$355-$363+ MILLION Dollars! 3 year ban!

[LurkerNoMore]

Just calling out your usual bullshit. Wasn’t aware his impeachment proceedings have started….yet.

But I digress. By all means enlighten us with your infinite investment and business skills and explain how he lied and this was his fault. I can’t wait to hear this.

You sound all butthurt.

Impeachment inquiry.  Impeachment probe.  Impeachment investigation.  Actual impeachment.   *POOF* up in smoke.

How does it feel?  You hung all your hopes on this.  Now, nothing.  How does it feel?  Another day, another disappointment for you.

---
‘There’s No Question This Is Dead’: Biden Impeachment Inquiry Falls Apart
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=%E2%80%98There%E2%80%99s+No+Question+This+Is+Dead%E2%80%99%3A+Biden+Impeachment+Inquiry+Falls+Apart
---

[Coach is Back!]

You sound all butthurt.

Impeachment inquiry.  Impeachment probe.  Impeachment investigation.  Actual impeachment.   *POOF* up in smoke.

How does it feel?  You hung all your hopes on this.  Now, nothing.  How does it feel?  Another day, another disappointment for you.

---
‘There’s No Question This Is Dead’: Biden Impeachment Inquiry Falls Apart
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=%E2%80%98There%E2%80%99s+No+Question+This+Is+Dead%E2%80%99%3A+Biden+Impeachment+Inquiry+Falls+Apart
---

Did you really just send me to a query where every article has the same or close too the same headline? Now, I'll ask you again. What impeachment proceeding or trial has started? I'll bet your dumb ass is still believing that "there's no evidence" and that his brothers testimony from yesterday where he said "Joe Biden had no knowledge of my business dealings" with the proof sitting right in front of his with his own signature on it. Go ahead, Karl, deny it.

[Moontrane]

Top fines levied against privately owned companies in America:

Purdue Pharma (2020): Agreed to an $8.3 billion settlement to resolve lawsuits related to its role in the opioid crisis. Purdue Pharma filed for bankruptcy as part of a plan to transform into a public benefit company, which is a unique case of a privately owned company facing such a substantial penalty.

Koch Industries (2000): Paid $30 million for 300 oil spills across six states, which at the time was the largest civil fine ever imposed under the Clean Water Act against a private company.

Cargill (2005): Paid $24 million in fines and remediation costs for environmental violations at its saltwater ponds in the San Francisco Bay Area, marking one of the largest settlements of its kind.

Motiva Enterprises (2001): Faced a $10 million criminal fine and $25 million in civil penalties due to a tank collapse and sulfuric acid release in Delaware. While Motiva is a joint venture, its penalties highlight significant fines within the privately controlled sectors.

Ashland Inc. (2007): Agreed to a $28 million settlement for environmental damage caused by a diesel fuel spill, illustrating significant fines in the environmental sector against privately owned entities.

Icicle Seafoods (2015): Agreed to pay $1.3 million in fines and spend over $5 million to improve refrigeration equipment to settle violations of the Clean Air Act.

Freedom Industries (2014): Faced fines and a criminal penalty related to a chemical spill in West Virginia that contaminated the water supply for hundreds of thousands of residents. The specifics of the settlement include fines and restitution to affected communities.

Martin Resource Management Corporation (2016): A privately held company that agreed to pay a $1 million penalty and take corrective actions to settle Clean Air Act violations at its petroleum products terminals.

New England Compounding Pharmacy (2013): In the wake of a meningitis outbreak caused by contaminated steroid injections, faced criminal charges and significant financial penalties, though the exact figure encompasses compensation to victims and may not constitute a fine in the traditional sense.

Black Elk Energy (2015): Fined $4.2 million for federal safety violations leading to a fatal offshore platform explosion in 2012.

Specific to NY law (co-authored by Jeb Bush, of all people):

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-and-musk-cases-imperil-the-rule-of-law-new-york-delaware-courts-business-266a5559?mod=hp_opin_pos_3#cxrecs_s

"The unusual New York law Ms. James used to investigate and sue Mr. Trump didn’t require her to prove that he had intended to defraud anyone, or even that anyone lost money. The Associated Press found that of the 12 cases brought under that law since its adoption in 1956 in which significant penalties were imposed, the case against Mr. Trump was the only instance without an alleged victim or financial loss. Bankers from Deutsche Bank, which lent money to Mr. Trump, testified that they were satisfied with having done so, given they were paid back on time and with interest. They also testified that they were uncertain whether the alleged exaggerations would have affected the terms of the loans to Mr. Trump—a key part of Ms. James’s case. Since there were no victims, the state will collect the damages."

