I didn’t read it that way. It’s not suggesting he gets off scot-free. The issue is the remedy.
Cancelling the business licences is likely the most extreme remedy possible, reserved for the worst cases. The absence of identifiable victims of the fraud may count against that remedy.
That still leaves open orders for disgorgement of proceeds of the fraud.
Note that the article suggests that the AGNY didn’t ask for the business licences to be cancelled. I’ve not seen that anywhere else, but if that is correct, it may support the argument that cancellation is not appropriate when there are no identifiable victims.
The comparisons they gave were all on a much smaller scale. This kind of fraud on the billion dollar scale can take down an entire economy with a huge number of victims. The scale makes it far worse.
Look at the subprime mortgage crisis. The fact that the underlying assets were misvalued (not illegally so, but the economic principle is the same) was not a problem for many years while things were generally healthy. The alcoholic driving drunk got lucky and didn’t kill anyone for many years. If you followed the “no victims” or “no actual harm” argument, there were no victims until 2007. Then it took down the entire economy.
Simply revoking his right to do business in New York state would be a big penalty. If that includes forfeiture of his properties, then the effective fine becomes … some indeterminate number, which he would claim to be X while New York would put it at Y.
“I didn’t do anything wrong. I mean, that’s been proven, as far as I’m concerned. And actually, we won in the Court of Appeals. You probably saw that. That case has been largely won in the Court of Appeals,” Trump said, referring to the civil fraud trial, which he has not won in the New York Court of Appeals. “That was a political case, coordinated with the White House by the attorney general, I assume is what you’re talking about. And we won that case largely in the Court of Appeals.”
Does he think that he’s appealed the fraud case, and that he won? Is just flat-out lying? Or is he confused and thinking of come other appeal that he won? (If the last, which one?)
That one. It’s that one. He knows his base has no idea, so he says he won and they’ll believe it. Just like he said he won the election and his base believed it. Or he said the Muller report ‘exonerated’ him, when it didn’t.
Lying is kinda his thing. Cite: the first sentence of that quote: “I didn’t do anything wrong. I mean, that’s been proven”.
I seem to recall that, early on in the trial, a business analyst testified to the difference in interest the banks could have made had the financial disclosures been honest.
First, he didn’t answer the question that was asked of him.
That’s first, he wants everyone to miss that.
Then he rambles and lies, until it’s someone else’s turn to ask a question.
Maga dipshits will believe that he answered the question, which he didn’t, because they’re not interested in truth.
This happened at my old job, but several years later they converted everything to SAP. Then, a few years after that they outsourced the entire IT department. Thank dog that’s the year retired.
The appeal that was won I believe is the one that said the limitations on invanka trump had run out, the case that moved forward was against trump, his 2 sons, a some others in the organization.
He seems to believe or convinced himself that the appeal applied to all of them, when it was just applied to ivanka.
There was another appeal (or possibly part of that one) that said that the statute of limitations had expired on some of the charges that they wanted to bring. Trump thought that meant they couldn’t refer to those years/data in the case. They couldn’t charge him for his actions in years x-y - but could use that information in the case about year z.
Which is hilarious because “you can’t get me because of the statute of limitations!” does not in any way, shape or form mean that he is innocent. I have never seen anyone who brags about being guilty so much and then turns around and complains about being in trouble.
The comparison to a drunk driver doesn’t work. For any breach of a legal standard, there is a range of potential penalties, and the more severe penalties are reserved for the cases that cause the most harm.
A drunk driver who doesn’t harm anyone has committed a crime and should be punished.
A drunk driver who crashes into another car and injures the occupants has committed a crime and should be punished, more severely.
A drunk driver who crashes into another car and kills someone has committed a crime and should be punished the most severely.
Cancelling the certificates of all Trump Org corporations and barring Trump from doing business in New York state would be the most severe penalty under the statute, as far as I can tell. The lack of identifiable victims of the frauds is a factor that should be considered in assessing whether that penalty is warranted.