TUESDAY, MARCH 26, 2024
Concerning the size of the bond: For us, the story started yesterday with a post by Kevin Drum.
The size of Donald Trump's bond had been reduced! Headline included, the Drumcat offered this:
Trump fine cut in half—for now
Donald Trump has been let off the hook for the full amount of the $454 million bond he was ordered to pay in his business fraud case. An appeals court cut it to $175 million.
This is disappointing for those who enjoy watching Trump squirm, but it's probably reasonable. The court gave no reason for its decision, but more than likely it's because they thought the original penalty was excessive and was likely to be reduced. And since they're the ones who would reduce it, who would know better?
The math in the headline was slightly off. So was the headline's language.
In fact, the size of the bond had been reduced—by substantially more than half.
For ourselves, we were mainly struck by Drum's suggestion that the appeals court likely thought that the original size of the required bond had been excessive. Also, by his personal assessment—by his assessment that the reduction was "probably reasonable."
For ourselves, we still don't know why someone appealing a legal judgment has to post a giant bond before he can pursue an appeal. At times like these, the great god Explanation tends to defer to more powerful gods, including the powerful god whose name is Partisan Narrative.
That said, Drum's surmise about the appeals court's assessment didn't align with standard blue tribe narrative! It more closely aligned with prevailing red tribe narrative, as did this excerpt from this morning's report in the New York Times:
Trump’s Bond in Civil Fraud Case Is Reduced to $175 Million
[...]
In a statement, Mr. Trump said he would “abide by the decision” and either post a bond or put up the money himself. He added that the appellate court’s decision to reduce the bond “shows how ridiculous and outrageous” the $454 million judgment against him is.
While the court, the Appellate Division in Manhattan, did not rule directly on the merits of Mr. Trump’s appeal, its ruling suggests that some of the judges could be sympathetic to Mr. Trump’s case, legal experts said.
Say what? Some of the judges in the Manhattan-based appellate court "could be sympathetic to Mr. Trump’s case?" Again, that would seem to align with red tribe Storyline, according to which the original proceedings in this case were conducted by people who were biased against Donald J. Trump.
As Peter Baker explained two months ago in this New York Times analysis piece, this November's election will involve "two presidents of profoundly different countries, the president of Blue America versus the president of Red America."
Especially on "cable news" channels, the narrative preferences of those dueling countries were on full display last night.
Each side prayed to the same God, President Lincoln once mournfully said. Last night, each side agreed on one basic point:
A dual system of justice has been put on display in these unfolding events.
Cable news hosts agreed. A dual system of justice has been on full display.
Red and Blue hosts wholly agreed on that basic point. They only disagreed about this:
For pundits speaking to Red America, that dual system of justice has been biased against Donald J. Trump. For viewers living in Blue America, the justice system was bending over backwards again to defer to the former president.
Pundits agreed—a dual system of justice exists. They disagreed on the question of who that system favors!
We were struck by Drum's post, and then by the Times report, because of the way the assessments in question cut against basic blue tribe narrative. Laura Ingraham put it most mockingly, and possibly best, on her Fox News program last night.
As Ingraham started her hour-long show, she played videotape of figures on MSNBC pushing Blue America's standard assessments. In this excerpt, you can see her playing tape of NeverTrumper Michael Steele, then voicing Red America's assessment:
INGRAHAM (3/25/24): Yet another in the simpleton pundit category is Michael Steele, the failed former RNC chair. He too is stunned that the appellate court made a sane ruling, posting [this]:
"Again, Donald Trump gets special treatment with his own private system of justice. This makes absolutely no sense."
What makes no sense is that comment. So now, the NeverTrumpers are so deluded they think the New York appellate court is MAGA?
Unpleasant name-calling to the side, Ingraham may seem to have a bit of a point. Is it really likely that a group of five appellate court judges in Manhattan is biased in favor of Trump?
On its face, Ingraham's insinuation may seem to make sense. That said, you can be sure of this one point:
Under current cable news arrangements, any such insinuation will go wholly untested. Such assessments, suggestions or insinuations will never be subject to disputation from those on the Blue America side.
Fox News Channel programs presented legal analysts last night. So did MSNBC programs. That said, these two different sets of legal analysts presented two vastly different sets of assessments of the matters under review.
How red did it get on Ingraham's program? Shortly after she introduced legal analyst David Schoen, he offered this assessment of Trump's impending appeal in the New York civil case:
SCHOEN: I think the court did—took a big step in the right direction. I don't think there should have been any bond for the appeal in this case, and the court certainly had that discretion.
He has the assets. You know where he is. But I think the underlying conviction is going to be reversed, certainly by the time it reaches the New York Court of Appeals, assuming it has to go that far.
As you have said, no loss, no victim—the banks were more than happy to do what they—to make the loans. They wanted more business, he is an international brand, and so on.