[LurkerNoMore]

Did you really just send me to a query where every article has the same or close too the same headline? Now, I'll ask you again. What impeachment proceeding or trial has started? I'll bet your dumb ass is still believing that "there's no evidence" and that his brothers testimony from yesterday where he said "Joe Biden had no knowledge of my business dealings" with the proof sitting right in front of his with his own signature on it. Go ahead, Karl, deny it.

Yeah I did.  Because it eliminates your usual excuse of "stop reading at *insert source here*"   So now you can take your pick where the facts come from.

So to say it again : 

Impeachment inquiry.  Impeachment probe.  Impeachment investigation.  Actual impeachment.   *POOF* up in smoke.

I bet your dumb ass still believes the election was stolen and Obama's birth certificate is fake.   

[chaos]

I agree people should be concerned.  But it isn’t as far as being hunted down because they don’t share the same political  views.  Trump was target for a number of reasons.  We know that it isn’t likely other privately owned businesses will get charged for over valuing their properties or lying on forms.

We don't know that now that they know they can succeed in charging people.

[LurkerNoMore]

How stupid were they to think they would actually get their request through?  This is a perfect example of you getting what you pay for.  Or in the case of incompetent counsel, what you didn't pay for.   What a moron.

Trumpy tells NATO - "you have to pay up"
Trumpy tells the court - "I can't pay up"

You morons better start writing those checks faster.

---
Judge in Trump civil fraud case denies request to delay $355 million penalty
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=Judge+in+Trump+civil+fraud+case+denies+request+to+delay+%24355+million+penalty

A New York judge presiding over former President Donald Trump’s civil fraud case has denied his legal team’s request to avoid paying a $355 million penalty in the case.

Trump lawyers had asked Judge Arthur Engoron to delay enforcement of the payment by 30 days to allow time for an "orderly post-judgement process."

In an email to the defendants posted Thursday to the court docket, Engoron said they had "failed to explain, much less justify, any basis for a stay."

"I am confident that the Appellate Division will protect your appellate rights," he wrote.

James said Monday she was prepared to seize Trump's assets if he is unable to pay the massive judgment handed down in his civil fraud case.

Trump could be at risk of losing some of his prized properties if he can't pay his staggering New York civil fraud penalty. With interest, he owes the state nearly $454 million — and the amount is going up $87,502 each day until he pays.

Engoron concluded that Trump lied for years about his wealth as he built the real estate empire that vaulted him to stardom and the White House. Trump denies wrongdoing and has vowed to appeal.

Trump's ability to pay his mounting legal debts is increasingly murky after back-to-back courtroom losses. In January, a jury ordered him to pay $83.3 million for defaming writer E. Jean Carroll.

Trump claimed last year that he has about $400 million in cash — reserves that would get eaten up by his court penalties. The rest of his net worth, which he says is several billion dollars, is tied up in golf courses, skyscrapers, and other properties, along with investments and other holdings.

Trump's promised appeal is likely to halt collection of his penalty while the process plays out.
---

[OzmO]

We don't know that now that they know they can succeed in charging people.

If history is any indication, this law has been used only 12 times since 1956.

My biggest issue is the penalty.  It's overboard.  I don't understand the reasoning for the severity of the penalty. 

[Coach is Back!]

If history is any indication, this law has been used only 12 times since 1956.

My biggest issue is the penalty.  It's overboard.  I don't understand the reasoning for the severity of the penalty.

The penalty alone is unconstitutional but since when did the Constitution ever stop leftists unless they thought it benefited them?

[OzmO]

The penalty alone is unconstitutional but since when did the Constitution ever stop leftists unless they thought it benefited them?

How is the penalty unconstitutional? 

[Coach is Back!]

How is the penalty unconstitutional?

I’m driving right now but I’m pretty sure it falls under the 8th Amendment

[OzmO]

I’m driving right now but I’m pretty sure it falls under the 8th Amendment

It might but I would think that would be the first place his defense team would argue.  Maybe they will later on. 

