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.
Who gives a toss what the banks say? They aren’t the real victim, rules based society is.
Okay, I hope you never end up breaking any rule in our rules-based society, because I ain’t bailing you out.
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.
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