This is very different from the definition of frauds that we have ever seen before.
Say what? "I think the underlying conviction is going to be reversed, certainly by the time it reaches the New York Court of Appeals?" Are analysts allowed to say that?
More broadly, does any of Schoen's presentation make any sense? Because that's what Red America was being told last night—though under current corporate arrangements, no one watching cable news in Blue America heard anything like that last night.
Red America hears one set of assessments. Blue America hears something completely different. So it goes under current arrangements, in which "segregation by viewpoint" is the prevailing organizational arrangement all through the cable news world.
For the record, some of the comments by Barrister Schoen would have been extremely familiar to viewers in Red America. The notion that there were "no victims" in this civil case—the claim that the banks were perfectly happy with Trump's conduct—is a common talking point on Fox News Channel programs.
Viewers in Red America hear such claims all the time. For all intents and purposes, viewers of cable in Blue America will never hear such claims reported, discussed or assessed.
As we puzzle over last night's Babel, we again refer you to this. On last Friday's PBS NewsHour, David Brooks cited an Associated Press analysis which tended to support certain claims which routinely get made on the Red America side.
We posted the text of Brooks' statement in yesterday's report. You can read the AP analysis piece simply by clicking here.
Is there any chance that anything Schoen said last night contains a bit of merit? We're especially curious because of the way the Appellate Court knocked down the size of the bond, with unnamed "legal experts" suggesting that its members may have thought that the original size of the bond was excessive.
Red America has been told all along that the court in this case had been biased against Donald Trump. Last night, Blue America was being told that Trump was getting "special treatment with his own private system of justice" from that New York appellate court.
Here's what no one saw last night—no one in either country:
No one saw legal analysts from the two countries brought together on one cable program, where their varying assessments could be debated, discussed. No one was able to benefit from any such discussion or debate.
Instead, people living in Red America heard one set of familiar assessments. People living in Blue America heard an alternate set of familiar representations.
What ever happened to disputation? In the abandoned Crossfire era, legal analysts with opposing views would have been brought together on TV and asked to battle it out. Those days, of course, long gone.
Today, people living in either of the two Americas hear their own tribe's assessments, full and complete total stop. Citizens of these two countries lock in on the Storylines of their respective nations. Can a large modern nation really function this way?
Friend, take a good look around!
We close with one sardonic observation about Ingraham's performance last night. Along the way, she directed the latest jibe at Rep. Ocasio-Cortez concerning the "RICO" bullroar. You can watch that foolishness here.
Friend, is RICO a crime? Plainly, no, it isn't—unless you're getting your propaganda from stars in Red America. In the wild tribal lands of that new tribal country, an entirely new and different bit of semantics now obtains!
Final point:
The appellate court vastly reduced the original size of the bond. Does that mean that Trump was the victim of a dual system of justice in the initial establishment of the bond?
Or does it mean that Trump was gifted by a dual system of justice, as practiced by that New York appellate court?
Last night, Blue America heard one of those claims. Red America heard the other!
The original fine was too big for Trump's tiny, baby-like hands.
ReplyDeleteTrump says there is a two tiered justice sysatem. He's right but not in the way he thinks. There is one system for the rich and powerful, and another for the rest of us.
ReplyDeleteYou seem to think this is self-obvious, but what is the evidence of this in Trump's cases?
Delete@10:16 AM
DeleteObviously being rich matters, but look at Elon Musk, ostensibly the richest person on earth. He appears to be under attack now, and not too successful in his legal endeavors. How would you explain this?
@1:12 - Answer: Musk is a self-righteous f*ckup.
DeleteTrump committed fraud on a level that has rarely been achieved, yet he keeps getting treated with kid gloves relative the severity of the crimes. This is a man that was handed $500 million (by his father, who neglected any parenting duties), then ran everything he attempted into the ground, went bankrupt numerous times, and as such increasingly dispensed with integrity and further ventured into corruption, assuring he would always land on his feet - this is the realm of the wealthy, the rest of us can only observe and shake our heads.
DeleteAs yet, neither Trump nor Musk have materially suffered for their various crimes/corruption/unethical behavior, so sorry 1:12 but your murky point is irrelevant.
Meanwhile, the rest of us have to live in constant fear of making one wrong move, such is the nature of capitalism and our dog eat dog society.
There are mountains evidence that demonstrate 10:16's two tiers, if you are ignorant on the subject, educate yourself (literally a few minutes on Google).
@1:48 PM
DeleteI don't see what's "murky" about it; it was a simple question. To which you gave no answer, despite typing a whole page full of words.
As for you living in constant fear, well, it sounds like you have a problem. You, personally.
