site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2mo ago (text post)   20571 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 14, 2024

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

7
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Trump ordered to pay $355 million in penalties in New York Fraud case. He's also banned from operating any business in New York for three years, the Trump Organization is banned from borrowing money from any financial institution registered in New York for three years, and Eric and Don Jr each get their own $4 million dollar fines, and the former CFO Alan Wiesselberg owes a million. However the court also reverses its earlier ruling to cancel defendant's business certificates (aka the "corporate death penalty"). Instead an Independent Monitor will continue at the Trump Organisation for three years to ensure that it meets its financial reporting obligations.

All the penalties come with interest, so the defendants collectively owe around $450 million, not counting the $80+ million owed to E Jean Carroll. Even for Trump, that's serious money. Trump has of course said he will appeal, but to do so he will need to put up the full amount in bond first, and it's not clear he has the liquidity to do that - and as mentioned above he's now limited in his ability to borrow. And even if he manages to get the cash together, it doesn't seem to me that his prospects on appeal are at all good. Higher courts typically defer to the trial court's fact-finding, and Judge Engoron is not kind in his assessment of the credibility of Trump and his witnesses.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/28/politics/deutsche-bank-trump-fraud-trial-testimony/index.html

Fairly direct testimony by Deutsche Bank that they weren’t defrauded. I’d like someone to show another fraud trial where the victim actively said no fraud.

Williams further corroborated that as a lending officer, he would expect a client to provide truthful and accurate information to the bank, and that Donald Trump’s net worth and personal guarantee were significant factors in Deutsche Bank’s determining whether to underwrite a loan. TT 5427-5428. Williams additionally confirmed his previous deposition testimony, in which he stated that had he determined that Donald Trump’s net worth fell below $2.5 billion at any time, he would have recommended that the private wealth division declare an “event of default.”

From page 22 of the judgement. Yes, Williams said that it was standard practice at Deutsche bank to apply a large discount on clients' reported net worth in order to be conservative as these valuations are based on estimates and there is inherently a lot of fudge factor involved, even if the client is being honest. But it is also true that Trump was not being honest, and that if he had been, the bank would have assessed his application differently. Williams' testimony contributed to this finding.

Key words “had he”. But he did not. And this is after he made adjustments to his statements.

Is it normal to write decisions in such an informal style?

I wouldn't say this judgement is particularly or unusually informal.

Do you have any personal opinions about whether whether this was a fair ruling, Ashlael? I have little knowledge about law and can't even begin to determine how fair this case was for myself. The sources I would normally use to determine an opinion, like a synthesis of Wikipedia, liberal subreddits, conservative subreddits, and themotte comments, are all varying so much from each other and not really directly addressing each other's points that I can't come to a conclusion. But I do generally greatly respect your analysis as insightful and not particularly biased.

I think the ruling itself is fair. The underlying law is a bit iffy.

Basically, it's not strictly accurate to describe the amount that Trump is paying as a "fine". The underlying activity - while I agree it is clearly and indisputably fraudulent - is not particularly heinous. Ok, he exaggerated the value of his assets, I don't think anyone finds that particularly shocking or surprising. The judge describes it as "a venial, not mortal sin". The reason why he's being made to pay such a big amount is because it's primarily disgorgement. That is, he's being stripped of the money that he made through his unlawful activity.

In this case, that means a) the difference between the interest he paid given the favourable terms he was able to procure and the interest he would have paid without those favourable terms, and b) the profit he made on the business deals that were financed by these loans. Trump happens to have borrowed a lot and made a lot of money.

As far as I understand it, that is how this law works and the judge is applying it fairly. I'm not exactly sure though how I feel about a law that can have such wild differences in penalty depending on factors that have nothing to do with the severity of the unlawful activity itself. For example, if Trump's real estate investments had tanked he would be on the hook for far less - even though his behaviour would be equally bad and the consequences of it would be worse (the harm that Trump caused is deceiving the banks into accepting higher risk than they priced in which is bad in principle but obviously more damaging in a reality when the gamble doesn't pay off). I accept that sometimes laws have differing penalties based on the outcome and regardless of intent, but it's probably not great to have a law that functionally penalises someone more when their actions hurt people less.

