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.
Being an average law abiding citizen and not an infamous, law breaking billionare, I’m not too worried. See, rules-based societies work great for people who can follow the rules.
Okay, let’s do a little thought exercise here, shall we?
Smoking and selling marijuana was illegal for much of the last century or so. Now both is legal in many states. While it was still illegal, many people all over the country were convicted under that law. Do you agree, then, that because what they did was illegal at the time, them being punished was justice being served AT THE TIME, regardless of whether it is now legal?
Should people who were convicted unter the old law be forced to sit out their sentences in full because at the time, their conviction was fully in accordance with rules-based society, or is it possible that rules can be wrong, regardless of how technically legal they are?
Your thought exercise is about something legal that used to be illegal. Has fraud suddenly become legal? No? So what’s your point? Your ‘lying on a resume’ example made more sense, even if it was ridiculous.
They made voting without an ID legal in some states. Isn’t that basically legalizing fraud, or at least inviting or enabling it?
Sorry, but I’m afraid “this would never happen” a bad excuse. This change would have been unthinkable ten years ago.
They key phrase is “they made it… legal.”
Right. You rejected my thorough experiment on the basis that fraud would never be made legal, so I gave you an example where this has literally happened, and your response is “then it’s no longer fraud”?
My God, are you literally this stupid or are you being paid to pretend you are?
No I rejected it on the basis that fraud is currently illegal.
It doesn’t matter if it remains illegal. You get tried for things that are currently illegal. If they decide to repeal those laws about investor fraud, then your comparison to pot users makes sense. AFTER they repeal those laws Donald might be able to seek some recourse. And right after that you can kiss the economy goodbye, since it’s all built on investor confidence.
And saying that some states have ‘legalized fraud’ basically shows that you don’t understand or accept the legal definition of fraud.
No and no
How would you feel if you didn’t have breakfast this morning?
How would YOU feel?