12:17: here’s why. Trump, and rich people in general, can file endless appeals, as Trump as has done. Many of these are time wasting, frivolous motions, with the goal of delaying ultimate judgment, or even a trial, and yet the legal system has to deal with each and every one as if it is serious. Appeals cost a boatload of money in court costs and basically require an attorney, who charges boatloads of money to do appeals. Needless to say, a person of modest means cannot afford this.
DeleteAlso, average citizens who took top secret documents (reality winner…one page!) get prison time. Trump may end up skating because of a friendly judge (that he appointed!) despite taking mountains of documents.
Here’s another reason: rich people can file endless lawsuits, whether frivolous or not, in order to intimidate or retaliate against their rivals/enemies. Trump has done this his whole career. Meanwhile, average citizens can’t afford filing vanity lawsuits.
DeleteAnd “people” includes corporations, which are “people too my friends” for legal purposes.
DeleteTrump had no integrity to begin with. He interacted with the NYC mob in his development projects (there are photos) and he appeared in court over racial discrimination claims in his father's rental buildings. He has always been a sleaze and lowlife. He got worse with age, but he never started out innocent or pure.
DeleteQuick reminder that if you count both assets and liabilities, most of the nation's homeless have more wealth than Donald Trump.
ReplyDelete"In fact, the size of the bond had been reduced—by substantially more than half."
ReplyDeleteThere is the original fine and then there is the interest. If you consider only the original fine, then the "cut in half" description is correct and the interest must be refigured.
Somerby is always so gleeful when he finds something like this, but he often gets things wrong.
"Pundits agreed—a dual system of justice exists."
ReplyDeleteIt's not a "dual system of justice". It's that the justice system can be easily manipulated by the powers that be. Which is, of course, not a bug but a feature.
This time the Republican presidential candidate is being persecuted, but next time it might be a Democrat, or a third party candidate (but they already have no chance in the current political system).
The iron law of oligarchy. And so it goes.
This cynical view encourages nihilism which tends to result in people doing nothing about anything -- it is all hopeless you see. To the extent that it appeals to the left, especially young voters (who feel sophisticated saying such things), it is damaging to Biden because it suppresses Biden votes.
Delete"The Iron Law of Oligarchy" is a nice phrase but it is being misapplied here.
Delete"The "iron law of oligarchy" states that all forms of organization, regardless of how democratic they may be at the start, will eventually and inevitably develop oligarchic tendencies, thus making true democracy practically and theoretically impossible, especially in large groups and complex organizations." According to Wikipedia, this view was developed in 1911 in Germany.
Here is the flaw. There is the word "true" in front of democracy, suggesting a perfect democratic state is being sought. Anything less, whether only slightly less or majorly less, is ruled out by oligarchic tendencies needed for organizations to function. Thus the perfect is the enemy of the good and this guy equates Trump's fascim with Biden's well-meaning democratic tendencies, when they are miles apart in many ways.
Another problem is whether our justice system is actually an "organization" subject to this iron law, or whether it exists as a set of principles, procedures and documents to guide human judgment and hold people accountable for wrong-doing civil or criminal. Certainly, unfettered wrong-doing with no means of control is worse than a less than perfect legal system (not organization) that may or may not be subject to such an iron law originally applied to organizations.
At heart, this view lacks all pragmatism. There is no consideration of what the better conditions might be for people to live under -- imperfect democracy (less than true because of the need to compromise with how organizations work) or Trump's brand of chaos. That is the ultimate question of this election, not whether we should be a true democracy or not.
But the real problem with the comment is that it reflects a kind of sophomoric sophistry, a pseudo-intellectual rationale for rejecting all democracy, expressed by someone who is either Mao or someone a lot like him, sitting in an Eastern European troll farm. Who else goes around quoting German philosophers rejected long ago in the USA? Nihilism was named after German philosopher Friedrich Nihilist.
This is the right wing agenda, to make people feel powerless, give up all hope, and become complaint worker bees; well said 11:29.
DeleteGreat comment 11:29. I wish you had a nym
DeleteI am Corby.
DeleteFake.
Delete"For ourselves, we still don't know why someone appealing a legal judgment has to post a giant bond before he can pursue an appeal."
ReplyDeleteIn the case of E.Jean Carroll, the bond is to protect Carroll from Trump defaulting on what he owes, should his appeals fail. He could exhaust his funds on legal fees and hide his assets otherwise, making it difficult for her to collect what the court ruled he owes her.
In the case of the business fraud trial, the debt is owed to the people, the citizens of New York, who Letitia James was representing. The Republicans keep trying to say that Trump's was a victimless crime, but the people were the victims and the fines are established to deter future such crimes in order to protect the business community in NY. Again, the concern is that Trump would evade paying if no bond were posted before an appeal. This is part of the law, not specific to Trump.
The bond is "giant" because the fine itself was "giant" because the crime was "giant."