At the end of the day though, that's how New York chose to write its law and it's being implemented as intended. It was entirely in Trump's power to avoid this outcome by simply not lying. So as far as I'm concerned, he fucked around and found out. Tough bikkies.

EDIT: On further review it appears that the law doesn't actually require disgorgement and that the judge has more latitude than I thought in terms of determining the appropriate relief. That shifts me away from thinking the law is poorly drafted and towards thinking that the Judge applied a pretty stiff penalty relative to the seriousness of the conduct.

At the end of the day though, that's how New York chose to write its law and it's being implemented as intended. It was entirely in Trump's power to avoid this outcome by simply not lying. So as far as I'm concerned, he fucked around and found out. Tough bikkies.

The other concern I've seen and that I share is that it's just him being prosecuted for this. That this sort of fraud is very common and normally isn't enforced. It'd be like if they also prosecuted him for adultery, which is Class B misdemeanor in New York.

I'm not that sympathetic to him, I agree with your sentiment that he fucked around and found out, but I am pretty concerned about this setting a bad precedent of trumping up charges against political opponents.

Also, do you have a substack or twitter or anything with more writing I could follow?

The law in question has been used many times against other people and businesses, including Exxon Mobil, Juul, and Martin Shkreli. It's not as if they dug up some long dormant statute.

It also doesn't perturb me that the unlawful conduct in this case is common. The law is designed for addressing "repeated" and "persistent" fraudulent activity - and while it's possible for a type of fraud to be "persistent and repeated" without it being "common", you'd have to expect there to be a good amount of overlap. In other words, it seems to me that this statute is designed to be used for addressing exactly these types of crimes that people have gotten used to thinking they can get away with.

Which just leaves us with the fact that Trump is a politician. Personally I'm of the view that it's entirely right and appropriate for politicians to come under unusually harsh scrutiny, as long as the laws are applied appropriately. They are unusually powerful people, so it's in the public interest that they also be unusually law-abiding. So the horror scenario that some people hold up, that Joe Biden or other Democrats might be subjected to retributive criminal investigations, seems to me like a win-win. I'm very happy for the Trumps and the Menendezes and the Santoses all to get shipped off to prison and if sufficient evidence can be found to lock up the Bidens and the Clintons and the McConnells along with them, all the better.

No Substack or Twitter I'm afraid - my particular flavour of obnoxious ranting is a Motte exclusive.

Thanks for the response. Also, I want to say it feels downright criminal you're not getting more upvotes, and often even downvotes, for explanations of the case. The most clear cut case of themotte's rightwing bias I've seen in a long time. Just ridiculous that I'd have 10 upvotes and you'd have 0 when my comment was just trying to poke a couple holes in your informative analysis.

whether this was a fair ruling

Thats why I'm here, comments or links to well digested think pieces. I'd love to see the steelman of both sides. Ditto the Carroll case. Yet as someone who loathes Trump, I'm skeptical of both decisions after some light perusing of partisan hacks.

All thebpenalties come with interest, so the defendants collectively owe around $450 million, not counting the $80+ million owed to E Jean Carroll. Even for Trump, that's serious money. Trump has of course said he will appeal, but to do so he will need to put up the full amount in bond first,

And what are the odds he will pay? Probably not that good. AFIK, no one has collected on the Alex Jones Sandy Hook verdict either, due to asset shielding. Does anyone actually pay these huge civil verdicts out of pocket? I think his much greater concern is losing a criminal case, and even then, Trump is Teflon and nothing sticks to him. And given his advanced age, he may die before paying anyway. Trump is smart enough to savvy enough to know what lines not to cross. Trump being precluded from running would also have to be weighed against the risk of civil unrest and a major retaliatory blowout turnout in 2024.

Since this case was so nakedly partisan, I think even a conviction won't persuade Trump supporters, and the reasonable undecided, that he really was the terrible crook as claimed. "New York real estate is corrupt?" Oh, I'm so shocked and astounded to learn that. "Trump is a vain blowhard?" Ditto. But also "we took this case for political reasons and to advance our careers, despite the fact that the alleged victims weren't even interested in suing, do you really believe this was a fair trial?" Ditto.

