school board meetings, or swat the homes of faithful Catholics for the crime of silently praying in front of abortion clinics. You know, because that's all very important stuff, just like those trees in Guatemala.
No, I don't, and I don't follow politics closely enough to say I never miss anything, so could you please provide me a link on that?
Okay, that's great, but simply believing that doesn't make it so, does it? And looking only at instances where people you hate or disagree with have been brought to trial doesn't prove that it is, in fact, so. If Democrats are, as you claim, better at doing justice, show me the evidence of Democrats having been brought to trial and indicted by Democrats, unless you also want to claim that Democrats simply don't do any crime.
Again, in cases where it's a matter of only a law having been broken, or when no victim has the courage of coming forward and making an allegation, it is on the Attorney General to prosecute. And they have full power to decide what they will and won't spend their time on. So I'm afraid that "no charges have been brought" is not a good enough indicator of whether or not a law has been broken or a crime has occurred.