DeleteThe amount of the fine is not arbitrary. It is based on technical estimates of the damage done by Trump's cheating over the time period. It represents the harm he did to others (banks, insurance companies, whether they will admit it or not) and to the people (such as the IRS) and the public trust.
DeleteWhen you have morons like the guy here talking about how bad our system is in hopeless tones, that is an example of the damage to the public trust and the reason why we must vigorously prosecute Trump and thieves like him. Letting someone like Trump get away with his crimes damages our democracy to the point where assholes are claiming democracy is futile because of oligarchs (which Trump certainly qualifies as one).
The amount of the fine is not based on an amount of harm, because there was no harm. The banks made profits on the loan.
DeleteThe harm or Trump's excess profit is based on a hypothetical situation where Trump borrowed the same amount of money at a higher interest rate. This is feeble, because
1. It's an unusual or unique way of determining a fine. Normally, in cases like this, some parties were harmed, and the amount of the harm affects the size of the fine.
2. There's no evidence that the banks would have charged a higher interest rate if Trump had put down different numbers. The banks did their own audits and based their terms on their own due diligence. (In fact, it's been said that some of the banks said their terms would have been the same if Trump had put down different numbers. I have not checked this.)
3. There's no evidence that Trump would have taken out the same loans if the intertest rate had been higher.
David, you and the Republicans don't decide how much harm there was, the judge did that (based on expert testimony from both sides, including Trumps witnesses). This was a penalty trial, not a trial of Trump's guilt, which had already been adjudged.
DeleteThis moots your arguments, which I assume were brought up during the trial, along with many others and a great deal of evidence. Go read the transcript.
https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=HI8cOBvVOKVSFDWp9Sr1Ow==
Thanks for your response, @3:38. Apparently the transcript you link to is 1,776 pages long plus exhibits.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI love the E. Jean Carroll case. Imagine getting to watch Trump rallies and rooting for him to slander you, yet again. It would be like a drinking game except with prize money.
DeleteSome have compared it to an infinite money glitch in video games.
If the trial transcript is too long, try Judge Engoron's decision. It weighs in at a svelte 92 pages.
DeleteAs for this:
"2. There's no evidence that the banks would have charged a higher interest rate if Trump had put down different numbers."
It's directly contrary to Judge Engoron's summary of the evidence. Trump sought and received alternate offers for financing from Deutsche Bank. One offer was for a loan personally secured by Trump himself at an interest rate of LIBOR plus 4 percent. Alternately, he was offered an unsecured loan at LIBOR + 8 percent.
Trump exercised the offer for a secured loan, the covenants of which required him to maintain minimum levels of net worth and liquid cash. Failure to observe the terms of the covenants subjected Trump to loan penalties, up to and including a demand for immediate repayment.
Trump repeatedly wildly inflated the value of his assets, including real estate developments that were not under construction or even planned yet, licensing deals that weren't signed or even negotiated, and partnership investents in which he had no access to his invested funds.
So yes, he would have been charged a different rate if he had told the truth. He would have also been subject to penalty payments or immediate cancellation of loans. His fake financial statements allowed him to fraudulently use the bank's money to enrich himself.
@ DiC
DeleteAlso, does that page count include the times when Eric and Ivanka insisted they couldn't remember things? If you throw out those pages, the transcript becomes much more manageable.
"I love the E. Jean Carroll case."
DeleteTo allow that crazy lady's lawsuits, NY state had to pass a special law, to ignore their own statute of limitations. For one year.
Talk about "dual system of justice".
That so-called crazy law was created on behalf of all victims of sexual abuse in NY, because it is a FACT that women do not or cannot always report such abuse when it first occurs. NY is not the only state to have relaxed statutes of limitations for sexual crimes. Pretending this was only done to prosecute Trump is an example of right wing disinformation. But Trump did what he did to Carroll and it was a crime, no matter when it occurred. That was determined by the judge before the penalty phase of her civil suit against Trump. Note that Trump was not prosecuted for the criminal parts of his actions. And we have all heard him continue to defame her, for which he was recently found liable.
DeleteRationalist, would you agree to be raped in exchange for having the "fun" of being e. Jean Carroll (including the damage to her career and reputation when she complained about it)?
Delete@DiC 3:30
Delete"1. It's an unusual or unique way of determining a fine."
It's not a fine. It's disgorgement of profits.While both require the defendant ot make payment, they aren't the same thing. Disgorgement is neither unusual or unique. It's written into law.
The amount is not arbitrary. The Trump organization put $160 mm in its own pocket that it would have paid to its lenders if their financial statements been truthful. Additionally, the loans otbatined with those falsified statements allowed the Trump Organization to reap another $180 million in profits they would not have otherwise achieved. Once again, not unusual or unique for the state to press to strip the company of illicit profits.