And what are the odds he will pay? Probably not that good.

He has assets in New York that can be seized. I don't expect this to result in a fire sale of Trump tower, but that's the direction things go if he doesn't find the cash himself.

Surely there are many appeals and other delays a wealthy defendant can file for before assets are seized and sold forcibly in this way.

That’s to say nothing of what Trump could do to hurt New York if he wins again, which would presumably result in some behind-the-scenes negotiation.

The various appeals and delays only work if the courts want them to work. If they want to expeditiously bring the case to a conclusion, they can lay the tracks for that.

Even the NYT says proceedings could easily take years, so it seems like it’ll be a while.

Defendants in NY civil cases have to put more the judgement amount into escrow with the court or get a bond before they can appeal.

The Saudis gave Kushner $2bn to manage in the hope he’d still be in favor in a Trump II administration, there are surely unsanctioned parties willing to risk $400m for favor with the man himself.

Kushner wasn't running for office. Being in hock to the Saudis to the tune of $400 million while running for president isn't a good look. There's also the fact that, in the likely event he loses the appeal, the Saudis probably expect him to pay the money back.

I am not sure it’s that easy to shield money. Russia couldn’t shield money from the long reach of dollar hegemony and U.S. financial regulator capacity. No bank can operate without being in good grace with Washington. On Alex Jones best I know he was actually bankrupt.

Criminal almost seems easier to get away with. Just need Desantis to tell a NY warrant to fuck off.

Russia and rich Russians have shielded a huge amount of money. Britain (a major hub for questionable and less questionable Russian money, also with sovereignty over the Cayman Islands etc) explicitly declined to freeze or seize assets of all but a handful of Russian dual citizens, and almost all super rich Russians are dual citizens of Cyprus, Portugal, Malta or elsewhere through investment schemes. Among the Russian rich, it’s really only a very small number of elites closely connected to Putin and his political and military operation who have been sanctioned. There were a ton of rich Russians in Aspen late last year, and of course the usual European resorts (Courchevel etc) were full of them. They just didn’t arrive on Russian passports.

I am sure if anyone is good at protecting assets it would be Trump. The guy is an expert at this sort of stuff. unlike other notable large civil judgements, Trump actually has the ability to satisfy the entire judgement, so it will be interesting to see if he is forced to pay out. It is also possible it will be negotiated to a much lower amount and sealed, so we will have no way of knowing how much is actually paid.

I've done asset protection work and it's not as simple as having good lawyers. The only realistic way to protect assets is to retitle those assets in a trust created for your benefit. It seems simple enough, but the catch is that you can't have any control over the trust assets themselves, the trust has to be irrevocable, and, perhaps most importantly, the trust has to be created well before whatever adverse event it is you're worried about. For instance, Medicaid trusts have a mandatory 5 year lookback period, meaning that the assets aren't fully protected if you apply for Medicaid within 5 years of transferring the assets to the trust. In a non-routine case like this, I'd expect the court to do a more holistic analysis, looking at the timing of asset transfers, the amount of control Donald Trump had over the assets after the transfer (including control over the organizations to whom they were transferred), and transfers to family or other "insiders", the history of his making such transfers, to make a determination as to whether the transfers were ordinary parts of his normal business or done specifically to avoid the judgment.

This case is so bad it’s the exact thing I talked about with ymeskhout about that what he was complaining about the right grifters can get away with anything because the vibes are institutional corruption. And this is worse it’s not some dude making a movie but a court of law in one of the richest states in the union.

No one else has ever been prosecuted for this. It’s like giving a guy a $400 million bill because he jaywalked.

Where do you get the idea that nobody has ever been prosecuted for this? A recent AP article suggests that there have been nearly 150 actions under the law since it was passed in 1956.

Did you read the article?

“AP’s review of nearly 150 reported cases since New York’s “repeated fraud” statute was passed in 1956 showed that nearly every previous time a company was taken away, victims and losses were key factors. Customers had lost money or bought defective products or never received services ordered, leaving them cheated and angry.“

A very key point “customers” so these were frauds targeting retail people where real losses occurred not institutional investors like banks especially ones who did not lose money.

