'A lot of money': Trump owes $87K in interest per day until he pays the fine in his civil fraud case
'A lot of money': Trump owes $87K in interest per day until he pays the fine in his civil fraud case
Donald Trump owes an additional $87,502 in interest every day until he pays the $354 million fine in his civil fraud case, according to ABC News' calculations.
Former President Donald Trump owes an additional $87,502 in post-judgment interest every day until he pays the $354 million fine ordered by Judge Arthur Engoron in his civil fraud case, according to ABC News' calculations based on the judge's lengthy ruling in the case.
Judge Engoron on Friday fined Trump $354 million plus approximately $100 million in pre-judgment interest in the civil fraud case brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James, after he found that Trump and his adult sons had inflated Trump's net worth in order to get more favorable loan terms. The former president has denied all wrongdoing and has said he will appeal.
Engoron ordered Trump to pay pre-judgment interest on each ill-gotten gain -- with interest accruing based on the date of each transaction -- as well as a 9% post-judgment interest rate once the court enters the judgment in the case.
You're viewing part of a thread.
Hunter is a drug addict, a sex addict, and a pedophile. I imagine you don't just magically turn out that way if you had a great and unproblematic childhood, but I suppose child abuse isn't technically illegal unless it's violent, so... yay Joe?
Anyways, I fail to see how holding Trump accountable while defending your own guy from accusations is supposed to teach me a lesson on how responsibility is supposed to work. Isn't that precisely the same behavior you're accusing me of?
Anyways, I fail to see how holding Trump accountable while defending your own guy from accusations is supposed to teach me a lesson on how responsibility is supposed to work. Isn’t that precisely the same behavior you’re accusing me of?
That precisely what you're doing right now. That's the point. You're excusing Trump of convicted crimes for which he has to pay a fine, and at the same time you're ready to jail Biden for crimes you have imagined. If there was an actual crime then present actual evidence. You know, like the Prosecution did in Trump's trial: presented overwhelming evidence of crime.
Everyone ITT: “unreasonable and excessive punishment is great as long as it happens to someone I hate”
It's always projection.
Okay, forget Joe. Let’s focus on Hunter then, because there’s plenty of evidence on that laptop.
Some of the pictures show naked girls who are clearly underage in sexually suggestive poses. That’s evidence of child exploitation, sexual abuse, and potentially possession of child pornography and statutory rape.
Those are all definitely crimes. Should he stand trial for that? Or are you comfortable letting that one slip by the wayside because it’s just so unsightly and imagine the damage it would do to Biden’s image if this went to public trial and was covered in the media even at a fraction of the intensity that Trump gets.
But no, fuck those children, right? Who cares about what they went trough. What’s really important here is that Trump put some wrong numbers on a piece of paper (which the bank testified they didn’t believe ANYWAY) and nobody got hurt.
Well according to you as long as those children say they're okay with it there's no victim and no crime right?
there’s plenty of evidence on that laptop.
If there's evidence then fucking charge him with a crime already. Let the courts look at the evidence and decide. I don't know why he's being charged in the court of public opinion, instead of an actual court.
Well according to you as long as those children say they're okay with it there's no victim and no crime right?
First of all, has anyone asked them?
Second of all, it’s still a crime, and according to YOU it doesn’t matter if anyone got hurt, doing a crime is ILLEGAL and therefore ought to be punished.
If there's evidence then fucking charge him with a crime already. Let the courts look at the evidence and decide. I don't know why he's being charged in the court of public opinion, instead of an actual court.
Well, as you probably already know, the Justice Department is run by Democrats, and they have more important things to do.
Like, uh… conducting a training on timber and wildlife enforcement in Guatemala.
Yeah. That’s really important stuff, you know.
But honestly, we can keep accusing each other of having double standards till the cows come home, but the fact of the matter is that Trump already HAS been convicted and me arguing that it shouldn’t have happened won’t change anything about that. So as far as I can see, that doesn’t remove the basis on which I’m calling for the law to be equally applied to Democrats and their relatives, even when it is massively inconvenient to them. Because law is law, right? And justice must be served, even if it’s just some wrong numbers on a paper.
But we both know that’s not likely to happen unless either Trump wins or Democrat voters start demanding an inquiry, but I’m certainly not going to hold my breath for that one.
So in closing, nice to meet you, pot, my name is kettle.
Second of all, it’s still a crime, and according to YOU it doesn’t matter if anyone got hurt, doing a crime is ILLEGAL and therefore ought to be punished.
Correct. I was pointing out the absurdity of your "no victims" argument. I'm glad you agree with me that crimes are illegal and should be punished.
In order to decide that punishment there should be a trial in court, not idiots on the internet insisting evidence must exist but some "deep state" is suppressing it.
Well, as you probably already know, the Justice Department is run by Democrats, and they have more important things to do.
Jfc this is the dumbest take. Republicans could bring him to trial if they wanted to and actually had any evidence. Instead they have more important things to do like... Insist on a closed door investigation. Remember when Hunter Biden showed up, willing to answer questions, but insisted it be a public hearing instead of a closed hearing? I wonder why Republicans didn't take him up on that.
I mean, if the "deep state" is suppressing charges, and they have all this evidence why not air it publicly when the opportunity presents itself and lay the "corruption" bare for all to see? What reason could they possibly have to insist on not doing it publicly? (Other than the obvious one that they have nothing and it's all made up to fool idiots who don't question what Republicans tell them.)