Will Trump prevail on appeal? We'll find out some day. In the meantime, let's not pretend that the Supreme Court of New York is just making it all up as they go.
@DiC The trial transcript is even more imposing than the 1776 page count would indicate. Most of the pages contain 4-up images of the pages from the original transcript, so there are, in fact, far more than 6,000 pages in all.
DeleteFox is spreading conspiracy theories about the collapse of the bridge in Baltimore. Maria Bartiromo is attributing it to Biden's open border.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, Trump is saying he wil send troops to polling places to prevent another election from being stolen.
I could see the Roberts Court allowing it.
Delete@12:16 PM - He'll need to send the troops to Moscow then.
DeleteIf we actually had an open border a) life would continue as it always has and b) we would not have a "border crisis" for Republicans to manufacture, who thrive off the dumbest framing narratives because their voters are driven by emotions.
DeleteSomeone can be "driven by emotions" and not be as godawful stupid as Republicans. Also, note that they accuse the Democrats of being driven by emotions whereas they consider themselves thinking people.
DeleteThe Right are the snowflakes they warned us about.
DeleteThe fascist right wing are so good at this. Within minutes of the accident at the F.S. Key Bridge in Baltimore, they have already fanned out across social media blaming the accident on DEI. Fucking racists gotta do their racist shit, you know, DiC?
DeleteSay what you will about the American Right, but they should do love having rapists represent the USA as President.
DeleteSomerby notes that Drum's views align with right wingers; Drum is not as bad as Somerby but he is a self admitted centrist neoliberal which means he is on the right wing spectrum. Good on Somerby for pointing that out.
ReplyDeleteSomerby says Republicans believe stupid crap, but then he blames us for that. I do not accept that blame.
ReplyDeleteIt's easy to torch strawmen.
DeleteWe will continue to live with the great divide between parties until someone figures it out.
Now I can create my own strawman?
You don't want to figure it out.
Somerby is the master of creating strawmen. There are a few every day.
DeleteWhat is the great wisdom you think solves everything but don't want to mention?
I don't have that answer. But I know that we can't find it if we refuse to even try.
DeleteIt would be interesting to know who appointed each of the NY appellate judges. That would provide a clue as to whether they're liberal or conservative
ReplyDeleteAnd what would that prove?
DeleteHis lack of understanding on how appeal bonds are negotiated?
DeleteAnd if we find that there's a majority one way or the other, then what?
DeleteOh hi QiaB, we are active at the same time. Hope your day is going well.
Delete:Rat...Right back atcha.
DeleteNote: There are 20 justices in all on the appellate division, first department. Only one was appointed as far back as the Pataki administration.
DeleteIs Somerby really as ignorant as he seems here? I will repeat what I posted yesterday:
ReplyDelete“we've never seen an explanation of the unusual-seeming procedure according to which an individual may have to raise a large sum of money before he can pursue an appeal of a legal finding.”
Here, Bob. It took me a long time to find this, maybe 2 minutes:
“Appeal Bond: What it is, How it Works, Special Considerations”
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/appeal-bond.asp
You see, it’s standard practice. A bond will be returned to you if your appeal is successful. But if it fails, it shows that you will pay the original judgment. It’s a way of ensuring that you don’t simply skip out on your legal obligations.
Got it, Bob?
Anything else I can help you with?
Oh, and by the way, this has been explained over and over on MSNBC. Perhaps you were watching Gutfeld.
"What ever happened to disputation? In the abandoned Crossfire era, legal analysts with opposing views would have been brought together on TV and asked to battle it out."
ReplyDeleteWhat happened? It devolved into a nightly cage match with shouting, blaming, character attacks, and accusations of bad faith. At the end, debate was replaced by exactly the sort of tribal warfare Our Host deplores.
Also, Our Host claims to be clueless why an apellant has to post a bond before appeal. For starters, it is the law in New York. I'm not privy to the deliberations of New York lawmakers, but my guess would be that the bond is required as a disincentive to using the courts as a way to stall payment of a judgment.
It's reductive and dismissive to say it devolved into that. That's a mischaracterization. Did Crossfire devolve into that? Perhaps. But I don't see why we should take your word on that either.
DeleteIt had talent: Kinsley, Buchanan. They weren't mindless bots. Turner's CNN wasn't a state-run TV.
DeleteNowadays, the state-run TV hates talent.
@3:51
Delete"But I don't see why we should take your word on that either."
You needn't. But I said what I said.
The only state-run TV I know of is C-span. Even public-funded PBS is not "state-run" so what are you talking about? It doesn't help discussion to use misleading language.
DeleteThe C-Span call in lines that Somerby listens to have certainly devolved.
DeleteRationalist, McLaughlin Group was the devolved version of Crossfire. McLaughlin was unwatchable and a prototype for all of these newer group shows.