Here is what constitution.congress.go v has to say about it:

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt8-3/ALDE_00000962/

Eighth Amendment:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

For years the Supreme Court had little to say about excessive fines. In an early case, it held that it had no appellate jurisdiction to revise the sentence of an inferior court, even though the excessiveness of the fines was apparent on the face of the record.1 Justice Lewis Brandeis once contended in dissent that the denial of second-class mailing privileges to a newspaper on the basis of its past conduct, because it imposed additional mailing costs which grew day by day, amounted to an unlimited fine that was an unusual and unprecedented punishment proscribed by the Eighth Amendment.2 The Court has elected to deal with the issue of fines levied upon indigents, resulting in imprisonment upon inability to pay, in terms of the Equal Protection Clause,3 thus obviating any necessity to develop the meaning of excessive fines in relation to ability to pay. The Court has held the clause inapplicable to civil jury awards of punitive damages in cases between private parties, when the government neither has prosecuted the action nor has any right to receive a share of the damages awarded.4 The Court based this conclusion on a review of the history and purposes of the Excessive Fines Clause. At the time the Eighth Amendment was adopted, the Court noted, the word ‘fine’ was understood to mean a payment to a sovereign as punishment for some offense.5 The Eighth Amendment itself, as were antecedents of the clause in the Virginia Declaration of Rights and in the English Bill of Rights of 1689, clearly was adopted with the particular intent of placing limits on the powers of the new government.6 Therefore, while leaving open the issues of whether the clause has any applicability to civil penalties or to qui tam actions, the Court determined that the Excessive Fines Clause was intended to limit only those fines directly imposed by, and payable to, the government.7 The Court has held, however, that the Excessive Fines Clause can be applied in civil forfeiture cases.8


In 1998, however, the Court injected vitality into the strictures of the clause. The touchstone of the constitutional inquiry under the Excessive Fines Clause is the principle of proportionality: The amount of the forfeiture must bear some relationship to the gravity of the offense that it is designed to punish.9 In United States v. Bajakajian,10 the government sought to require that a criminal defendant charged with violating federal reporting requirements regarding the transportation of more than $10,000 in currency out of the country forfeit the currency involved, which totaled $357,144. The Court held that the forfeiture11 in this particular case violated the Excessive Fines Cause because the amount forfeited was grossly disproportionate to the gravity of defendant’s offense.12 In determining proportionality, the Court did not limit itself to a comparison of the fine amount to the proven offense, but it also considered the particular facts of the case, the character of the defendant, and the harm caused by the offense.13

I would love both sides on GB to weigh in on this. (With reason, not attacking each other)

[Coach is Back!]

It might but I would think that would be the first place his defense team would argue.  Maybe they will later on. 

Here is what constitution.congress.go v has to say about it:

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt8-3/ALDE_00000962/

Eighth Amendment:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

For years the Supreme Court had little to say about excessive fines. In an early case, it held that it had no appellate jurisdiction to revise the sentence of an inferior court, even though the excessiveness of the fines was apparent on the face of the record.1 Justice Lewis Brandeis once contended in dissent that the denial of second-class mailing privileges to a newspaper on the basis of its past conduct, because it imposed additional mailing costs which grew day by day, amounted to an unlimited fine that was an unusual and unprecedented punishment proscribed by the Eighth Amendment.2 The Court has elected to deal with the issue of fines levied upon indigents, resulting in imprisonment upon inability to pay, in terms of the Equal Protection Clause,3 thus obviating any necessity to develop the meaning of excessive fines in relation to ability to pay. The Court has held the clause inapplicable to civil jury awards of punitive damages in cases between private parties, when the government neither has prosecuted the action nor has any right to receive a share of the damages awarded.4 The Court based this conclusion on a review of the history and purposes of the Excessive Fines Clause. At the time the Eighth Amendment was adopted, the Court noted, the word ‘fine’ was understood to mean a payment to a sovereign as punishment for some offense.5 The Eighth Amendment itself, as were antecedents of the clause in the Virginia Declaration of Rights and in the English Bill of Rights of 1689, clearly was adopted with the particular intent of placing limits on the powers of the new government.6 Therefore, while leaving open the issues of whether the clause has any applicability to civil penalties or to qui tam actions, the Court determined that the Excessive Fines Clause was intended to limit only those fines directly imposed by, and payable to, the government.7 The Court has held, however, that the Excessive Fines Clause can be applied in civil forfeiture cases.8


In 1998, however, the Court injected vitality into the strictures of the clause. The touchstone of the constitutional inquiry under the Excessive Fines Clause is the principle of proportionality: The amount of the forfeiture must bear some relationship to the gravity of the offense that it is designed to punish.9 In United States v. Bajakajian,10 the government sought to require that a criminal defendant charged with violating federal reporting requirements regarding the transportation of more than $10,000 in currency out of the country forfeit the currency involved, which totaled $357,144. The Court held that the forfeiture11 in this particular case violated the Excessive Fines Cause because the amount forfeited was grossly disproportionate to the gravity of defendant’s offense.12 In determining proportionality, the Court did not limit itself to a comparison of the fine amount to the proven offense, but it also considered the particular facts of the case, the character of the defendant, and the harm caused by the offense.13

I would love both sides on GB to weigh in on this. (With reason, not attacking each other)

Problem here is, there was no offense. No one was defrauded, banks testified that all loans were paid back in full, on time and in some cases before. Egregious fines and penalties and the seizure of properties with no victims is what communism is made of.

