Defending the family

Share on MeWe Share on Gab E-mail article

No Evidence of Fraud: Trump $364 Million Judgement Will Be Overturned On Appeal

"There is no evidence of fraud and the judge in the New York civil case ignored all testimony contrary to his preconcieved determination that fraud occurred. The appeal, when filed in 30 days, will include other wrongful fabrications and misrepresentations accepted as facts and attempt to add other facts now allowed by the Judge. In this case the prosecutor could be charged with unethical bias singling out Trump years in advance which is clearly barred by courts or normal legal pratice. Most legal authorities know that is a text book case of political harrassment to interfere with the 2024 election, the security deposit for the appeal can be raised, and the adverse ruling could be overturned based on long standing rulings. Part of the appeal could be a federal process but that may be announced after 30 days," said Eugene Delgaudio, president of Public Advocate.

The Federalist reports:

A New York judge fined Donald Trump and the Trump Organization $350 million on Friday, marking Democrats' latest bid to financially and politically cripple the former president ahead of the 2024 election.

According to The New York Times, Justice Arthur Engoron ruled that "the former president [is] liable for conspiring to manipulate his net worth" and mandated "he pay a penalty of $355 million that could wipe out his entire stockpile of cash." The justice also banned Trump from serving in top roles "at any New York company, including his own," for three years.

The lawsuit against Trump, his children, and their business was filed by New York Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat who campaigned on weaponizing the legal system to target Trump. As The Federalist's Tristan Justice previously reported, James alleged the aforementioned individuals and the Trump Organization "'grossly' inflated their assets in financial statements by billions of dollars."

However, during previous court testimony, Eli Bartov, an accounting professor at New York University, said "there is no evidence whatsoever of any accounting fraud" by Trump or his associates and further claimed his analysis "shows the statements of financial condition for all the years were not materially misstated."

Friday's ruling was hardly surprising given the level of bias Engoron demonstrated throughout the trial. In September, for example, the justice relied upon a faulty appraisal of Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate to "conclude that Trump's substantially higher self-reported appraisal was a fraudulent inflation of the property's value." Engoron also placed a temporary gag order on the former president the following month and was caught laughing at the start of a court proceeding.

The civil penalties levied against Trump represent Democrats' latest attempt to weaponize the legal system against the former president to keep him from getting reelected this fall. Across four different venues, the Biden Justice Department and Democrat prosecutors have levied a collective 91 criminal indictments against Trump, with the goal of imprisoning the likely Republican presidential nominee before the November election.

And these charges don't even include the various attempts by Democrat election officials to kick Trump off the ballot in states such as Maine and Colorado.

Despite casting themselves as the party of "democracy," Democrats are utilizing every tool at their disposal to deprive voters of a free and fair electoral process. If they aren't attempting to throw Trump in prison, they're trying to strip away his financial assets and ability to sustain a living.

ABC News Reports:

Here are three of the main arguments Trump's team has presented in his defense.

Trump's 'worthless clause'

Trump's lawyers have repeatedly touted a section of his financial statements that Trump refers to as his "worthless clause."

"It says, very strongly, 'Do your own due diligence. Do your own work. Do your own study. Don't take anything from this statement for granted,'" Trump testified during the state's case last month.

Trump's lawyers have used this disclaimer in an attempt to insulate Trump from any alleged wrongdoing, since he warned his lenders that the statements might be incorrect -- an argument reinforced by testimony from defense experts.

"I never saw anything that is clearer than that. Even my nine-year-old granddaughter Emma would understand this language," the defense's accounting expert, Eli Bartov, testified about Trump's disclaimer. Another expert, Jason Flemmons, said that Trump disclosed that 95% of his financial statement departed from generally accepted accounting principles.....................

'No evidence' of a conspiracy

Trump's lawyers have argued that state attorneys have failed to prove their allegation that the former president engaged in a conspiracy to inflate his net worth.

"There is no evidence in the record of agreement -- a fundamental premise to support the conspiracy claims," Trump attorney Chris Kise argued in court.

Defense lawyers highlighted that former Trump attorney Michael Cohen, the state's main witness who claimed Trump directed him to inflate his net worth, cannot be trusted due to his history of false testimony.

"He was caught lying like no one has ever lied. It was better than a Perry Mason moment, and that should be the end of the case," Trump said after defense lawyers Alina Habba and Clifford Robert cross-examined Cohen.............................

'Happy' bankers

A central pillar of Trump's defense has been the claim that his lenders were happy to do business with the former president, despite his allegedly inflated valuations.

Former Deutsche Bank managing director Rosemary Vrablic testified that the bank was eager to get Trump's business, courting him in order to earn millions in interest and fees from his loans. Defense expert Robert Unell testified that even if Trump's net worth was a fraction of what he claimed, he would have still qualified for his loans.

Unell added that the bank's internal valuation group determined that Trump overstated his net worth by roughly $2.4 billion when they decided to offer him loans -- suggesting that whatever inflated valuations that existed were not relevant to lenders.