DeleteBuchanan illustrates what happens when people have talent without scruples. Kinsley got Parkinsons and retired before devolving.
This idea that people like to watch conflict is more right than left wing. The ones who took up shouting drifted to the right, such as Chris Matthews. The best news shows are on PBS.
Here is what Salon said about Buchanan when a revival of McLaughlin was attempted in 2019 (without Buchanan):
"At the moment the main point of contention with the program’s return is that Buchanan is coming back. Any person still in touch with their conscience should have a problem with that, given Buchanan’s long history of being a segregationist, an anti-Semite, a sexist and a homophobe, to list some of his finer qualities."
And this:
"And while the Buchanan of the ‘80s and ‘90s might have been excused as a Nixonian paleoconservative who went against Republican party orthodoxy, today [8/2019] his views are completely in line with the type of white nationalism that has become the conservative brand. His strain of conservatism is incapable of honest, illuminative, useful debate. A few years ago I would have called his rhetoric dangerous, but now it’s dangerously mainstream, completely in-step with the administration’s stated views and goals, which means “The McLaughlin Group” probably won’t be offering anything different than what’s on cable news."
https://www.salon.com/2019/08/18/pat-buchanan-back-on-pbs-really-why-we-dont-need-a-mclaughlin-group-revival-now/
And this is true of what happens on Fox News as well.
McFarland says:
"Surely there were similarly themed public affairs programs in local markets, but only John McLaughlin's political roundtable was brash and grumpy enough to be worth parodying on “Saturday Night Live.”
Many Gen Xers probably remember Dana Carvey’s impression of McLaughlin more than any specifics about the host he was imitating other than his signature bellow of “Wrong!” when he disagreed with one of panelists — the core group consisting of Pat Buchanan, Eleanor Clift and Clarence Page — or wanted to transition to the next topic of debate.
It is possible that a number of middle-aged conservatives grew up with him, given that the series aired for 34 years until McLaughlin’s death three years ago, with the final episode recorded on August 12, 2016.
And if you didn’t realize that the show aired consistently for those 34 years, that’s probably because “Crossfire,” “Hardball with Chris Matthews,“ “Hannity & Colmes,” then just “Hannity,” “Tucker,” “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” “The Five,” “The Kelly File,” “The Ingraham Angle,” and a number of other shouty shows on down to “The View” have come and gone or are here to stay.
We’re swamped with so-called debate shows across cable, and on Sunday morning talk shows on broadcast. We probably don’t need another, and I can’t think of anyone campaigning for public television to exhume the grandfather of paleoconservative debate series, dust it off and put it back on the air."
And now show is running with Joe Rogan as host, online. Where you can find anyone to shout at you in video on any topic. But none of it is news."
I agree with Quaker, because this sounds like devolution to me.
Why is Somerby just noticing such shows when Media Matters has been expressing concern about them for decades? Isn't Somerby supposed to be some sort of media critic?
Delete"For ourselves, we still don't know why someone appealing
ReplyDeletea legal judgement has to post a giant bond before he can pursue an appeal."
Can we talk? Is this something Bob ever thought about for two minutes until it came up as something poor disordered Donald need to claim as a subject of abuse.
It has to do with not deferring justice Bob, you incredible idiot. The victims here were the people of New York, just one of the many many people Donald Trump has cheated and or abused who you care nothing about. Beaten Cops, sexually abused women, unpaid creditors.... it's a long list.
Bob once at least cared something about the accuracy of his posts. MSNBC had people on who agreed with Drum's take on the reduction of the Bond. I heard this point of view several times. For now let's assume Bob has merely grown incredible lazy and biased, rather than flat out lying.
ReplyDeleteA quick clarification:
ReplyDelete"For ourselves, we still don't know why someone appealing a legal judgment has to post a giant bond before he can pursue an appeal."
This isn't precisely accurate. The bond isn't required to seek an appeal. It is required to stay enforcement of the judgment during the appeal.
The imporatnce of this in Trump's case is quite clear. If he has to liquidate properties to post the bond, he'd have to do so at emergency sale prices. Should he prevail in his appeal, he'd be unable to buy those properties back at the same prices.
So he has a compelling reason to want to stay the enforcement of the judgment. That's what he gets by posing the bond. However, he could continue an appeal without it.
ReplyDeleteIf the interest rate was an issue in the "fraud" suit, then banks would be the plaintiff and they would get the reward. But banks claim no damage, they don't sue. Therefore, the interest rate is absolutely irrelevant.
The idea that the amount of fines is based on some imaginary interest rate is a bullshit tale for brain-dead moonbats.
@5:13
DeleteYou haven't read the judge's order. He addresses your argument directly.
Here's a hypothetical for the "no harm, no foul" crowd:
ReplyDeleteI decide to spend the day taking a ferry tour of the harbor. I select a tour boat and the operator shows me a certification that the boat complies with all safety standards for taking on passengers. I buy my ticket and go on my tour. I return safely and go on with my life.