[LurkerNoMore]

 

Come one red hats..... $111,000.00 per day isn't too much to ask.  Work a second job.  Cash in your 401K.  Sell your blood and plasma.  Sell you trailer.  Set up your direct deposit into his account.    Remember, he is doing this for YOU.   You need to grit your teeth and suffer a little for his efforts.


---
Judgment in Trump civil fraud case officially entered at $464 million
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=Judgment+in+Trump+civil+fraud+case+officially+entered+at+%24464+million

A clerk in New York has officially entered a more than $464 million fraud judgment against former President Donald Trump and top executives at his company — an amount that will grow by over $111,000 a day until it's paid.

The action starts the clock on the amount of time Trump has to file an appeal and to post a bond for the award. If he does not do so, the New York attorney general's office will be able to begin collection proceedings against Trump and his co-defendants in the civil fraud case.

The vast majority of the $464,576,230.62 judgment — $454,156,783.05 of it, to be exact — is against Trump and his companies. The rest of the judgment is against his sons Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, who've been running the Trump Organization since 2017, and former top executives Allen Weisselberg and Jeff McConney.

The amount includes the prejudgment interest that's accrued on the more than $350 million award Judge Arthur Engoron handed down last week.

Trump's lawyers had sought to delay the judgment from being entered, presumably to allow them more time to line up financing for the bond, but Engoron rejected that request Thursday.

“You have failed to explain, much less justify, any basis for a stay,” Engoron told Trump attorney Clifford S. Robert in an email before he signed the judgment. The judgment became official Friday after it was entered in by the clerk.

Trump attorney Alina Habba told Fox News on Monday that "we will be prepared" to post the bond amount.

The bond will likely be very costly. While courts have discretion in setting exactly how much is required for a bond, New York courts typically require up to 120% of the judgment, including all pre-judgment interest. That means he could have to post a bond for well over $500 million.
---

[Coach is Back!]

Come one red hats..... $111,000.00 per day isn't too much to ask.  Work a second job.  Cash in your 401K.  Sell your blood and plasma.  Sell you trailer.  Set up your direct deposit into his account.    Remember, he is doing this for YOU.   You need to grit your teeth and suffer a little for his efforts.


---
Judgment in Trump civil fraud case officially entered at $464 million
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=Judgment+in+Trump+civil+fraud+case+officially+entered+at+%24464+million

A clerk in New York has officially entered a more than $464 million fraud judgment against former President Donald Trump and top executives at his company — an amount that will grow by over $111,000 a day until it's paid.

The action starts the clock on the amount of time Trump has to file an appeal and to post a bond for the award. If he does not do so, the New York attorney general's office will be able to begin collection proceedings against Trump and his co-defendants in the civil fraud case.

The vast majority of the $464,576,230.62 judgment — $454,156,783.05 of it, to be exact — is against Trump and his companies. The rest of the judgment is against his sons Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, who've been running the Trump Organization since 2017, and former top executives Allen Weisselberg and Jeff McConney.

The amount includes the prejudgment interest that's accrued on the more than $350 million award Judge Arthur Engoron handed down last week.

Trump's lawyers had sought to delay the judgment from being entered, presumably to allow them more time to line up financing for the bond, but Engoron rejected that request Thursday.

“You have failed to explain, much less justify, any basis for a stay,” Engoron told Trump attorney Clifford S. Robert in an email before he signed the judgment. The judgment became official Friday after it was entered in by the clerk.

Trump attorney Alina Habba told Fox News on Monday that "we will be prepared" to post the bond amount.

The bond will likely be very costly. While courts have discretion in setting exactly how much is required for a bond, New York courts typically require up to 120% of the judgment, including all pre-judgment interest. That means he could have to post a bond for well over $500 million.
---

Nah, we spending our money on bullets to purge communists. The good news is Trumps numbers are skyrocketing while Biden’s are taking a proverbial shit at 38%

[chaos]

Problem here is, there was no offense. No one was defrauded, banks testified that all loans were paid back in full, on time and in some cases before. Egregious fines and penalties and the seizure of properties with no victims is what communism is made of.

Is this true

[LurkerNoMore]

Nah, we spending our money on bullets to purge communists. The good news is Trumps numbers are skyrocketing while Biden’s are taking a proverbial shit at 38%

Who is "we"?   Because everyone here knows you won't be doing shit but sitting on the internet.

