Maggie's Farm

If you exceed the speed limit on a public road, and no one gets hurt, did you break the law? Society has an interest in safety on public roads, and New York also has an interest in maintaining an honest business environment. (The penalty trial has yet to conclude.)


The fraud was continuous over the course of years. The reason why shutting down the business makes sense is because that seems to be the only way to prevent the fraud from continuing. Trump probably could have worked out a deal, but he’s incapable of admitting error or changing his behavior.

As for being before a civil trial, before trial, each side provides their evidence to the court. If the prosecutor does not present a convincing case, then the court can enter a summary judgment for the defendant. If the prosecutor presents to the court a convincing case, then if the defense does not provide a reasonable defense, then a summary judgment can be entered against the defendant. If you read the summary judgment, it’s clear that Trump failed to provide evidentiary support for his valuations. They argued, in essence and contrary to law, that Trump’s gut valuations have validity. Tripling the physical size of his personal condo was particularly egregious.


If the case were a criminal charge, then a showing of scienter would be required. However, in a civil action, someone attesting to a financial statement can be held liable. Under § 63(12), it requires a showing of persistent fraud (such as misrepresentation).

mudbug: The fraud the NY AG alleges was against a bank or several banks.

Again, the law doesn't require a complaint. New York has an "interest in guaranteeing a marketplace that adheres to standards of fairness."

mudbug: In the speeding example, the speeder acting in public.

That's right. New York has an interest in guaranteeing safety on public roads, so they passed legislation which sets speed limits, which can be enforced without a complaint, without a victim, and without anyone being harmed. The 'rules of the road' for doing business is that you can't make misrepresentations in financial statements. Not being deceptive is not some arcane requirement.

mudbug: if Mar-a-Lago were in NYC that they would value it at only $18M.

Location. Location. Location.

The courts have determined that valuation must be an objectively reasonable conclusion based on credible evidence. Trump’s puffery does not meet that qualification.

You might want to read the summary judgment. Trump ignored his own professional appraisals; considered property values without covenant restrictions; and imagined some future value that cannot be the basis for current value.

With regards to Mar-a-Lago, the judge didn't determine the value of the property, but that's all he had to work with. But if you leave Mar-a-Lago aside, how the heck is tripling the floor space of his personal condo he's lived in for years a reasonable valuation?

James: One alleged fraudulent evaluation was done by an appraised hired by a bank, not Trump.

Which property?

James: Be careful when braking norms and establishing new standards.

We are quite conservative in that regard. Norms generally came into being for a reason, though those reasons may no longer be relevant. While change is inevitable, rapid change can lead to chaos due to unintended consequences.

feeblemind: But of course he can defy Congress.

Chan agreed to testify, but wants his personal attorney there, and the Department of Justice wants their attorney there. As there are separate interests involved, that would seem reasonable. (By the way, if you remember, Jordan actually did defy a Congressional subpoena.)

That's false on its face, as Trump has been criminally indicted for withholding classified documents in defiance of a court order. An indictment is not a conviction, but there is probable cause evidence that has stood up in court.


Russia interfered in the US election, including hacking the DNC, then released the hacked emails to cause maximum political damage to Clinton. Trump's campaign manager provided internal polling data to a Russian agent. The Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee found that Russia was attempting to help Trump, that the Trump campaign welcomed the interference, and that contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian agents constituted a grave intelligence threat.

SK: Russia always interferes in US elections . . . they got a lot of bang for their buck . . .

Yes. However, social media allowed Russia to build an army of trolls to amplify conspiratorial memes in order to sow confusion and to help Trump. Many of those memes are still bouncing around the right-wing echochamber.

SK: By the way, the Russians could have contracted with the polling company themselves. Nothing illegal or even immoral about sharing private data with foreign govts

That is not correct. It is illegal under U.S. law for Russia to interfere in U.S. elections. Providing assistance to Russia to help them interfere U.S. elections would also be illegal. For a U.S. candidate for federal office to welcome foreign interference threatens the foundation of representative democracy.

SK: Contracting with a polling co. is not interfering in an election and Russia can do it

Buying polling data to use for election interference would be furtherance of the crime. Buying a rope isn't a crime—unless you plan to give it to a conspirator to kidnap someone. (The detailed, precinct-level data was not available publicly.)

SK: . . . Clinton . . .

But, but, her emails!