Trump Ordered to Pay $355 Million and Barred From New York Business (Page 2): I heard that the state of New York reduced the interest rate to 2%. Is this correct?

colinc1 Loc: Goleta, California

I heard that the state of New York reduced the interest rate to 2%. Is this correct?

Watash

Kraken wrote:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/16/nyregion/trump-civil-fraud-trial-ruling.html?campaign_id=60&emc=edit_na_20240216&instance_id=0&nl=breaking-news&ref=headline&regi_id=69869692&segment_id=158427&user_id=ee8a7adf32eddf2d34701ace4ccfd5b4

New York Times! We find that to be a Dem-commie-loving rag!

McKinneyMike Loc: Texas

Watosh wrote:

New York Times! We find that to be a Dem-commie-loving rag!

The Times is closer to center than any Rightwing rag or internet based news sources! They are not the Post!

Shutterbug1697 Loc: Northeast

colinc1 wrote:

I heard that the state of New York reduced the interest rate to 2%. Is this correct?

Here's a link to an interpretation of the law, and the change involved.

I'm not sure how it applies to trump's case. From what I saw as soon as the ruling came out on Friday, they said that the older dates in his case were at the 9% rate (but the newer dates in his case may be at the newer 2%).

https://upsolve.org/learn/new-york-post-judgment-interest-rate/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20New%20York,who%20owes%20a%20consumer%20debt.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

CBS News had it at 9% this morning.

Vladimir200 Loc: Beaumont, Ca.

bobscho wrote:

God Damn, Karma is real....

:)

Shutterbug1697 Loc: Northeast

robertjerl wrote:

You realize that a ruling that extreme's chances of living through the appeals process is Slim and None. Slim moved back to Texas last month, so that leaves None.

Especially since he made rulings on people not even legally involved in the case.

The facts of the case say you're wrong.

https://youtu.be/NNkZwegm7rw?si=adounrVPJ-ViW0ty

Kraken Loc: Barry's Bay

Shutterbug1697 wrote:

The facts of the case say you're wrong.

https://youtu.be/NNkZwegm7rw?si=adounrVPJ-ViW0ty

I watched the video, Trump sure is a good businessman and hires the very best lawyers.

Of course, you realize I am being facetious.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

Shutterbug1697 wrote:

The facts of the case say you're wrong.

https://youtu.be/NNkZwegm7rw?si=adounrVPJ-ViW0ty

The 8th Amendment gets its say in the appeals courts. "...Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

Especially since not one of the banks he supposedly defrauded complained and they said they made money and want to do more business with Trump.

"Fraud" with no one complaining about fraud taking place except an AG who campaigned on "Getting Donald Trump"!!!

Shutterbug1697 Loc: Northeast

robertjerl wrote:

The 8th Amendment gets its say in the appeals courts. "...Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

Especially since not one of the banks he supposedly defrauded complained and they said they made money and want to do more business with Trump.

"Fraud" with no one complaining about fraud taking place except an AG who campaigned on "Getting Donald Trump"!!!

Where do you get your claim that trump has been assessed "excessive fines"?

As to your claim that the banks "made money", they would have made more money IF trump had presented truthful financial statements, because they would have charged higher interest rates.

That's the crux of the case, trump defrauded banks and insurance companies out of additional money they could have charged for loans and insurance policies.

wilpharm Loc: Oklahoma

Shutterbug1697 wrote:

Where do you get your claim that trump has been assessed "excessive fines"?

As to your claim that the banks "made money", they would have made more money IF trump had presented truthful financial statements, because they would have charged higher interest rates.

That's the crux of the case, trump defrauded banks and insurance companies out of additional money they could have charged for loans and insurance policies.

easy fix..only needs to sell about 1.2 million pairs of "golden" tennis shoes..1st edition sold out..1 clown paid 9k...go figure

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

Shutterbug1697 wrote:

Where do you get your claim that trump has been assessed "excessive fines"?

As to your claim that the banks "made money", they would have made more money IF trump had presented truthful financial statements, because they would have charged higher interest rates.

That's the crux of the case, trump defrauded banks and insurance companies out of additional money they could have charged for loans and insurance policies.

150 cases in the history of that New York law and not one other case where the "victims" testified they didn't lose money have there been any fines charged, let alone these huge "Frankenfines". Even some Liberal/Dem experts I am reading or seeing on TV question the fines and predict they will be overturned or at least modified greatly in the New York Appeals Court.
New York state and city are rich because they are business centers, and already other big businessmen and investors are saying they will not make any new investments in New York until the court cases are over. And none in the future if the ruling isn't overturned.

Nope, all of them did their own appraisals of the stuff he used as collateral. In fact, I have seen images of sections of some of his applications where right after giving his valuation it urges the loan people to verify with their own appraisal. Which all of them did, and made money. Not one single bank or insurance company complained.

And what part of "they all wanted to do more business with Trump" did you not understand? How many victims of fraud come back for more? The New York AG and the judge are the only ones saying there was fraud.

Vladimir200 Loc: Beaumont, Ca.

robertjerl wrote:

150 cases in the history of that New York law and ... (show quote)

robertjerl, please settle down. Trump committed a felony, was prosecuted, and found guilty. End of story. You can say you don't like the law or statute in the form that created the charge and ultimate conviction that is on the books, but that doesn't get a person/company off the hook. Sort of like the driver waiting outside the bank while his buds are inside shooting up the place. BTW, Trump has been doing (I'll be nice) edgy business practices his entire life and when caught, was lucky enough to pay his way out of it. This time, it is costing him more than the usual payoff. I really do see where you are coming from but please don't take too much time feeling sorry for this repeat offender. Committing felonies and after the fact complaining about the statute itself is a no starter.