[Gym Rat]

I buy a case of ammo every couple of months, just to have.
Need enough for my 9 Firearms I suppose.

The stuff that makes libturdz cry...

Can always blow it all off at the range eventually, for now just stocking...

[Coach is Back!]

Is this true

100% true. This is nothing theft and communist seizing of assets and property

[Coach is Back!]

Who is "we"?   Because everyone here knows you won't be doing shit but sitting on the internet.

Shut up stupid and just stay in your moms basement where you might be safe

[LurkerNoMore]

Shut up stupid and just stay in your moms basement where you might be safe

Safe from what?  Manlets like you with larping fantasies?  You won't be doing shit except camping out on the internet just like always.  You would be the first one eliminate in a kiddie Air Soft tournament. 

[deadz]

I buy a case of ammo every couple of months, just to have.
Need enough for my 9 Firearms I suppose.

The stuff that makes libturdz cry...

Can always blow it all off at the range eventually, for now just stocking...

Have 1000 rounds in my closet. Trump is sailing into the 2024 Presidency.

[chaos]

Have 1000 rounds in my closet. Trump is sailing into the 2024 Presidency.

You gotta pump up those numbers, those are rookie numbers.

[Coach is Back!]

Have 1000 rounds in my closet. Trump is sailing into the 2024 Presidency.

Bump it up by at the very least 10x that.

[LurkerNoMore]

Yep.... looks like he won't be making Forbes again this year.   
So what happened to the $400M in cash "liquid assets" he bragged about?        Well, he can always get a loan at the bank.   Oh, wait....           You know, real billionaires don't have little problems like that.

---
Trump cannot line up full bond in New York fraud case, offers to post $100 million
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=Trump+cannot+line+up+full+bond+in+New+York+fraud+case%2C+offers+to+post+%24100+million

Donald Trump is unable to post a full bond while he appeals a $454.2 million judgment that a judge imposed in New York state's civil fraud case against him, and wants instead to secure a $100 million bond, his lawyers said on Wednesday.

In a filing with the Appellate Division, a mid-level appeals court, Trump's lawyers said the "exorbitant and punitive amount of the judgment coupled with an unlawful and unconstitutional blanket prohibition on lending transactions would make it impossible to secure and post a complete bond."

They said a $100 million bond, together with Trump's "vast" real estate holdings and ongoing oversight by a court-designated monitor for the Trump Organization, would be more than sufficient to secure the judgment.

Trump's lawyers also sought to temporarily stay enforcement of the judgment during his appeal, saying he would suffer "irreparable harm" if James forced the sale of his real estate assets to raise capital.

Trump is also seeking to avoid posting a full bond during an expected appeal of last month's $83.3 million defamation verdict in favor of the writer E. Jean Carroll.

He has asked the judge in that case to let him appeal without posting any security, or alternatively by posting at most a $24.5 million unsecured bond.
---

[Primemuscle]

Yep.... looks like he won't be making Forbes again this year.   
So what happened to the $400M in cash "liquid assets" he bragged about?        Well, he can always get a loan at the bank.   Oh, wait....           You know, real billionaires don't have little problems like that.

---
Trump cannot line up full bond in New York fraud case, offers to post $100 million
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=Trump+cannot+line+up+full+bond+in+New+York+fraud+case%2C+offers+to+post+%24100+million

Donald Trump is unable to post a full bond while he appeals a $454.2 million judgment that a judge imposed in New York state's civil fraud case against him, and wants instead to secure a $100 million bond, his lawyers said on Wednesday.

In a filing with the Appellate Division, a mid-level appeals court, Trump's lawyers said the "exorbitant and punitive amount of the judgment coupled with an unlawful and unconstitutional blanket prohibition on lending transactions would make it impossible to secure and post a complete bond."

They said a $100 million bond, together with Trump's "vast" real estate holdings and ongoing oversight by a court-designated monitor for the Trump Organization, would be more than sufficient to secure the judgment.

Trump's lawyers also sought to temporarily stay enforcement of the judgment during his appeal, saying he would suffer "irreparable harm" if James forced the sale of his real estate assets to raise capital.

Trump is also seeking to avoid posting a full bond during an expected appeal of last month's $83.3 million defamation verdict in favor of the writer E. Jean Carroll.

He has asked the judge in that case to let him appeal without posting any security, or alternatively by posting at most a $24.5 million unsecured bond.
---

Well, this did not take long.

'Appeals court denies request to delay $464M fraud judgment after Trump offers to post $100M bond.'

Message to Trump, it is time to liquidate your assets. Will Trump and family vacate Mar-a largo?