Ignoring actual debating “fraud” as there is no other similar case that has ever been prosecuted under this statute which even the AP admits is true.

So yes this has never been done before.

They didn't take the company away; they levied a fine. It's a large fine, but dissolving the company would have involved appointing a receiver and liquidating all of the company's assets.

There is no functional difference between taking a company and liquidating and just taking 450 million of their money as fine.

But I will repeat show me one similar case prosecuted this way. (They’ve never been prosecuted).

There are obviously many companies that could weather a $450m fine.

Is the reason this case so bad based on the fact that the charges have never been pursued before, or is there also an affirmative defense of the alleged fraud?

The gap between “never been pursued before” and this is the worst thing in the world and punishable by “350 million fine” is absurdly large.

Affirmative sure. There’s a great deal of estimation being done in these deals.

For the securities industry Elon Musks “420 tweet” is considered a bigger deal. Because it targets retail investors versus institutions.

We still have a lot of 2020-2021 market fraud that hasn’t been prosecuted. The whole AMC/GME pump and dump violated a ton of securities law and lost retail investors a lot of money.

Are you claiming that he didn't do anything illegal, or that these laws are rarely enforced?

Because, yeah, I agree that rich people in the US get to break the law all teh time with very little chance of consequences. I don't think that's good, and I don't have a lot of sympathy for the one rich lawbreaker they decide to make an example of.

[disclaimer: I'm not familiar with the merits]

If they're going to make an example of someone, it would be significantly more effective of an example if it can't just be passed off as a political prosecution, as then people would worry it could happen to them and reform their behavior, rather than just make themselves politically unobtrusive.

I agree that it does less to discourage criminals than prosecuting someone solely for being a criminal would.

However, it probably much more effectively discourages criminals from entering politics, which is a good thing.

It probably much more effectively discourages criminals from entering politics on the wrong side, which isn’t quite the same thing.

Are you claiming that he didn't do anything illegal, or that these laws are rarely enforced?

Do we have examples of similar prosecutions for similar crimes?

The problem is you run into the conservative desire to believe in the institutions. There's no way the Democrats could have so blatantly used the court system to engage in political persecution of their opponents. The System wouldn't stand for such a thing. Since it did stand for it, Trump must therefore simply be guilty as his opponents claim, and damn the appearances otherwise.

Sarcasm?

Vantablack pilled

the smarter grifters keep it civil and then use asset protection to avoid having to pay anything . the line between civil and criminal is up to the DA to decide. it can be referred for criminal prosecution.

So does this just end up in the supreme court, then get reversed? I think we should just make it ~impossible to prosecute presidents, past or present, and skip all the theatre.

It would be odd for the Supreme Court to review a state-court common law fraud decision. They could do it, but I suspect they're going to get tired of hearing Trump cases every month. I think there would have to be something specific that is particularly egregious, not just vague suspicions of political targeting (which are likely true IMO).

There's approximately 0 chance it will get to the supreme court.

Someone with a solid chance of being President next January is always going to be able to borrow the money.

Are you sure the amount they have to pay won’t be reduced on appeal? Isn’t it usually in these kinds of cases?

It could be, if he's able to appeal. I suspect his lack of contrition and persistence in committing fraud will weigh heavily against him though.

I respect you for being the resident leftist. We probably actually share some personality traits of liking to play in difficult terrain. For me that’s posting in any non explicitly leftist Reddit sub.

I’ve worked in finance. I’ve done some academic work in real estate finance. I see nothing here. I’ve posted more on this case in prior threads but a few things stand out.

  1. No one has ever been prosecuted before for this

  2. It’s a wealth statement for the personal guarantee. Not the direct loan docs for the exact property/asset securing the loan. IMO if he has a loan for 250 million and claims he’s worth 5 billion but is really worth 2 billion it doesn’t really matter to the bank. So he didn’t profit at all.

  3. The judge is already on the record doing really stupid things. Confusing tax appraisal with market value and claiming Mar-a-Lago is worth $15 million

  4. For the most part he didn’t sign anything that lied about the particular assets. (Some debate condo was doubled in size). He owns Mar-a-Lago. The asset he said he owns he does in fact own and the rest is a valuation question.

