Were Donald J. Trump an exemplar of strict Kantian honesty; had he a reputation for exactitude about his achievements and acumen; if hyperbole had not become his own very public modus — then, and only then, would the near half a billion judgment against him make even a modicum of sense.
But the former U.S. president and infamous branding entrepreneur is and has always been known to be something of a b.s. artist. No one has excuse to take what he says literally. Business partners and all who make deals with Trump should do their own diligence. Their watchword should be: caveat emptor.
Yet, last week, New York State regulators and prosecutors bent over backwards to find Trump guilty. “On Friday, New York County Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron ordered Donald Trump to pay a staggering $355 million for repeatedly inflating asset values in statements of financial condition submitted to lenders and insurers,” explains Jacob Sullum of Reason. “When the interest that Engoron also approved is considered, the total penalty rises to $450 million. All told, Trump and his co-defendants, including three of his children and former Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg, are on the hook for $364 million, or about $464 million with interest.”
That is a lot of money to protect other businesses from Trump’s characteristic exaggerations, which so appalled the court. But not any of the banks Trump did business with.
No one has been harmed, for Trump repaid all the loans.
There is no victim — making Trump the biggest-name victim of victimless crime prosecution of all time.
We, the people, know that “honesty is the best policy” is not standard business practice, and that Trump doesn’t always follow it. But we are also not demanding that our governments insert themselves into every successful transaction looking for fibs and fakery.
That would be a recipe for selective prosecution.
Which is just what this case is: selective prosecution of a political opponent.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly
—
See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
11 replies on “Caveat Preemptive”
Even given that financial intermediaries were fully repaid on loans and even given that insurers did not have to pay any claims, if — if — they were truly misled as to their exposure to risk, then they suffered losses in these transactions, because they otherwise would have charged higher risk premia or not have transacted.
The relevant question is exactly and only of the extent to which a prudent man would have taken Trump’s declarations to reflect the underlying truth.
And here the yowlers engage in self-contradiction, claiming that prudent bankers and insurers were deceived by a man that even a fool should see as a liar.
Must be that my degrees are not qualifications for comprehending the subtleties of the Constitution, because the Trump kangaroo court superficially appears to have totally ignored the 8th Amendment.
I was recalling that when my current home state of Georgia was founded, they made it illegal for lawyers to settle there. Posit that we could do with some similar regulations today.
And so habitual lying is not an excuse for fraud??
What about lying on your tax forms, so our friendly IRS should just look the other way, or is it now up to them to determine your tax burden?
Does anyone actually believe that the FBI would simply agree that a habitual liar is exempt from prosecution for perjury?
Should banks now be required to independently verify that collateral is properly valued?
REALLY???
Should banks now be required to independently verify that collateral is properly valued?
Don’t they do that already, as a matter of course? Property values are highly subjective. Don’t big banks have their own assessors? Don’t lenders run their own checks on people and businesses seeking credit or loans? It’s standard procedure, isn’t it? Even if it’s not ‘required’, it’s called good business practice.
The fact that the state is set to receive the “disgorgements ” of what is with interest accumulating to be nearly a half billion dollars makes this confiscatory program most attractive to the state governments, even more so than the “civil forfieture” program which has certainly been abused.
This would be a great program to balance budgets, especially when no one is claiming they were damaged and therefore a piece of the action.
If this is upheld look for similar statutes in other states, it is a real money maker and can easily be very selectively enforced.
What could possibly go wrong?
Bank fraud is illegal! Funds from the illegal activity can be recovered. Live with it!
Lawfare.
Curious that none of the supposed victims on whose behalf that the partisan DA sued Trumpmwill see a penny of the damages money. It’s almost like they were just used as an excuse.
Only damages appear to have been to the libprog administration from whom the New York DA appears to get her marching orders.
Redactor, you may enjoy your obscure article titles, but they’re of NO HELP to readers who want to know what the article is about.
Please use more explanatory titles for your articles.
If a bank loaned him money based upon his own valuation of the collateral and lost money as a result that’s on the bank for not doing an appraisal and loaning based upon said appraisal.
Given that no one lost anything — what’s the problem? Oh right, he’s running against the 1%’s leftist machine. Can’t have that.