*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[OngBonga]

His claim is that since [the forms he submitted to various financial institutions claiming the value of his properties] contained a phrase like, "these are all guesses / do your own research" means that he's not committed fraud by the false claims in those documents.

If this is not a criminal court then idk what the fuck he's even doing engaging with this shitshow.

If he has committed fraud, that is a criminal act and he should face a criminal court with the standard of proof that comes with such courts.

And there *might* be a legal argument that adding disclaimers to finance reports is enough to avoid committing fraud. But it really is going to depend on the language used. Fraud is wilfully misleading another to gain a financial benefit. But that is what he should be paying his lawyers for, to prepare such reports in ways that he can legally defend.

And of course Trump's lawyers are crap. No decent lawyer would take him as a client. Not only is he obviously guilty of what he's standing trial for...

Well, "obviously guilty" is not something a lawyer should be considering. It's not his job to decide if his client is guilty or not. It's his job to decide if his client has a legal defence to the allegations.

But yeah, pay your fucking lawyers dude, especially if you're going to try to commit legal fraud.

[MadMojoMonkey]

If this is not a criminal court then idk what the fuck he's even doing engaging with this shitshow.

If a defendant in a civil suit chooses not to defend themselves at the trial, that is their right.
In so doing, the court precedent is to rule unfavorably against the defendant on all counts.

In this specific trial, the judge already ruled Trump guilty before the trial began. That is well established to be "normal" for civil cases. It doesn't always go like that, but Trump's lawyers waived the right to a jury. In so doing, it is up to the judge to determine innocence or guilt.

The trial is not to determine innocence or guilt, that's already been decided, it is to determine the severity of consequences for the fraud that was committed.

If he has committed fraud, that is a criminal act and he should face a criminal court with the standard of proof that comes with such courts.

IDK the particulars of the differences between civil fraud and criminal fraud, but these charges have been pressed by the New York Attorney General as civil charges, as I understand it.

And there *might* be a legal argument that adding disclaimers to finance reports is enough to avoid committing fraud. But it really is going to depend on the language used. Fraud is wilfully misleading another to gain a financial benefit. But that is what he should be paying his lawyers for, to prepare such reports in ways that he can legally defend.

The real issue for Trump is A) he is a noted real estate mogul and the false claims (only some of which are subjective) are well within the expected expertise of someone with those credentials and B) He's on record (audio and visual) of stating that he uses these documents to secure financial loans and opportunities.

So his claims of ignorance on either count are just not holding any sway in a court of law. The notion that such egregious misstatements about the square-footage of his home might be accidental are not believed. Trump openly admits that the objectively false statements in his filings are "mistakes" but insists his valuation of his properties several times bigger than anyone else's valuations are because those people are wrong. Which, again, isn't convincing anyone in the courts.

The fact that he's already admitted to the undeniably false contents of his claims really hurts any argument that the other "mistakes" weren't intentional.

Well, "obviously guilty" is not something a lawyer should be considering. It's not his job to decide if his client is guilty or not. It's his job to decide if his client has a legal defence to the allegations.

But yeah, pay your fucking lawyers dude, especially if you're going to try to commit legal fraud.

I mean... the lawyers get to choose whether or not to take the job. They are not court appointed public defenders.

If they look at the case and they're like, "I can't win that case." that's enough for most lawyers to not take it. Why waste their time and resources on a lost cause? Well, for the money, obv. But then when the client has a reputation of not paying his lawyers... well....

[OngBonga]

I don't know anything about the details of this case, but based on what you're telling me it seems he's basically admitted to criminal fraud.

I can understand why his lawyers would take him on, regardless of expected result or even the issues regarding being paid. It puts their name out there. Some might argue that being a Trump lawyer isn't good for your reputation, but that's for the lawyers to decide.