The following week, a safety inspector boards the boat and finds that the life vest locker contains nothing but old galoshes. The tour boat operator explains that while he knows he's supposed to be in compliance with safety rules, he knew that there were no life vests on board, but he went about his business anyway.
Question: Is anyone harmed? I went on my tour and arrived safely back on shore. Is the tour boat operator liable to me? To the state? Or not at all?
I also went for a boat ride once. The captain said that the weather was beautiful. I also thought the weather was good.
DeleteBut then a couple of years later the government said the weather sucked that day, and the captain defrauded me. And they hanged the captain.
Yes, this is all a big joke.
DeleteQuaker -- interesting hypothetical. Here's a slight modification:
DeleteYOU didn't sue the tour boat operator. You made no complaints. You didn't claim that the operator should pay you any money.
A governmental third party sued the boat operator and decided that the operator should pay the government a huge amount of money. You don't get any of this money.
Maybe no one sued anyone but the boat owner was fined and shut down for violating safety rules and placing the public at risk. It is better not to wait for a tragedy to inspect adherence to safety rules. The inspector should perhaps be fired. David doesn’t seem to understand that “the govt” operates on behalf of the people.
DeleteGood point, @6:55. But, the fine would be some statutory amount that had been enacted by law. A judge wouldn't be able to create a new theory out of whole cloth and fine the operator $400 million.
DeleteA joke? If you say so. It is non-responsive.
Delete@DiC 7:02
DeleteThere was no "new theory out of whole cloth." Disgorgement of profits is written into law. It is neither unusual nor unique. The total gain to the Trump Organization was in the neighborhood of $370 million and that was not contested at trial. The remainder is interest on the profit as prescribed by law.
Now back to my hypothetical. Was no one harmed?
DiC: If you insist:
Delete"the operator should pay the government a huge amount of money"
The operator made profits of $10,002 while representing itself as operating a certified safe craft. The state, by law, is allowed to demand the operator surrender the exact amount of its profits.
Safety measures are such that no one operates without them, even though no one can exactly predict an accident except that historically over time such accidents have occured wth some frequency high enough to be considered the probability of an accident. Would your firm insure a boat operator without safety vests. The insurance claims might be ruinous to your firm. You would lose all the claims.
DeleteWithout insurance, the public would absorb the loss which is politically unacceptable. The public would sue everyone and likely win.
Trump made no profit on his loan. He borrowed money and paid it back with interest. The only way to calculate "profit" would be by comparison with some hypothetical deal that never happened. I don't know how to fit that into the boat analogy.
Delete"Trump made no profit on his loan."
DeleteYou should read the judge's order. Seriously. You'd be less likely to make glaring errors like this one.
Trump and company took out a loan from Deutsche Bank for the renovation of the Old Post Office. He and his family netted approximately $140 million from the eventual sale of the property. The company also gained a profit of $60,000,000 after they made false representations to the city of New York parks department and gained a license to operate the golf course at Ferry Point Park in the Bronx. (No loan involved here.)
So yes, the Trump Organization profited handsomely from the loans they received as a result of falsified financial statements. New York law allows the state to seek to strip them of those profits.
The remaining ~$170 million in profits consists of differences in interest rates, but there are no hypotheticals involved. Trump was offered a choice of loan options, one in which he would certify his financial condiation and commit his own resources to backing the loan; or another in which the lender would assume the risk in the event things went sour. The former came at a much lower interest rate. Trump used phony numbers to qualify for the less expensive loans.
These are basic facts of the case, David. If you're going to talk about the case, you should know them.
Also: boat analogy.
DeleteYou still haven't answered whether you think anyone was harmed in my scenario. You're deflecting.
At the risk of seeming to pile on, I'll add one more comment. It seems to me that one could make the case that it's double counting Trump's profits to include both his gain from sales and his lower interest rates. As the court itself observes, had he not received the lower interest, the deals themselves might never have happened at all.
DeleteBut Trump's attorneys didn't argue this at trial. They argued instead that TRUMP DID NOTHING WRONG! To argue over the size of his profits would have been somewhat akin to a bank robber claiming he didn't steal nearly as much as the cops claimed.
"You still haven't answered whether you think anyone was harmed in my scenario."
DeleteIn your scenario the boat guy put you in danger.
Donald Trump didn't put anyone in danger. Banks did (as they always do) their own evaluation of the collateral, and approved the loan. Everyone's happy, end of story.
@4:05 Boat guy put me in danger, but I wasn't harmed. I came home safe. So, no harm, right?
DeleteYes, no harm, and I am sure the boat guy will point it out.
DeleteBut there was, without a doubt, grave potential harm, and I'm sure the government will point that out.