I’m calling for the law to be equally applied to Democrats and their relatives, even when it is massively inconvenient to them. Because law is law, right? And justice must be served, even if it’s just some wrong numbers on a paper
I agree. I believe you'll find I am consistent in my belief that people who do crimes should be charged, bought to trial, and punished for them. Some idiot insisting "they must have done crimes" does not make it so. If there is evidence, then fucking present it and charge them. If they're not going to charge them, that's because there is no evidence, and they need to shut the fuck up about it.
Jfc this is the dumbest take. Republicans could bring him to trial if they wanted to and actually had any evidence.
No, they can't, because they weren't directly harmed by any of what Hunter's laptop contains evidence of, so there is no grounds to file a civil suit against him. All they can do (and have, of course, done repeatedly) is say "but there's evidence of criminal conduct there", but the decision of whether or not to investigate and bring charges is up to the AG, who despite calling himself an independent, doesn't seem particularly keen on pursuing any investigation that could potentially harm the image of the Democrat party or the sitting president, especially not in an election year.
Instead, he prefers to go after parents who show up for their local school board meetings, or swat the homes of faithful Catholics for the crime of silently praying in front of abortion clinics. You know, because that's all very important stuff, just like those trees in Guatemala.
Instead they have more important things to do like... Insist on a closed door investigation. Remember when Hunter Biden showed up, willing to answer questions, but insisted it be a public hearing instead of a closed hearing? I wonder why Republicans didn't take him up on that.
No, I don't, and I don't follow politics closely enough to say I never miss anything, so could you please provide me a link on that?
I believe you'll find I am consistent in my belief that people who do crimes should be charged, bought to trial, and punished for them.
Okay, that's great, but simply believing that doesn't make it so, does it? And looking only at instances where people you hate or disagree with have been brought to trial doesn't prove that it is, in fact, so. If Democrats are, as you claim, better at doing justice, show me the evidence of Democrats having been brought to trial and indicted by Democrats, unless you also want to claim that Democrats simply don't do any crime.
Some idiot insisting "they must have done crimes" does not make it so. If there is evidence, then fucking present it and charge them. If they're not going to charge them, that's because there is no evidence, and they need to shut the fuck up about it.
Again, in cases where it's a matter of only a law having been broken, or when no victim has the courage of coming forward and making an allegation, it is on the Attorney General to prosecute. And they have full power to decide what they will and won't spend their time on. So I'm afraid that "no charges have been brought" is not a good enough indicator of whether or not a law has been broken or a crime has occurred.
All they can do (and have, of course, done repeatedly) is say “but there’s evidence of criminal conduct there”, but the decision of whether or not to investigate and bring charges is up to the AG, who despite calling himself an independent, doesn’t seem particularly keen on pursuing any investigation that could potentially harm the image of the Democrat party or the sitting president, especially not in an election year.
If that were true they could just publicly release the evidence. Show the world how the strong the evidence is, shaming the Democrats and AG for not perusing it, and revealing how blatantly partisan they are. It would be a slam dunk for Republicans for public opinion and discrediting corruption. So why don't they do it? Could it be because their "evidence" isn't any stronger than the "mountains of evidence" Trump has about the 2020 election being stolen that he's going to release "any day now"*?.
No, I don’t, and I don’t follow politics closely enough to say I never miss anything, so could you please provide me a link on that?
Of course. You are very concerned about Hunter Biden and have very strong opinions about his "case", despite not following politics closely enough to be aware of him stating repeatedly that he'd be willing to show up for a public hearing, and even showed up to Capital Hill to answer questions:
“Here I am, Mr. Chairman, taking up your offer when you said we can bring these people in for depositions or committee hearings, whichever they choose. Well, I’ve chosen. I’m here to testify in a public hearing today to answer any of the committee’s legitimate questions,” Hunter Biden said at a press conference near the Capitol.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/13/hunter-biden-appearance-capitol-hill-testimony-00131508
(by the way, in order to "provide you a link" I literally just copied the sentence you quoted into a google search and clicked the first link. Seems like something you trivially could have done on your own if you wanted more information on this topic you are so very concerned about.)
If Democrats are, as you claim, better at doing justice, show me the evidence of Democrats having been brought to trial and indicted by Democrats, unless you also want to claim that Democrats simply don’t do any crime.
Oh, I know this one! It's called the Gish-gallop: You make a bunch of unsubstantiated claims, provide no source, and insist each and every one of them are true. Then expect me to do the actual research to rebut each and every one of them, and then you pick the weakest rebuttal, or the single one I miss, and use that to declare everything you've claimed to be true. I'm not going to waste a lot of time on this when you spent none making an argument. Again, trivial for you to research yourself: I typed "Democrat being brought to trial" into google and this is the first result: https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/us-indictment-bob-menendez-1.6975326
I’m afraid that “no charges have been brought” is not a good enough indicator of whether or not a law has been broken or a crime has occurred.
Again: How about "No evidence has been presented"? For 4 years we've been told the 2020 election was stolen, and they had all this evidence, but for some reason none of it has ever been made public or brought to court. This is more of the same and is reaching "girlfriend in Canada" levels of "We totally have it, you just can't see it or know any details about it, but it definitely exists."