The Trump NY civil trial nonsense continues....

The judge in question already suggested before the Trial that Trump lost and is basically just figuring out how much money Trump should be fined...

After realizing that she could not charge anyone from the Trump organization for any crimes because there was no victim, Letitia James filed a civil case against the Trump organizations suggesting dubiously that the state of NY was somehow harmed by the fact that banks gave Donald Trump loans that she has deemed were not justified.

Now the crazies on the left will demand that Trump "overstated" the value of his buildings and such to garner said loans and that this is a horrible crime. But of course, liberals are not grown up and probably never actually went through any sort of mortgage process or anything else that required a loan with some form of collateral. If they did, they would realize that banks do not take the "word" of a person when it comes to the value of the properties. Instead they actually have people who work for them such as "appraisers" and "underwriters" who actually determine the worth of property and how much risk a bank is willing to take on a loan. If the actual appraisals were overstated, then that is technically on the lender, not the borrower. Moreover, the lenders in question openly stated that they did not use any of the Trump appraisals as the basis of providing their loans.

In the case of Trump, it may be true that according to some appraisers the property was not worth what the appraised on the loans, but ultimately the banks make these decisions and the banks in question decided to give the Trump organization the loans in question. Loans that were not defaulted or otherwise problematic to anyone actually involved. If the loans are paid and the banks are happy, who is the State of New York to judge differently?

Well enter, Letitia James who campaigned (like Alvin Bragg) on "getting" Trump and won by 30 points. Obviously there is little interest in the State of New York for the actual rule of law, but rather a distinct focus on using the law to get Donald Trump. This is the classic, you show me the man and I will show you the crime situation. She decided (again quite legally dubiously) that New York State suffered because Donald Trump was provided loans from banks that made their interest and got their payment. She is currently attempting to sue for a somewhere between a quarter and half billion dollars (yes, billion with a b). In other words, she is attempting to bankrupt Trump and put the Trump organization out of business. And let's be honest. The loan nonsense is simply the excuse being used.

The Judge in question (openly partisan Democrat who is most famous now for laughing at Trump in the courtroom) had come into the Trial already ruling that the Trump organization was guilty. He has already ruled that pretty much all of the Trump family members will have their business license's revoked in New York and deemed that Trump Org will basically not be allowed to do business in New York. This week he placed a "gag order" on Trump over a tweet where he criticized the Judge's legal assistant who has been seen in pictures with Chuck Schumer and other prominent Democrats.

McCarthy points out the obvious here in his article.

The point here is a fundamental tenet of Western law: The punishment must fit the crime. That principle is reflected in the Eighth Amendment’s prohibitions on excessive fines and punishments that are cruel and unusual.

Let’s put aside Trump’s insistence that James is undervaluing his assets and that even the appraisals she relies on — which often feature significant differences in valuations of the same asset by various good-faith appraisers — illustrate that valuation is an inexact science, just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Trump’s business counterparties were sophisticated financial actors who dealt with him based on their own thoroughgoing appraisals. He as much as told them his valuations were sketchy, and they did not rely on those valuations. After doing their own due diligence, they made loans or gave coverage to him because they surmised that doing so would be profitable.

You want to tell me that Trump ought to be fined, say, $1 million for a dozen years of knowing, significant misrepresentations? I could see that. To be honest, I’d still think it somewhat excessive given the fact that no harm was done.

Whether I’m right or wrong about that, though, we’re not talking here about $1 million. We’re talking about $250 million. We’re talking about putting out of business a multibillion-dollar conglomerate, a New York fixture for decades, in a case where no one was defrauded. We’re talking about a state trying to make sure Trump and his co-defendants (including his adult sons) can’t open a business or apply for a loan.

That’s not justice; it’s political aggression. And Trump is fighting it on those terms.

That is the bottom line here folks. Trump is playing this as a political game because that is what is it. He will appeal (all the way to the USSC if necessary) under the guise that this is an excessive penalty and will obviously win at some level (likely as soon as he takes it to Federal court). The State of New York might still be able to claim that Trump committed some fraud, but the rest of this is likely going to be overturned as well it should be. We should not allow one elected politician to bring charges against a political opponent who is then judged by a single politically aligned Judge and have a longstanding multi-billion dollar business taken away and fined a quarter of a billion dollars for something that quite literally caused nobody any harm. If it is allowed to stand, then we have no justice anymore.