And where's the potential harm in overestimating your collateral when asking for a loan? I'm sure it's actually the well-expected, anticipated behavior, factored into the procedure. A common sense, human nature phenomenon, everyone is aware of. Like a pizzeria owner advertising his pizza as the best in the world.
Or a pizzeria owner sex-trafficking children from his basement, even if there is no basement.
Delete@6:11
DeleteFirst of all, in New York there is a law that says the state attorney general can make a claim against any person who performs repeated fraudulent or illegal acts while conducting business. The AG can ask a court for an injunction to stop that behavior and can seek damages or restitution.
Trump's statements of financial condition were used to get better terms on loans. But that's not the only thing. They were used repeatedly over the life of the loans to keep the interest rates low or to keep the loans from being called in entirely.
In some years, his "estimate" of the value of his assets was overstated by more than $2 billion. He tripled the square footage of his Trump Tower condo, overstating its value by hundreds of millions of dollars. He included a "brand premium" (that is, jacking up the value just because he put the name Trump on it) for properties when his statement flatly declared he didn't do that. He claimed the value of projects that weren't completed--or even started yet. He claimed income from licensing deals that weren't signed yet. He claimed investments in a limited partnership were "ready cash" when he had no ability to use the funds.
So where's the potential harm? In the marketplace. If a crooked operator can pump out phony banlance sheets and get away with it, why should he ever stop? Why should anyone else play fair? Why would any lender ever do business with any privately held company?
Trump wants to play fast and loose with his creditors? That doesn't affect only him. It affects the state and the public.
DeleteFirst: I don't see Trump "playing fast and loose with his creditors". Banks wanted to give him a loan, they did, they profited from it, they have no complaints. Again, banks evaluate the collateral, obviously. Or they would be out of business within a week.
And second: the way I see it, the NY state government (like probably all the other governments in the universe) pass laws that allow them to prosecute any business in their jurisdiction. Or even any person, like in the infamous saying "show me the man and I'll show you the crime". The government can ruin anyone, if they choose to do it. And everyone knows it, since forever: "can't fight city hall".
And that's it, pretty much.
As part of his loan agreements, Trump promised he would maintain a net worth greater than $2.5 billion with a minimum amount of ready cash. He repeatedly produced financial statements with phony valuations to keep his loans in place at low rates.
DeleteNew York state law defines this as a fraudulent practice, and it isn't necessary for a party to the loan to file suit. This is a civil matter that the state legislature specifically authorized the attorney general to address.
This isn't a matter of what you see or don't see. This is a matter of actual laws. No one is making this up us they go along--except for Trump.
Here's one that's easy to answer:
ReplyDeleteOur Host:
"The appellate court vastly reduced the original size of the bond. Does that mean that Trump was the victim of a dual system of justice in the initial establishment of the bond?
"Or does it mean that Trump was gifted by a dual system of justice, as practiced by that New York appellate court?"
Answer:
The appeals court issued no explanation. If you're reading or hearing an answer to this question, you are entertaining someon'e's guess as to the court's reasoning. That answer will tell you what the guesser is thinking, but it's at best a roll of the dice as to whether it is anywhere close to the court's rationale.
In liability lawsuits I believe it's common for an appellate court to reduce what they see as an excessive judgment without explanation.
DeleteThis isn't a liability lawsuit and there was no determination that the amount was excessive. Otherwise, well done.
DeleteIndependent newsperson Lara Logan gives reasons to believe the disaster at the Key Bridge was intentional. I sure hope she's wrong. But, she does give some reasons to suspect she might be right. See
ReplyDeleteWAS IT AN “ACCIDENT?” Lara Logan Intel Sources Claim Baltimore Bridge Collapse On “Second busiest strategic roadway for hazardous materials” Was “absolutely brilliant strategic attack”
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/03/was-it-accident-lara-logan-intel-sources-claim/
Was the boat captain created in a Wuhan laboratory? Or perhaps there was never really a bridge at all! Inquiring minds want to know!
DeleteIt isn't a bridge at all. It's more like a common dirt road.
DeleteDavid must have been attracted to nutball Lara when She revealed “people were saying”, Fauci was the new Mengle. What an idiot, but we now know where he gets his news.
Delete"Independent newsperson Lara Logan...."
DeleteBwahahaha!!!
Just checking her recent posts on X from yesterday, there are numerous posts attacking Judge Merchan's daughter.
There is something seriously the fuck wrong with you, David.
David, who is a good and decent person, and who is my dear friend, allowed conservatives to poison his mind.
DeleteI don’t think they are aallowed to transport hazardous materials along highways in densely populated urban areas. There are rules about that.
DeleteLara Logan, huh?
ReplyDeleteWas Newt Gingrich not available?
Lincoln was wrong. Slavery served Lucifer, not Jehova.
ReplyDelete