This case is almost a litmus test for me on am I talking to a partisan or talking to someone who will say they are just playing games but for media consumption will play the game.

As Ash says, he's not a leftist partisan; he's purely an anti-Trump partisan. TDS knows no pre-existing political boundaries.

Calling someone a partisan is okay (most people here are partisans in one way or another), but accusing people of TDS (another way of saying "You aren't rational, all your arguments are coming from blind partisan hatred") is not.

accusing people of TDS (another way of saying "You aren't rational, all your arguments are coming from blind partisan hatred")

I disagree. Psychology Today says:

There is no shared lay understanding of TDS, mainly because it is a folk category rather than a professional category. As such, there is currently much armchair speculation about the nature and existence of TDS, without consensus.

The name itself explicitly suggests a "syndrome," which the Oxford English Dictionary defines as "a characteristic combination of opinions, emotions, or behavior." Several commentators have run with this, putting forth suggestions about opinions, emotions and behaviors characterizing TDS.

Shared amongst these is a notion that the everyday activities of President Trump trigger some people into distorted opinions, extreme emotions and hysterical behaviors.

Given a concept so vague, there is obviously lots of room for a 'spectrum' here. It is notable that what I said was about TDS, not about Ash. I said:

TDS knows no pre-existing political boundaries.

That is, I am remarking on the incredible nature of TDS, which I would posit is really just shorthand for, "Significantly higher than an individual's normal level of political disgust, specifically in response to Donald Trump, which does not seem to be associated with a clear set of prior political commitments". That is, the value of the term is twofold: 1) It is, indeed, a heightened level of political disgust, which often carries with it some level of "extreme emotions" that PT speaks of, and 2) It is a unique phenomenon that seems to be attached to Trump, himself, rather than traditional politics, therefore in want of nomenclature. I think that some people with TDS manifest with distorted opinions and hysterical behaviors, but the ontologically-prior nature is simply political disgust. (I would admit that this comes must more closely intertwined with "extreme emotions" than the others.)

I think one could be an anti-Trump partisan without having TDS. Primarily, if they don't experience a higher-than-typical (for his or her self) level of political disgust about Trump. I don't get that sense from AshLael. I don't see him posting about, say, anything in Aussie politics in a way that oozes disgust for the spectacle.

One could also be an anti-Trump partisan or even have TDS, yet still make rational arguments. I think there is a huge distinction between a person's personal level of disgust and their tolerance/capacity to make rational arguments in spite of their disgust. Sure, there are some people who cannot tame their disgust, but there are absolutely others who can. I'm sure you can identify several posters here who are absolutely, at their core, disgusted by some of the topics they write about, yet continue to hold themselves to high standards of rationality. The point of rationality, as I understand it, is not to eliminate all emotions, even strong ones or ones concerning disgust. It is not to simply rest on nothing but cold, hard, logic. Instead, it's to understand those emotions and that disgust, and to value it properly, while remaining rational.

Finally, I will absolutely maintain that I did not say that AshLael is being irrational. I spoke merely concerning his partisan valance and to note that this partisan valence, being a somewhat unique phenomenon that seems to be incredibly linked to disgust, does not correlate with prior political divides.

EDIT: If you have a suggestion for an alternate term I could use to indicate this concept, I'm all ears and will switch with haste.

To be clear, is it supposed to be higher-than-typical unjustified disgust, or merely higher than typical disgust? If the latter, are you operating under a model where all politicians deserve an equal level of disgust?

I don't think my model has a concept of justified/unjustified disgust, nor a sense in which all politicians deserve an equal level of disgust. Just that individuals have a possibly noisy level of general political disgust, and that Trump created an unprecedented increase, well above the noise level, of disgust in them. This disgust can have different outcomes in different folks (in ways that are path dependent), but the core linkage between them is this outsized disgust, which does not correlate with prior political commitments. In fact, it is due to the fact that it does not correlate with prior political commitments that it can have different outcomes in different folks.

EDIT: If you have a suggestion for an alternate term I could use to indicate this concept, I'm all ears and will switch with haste.

"Anti-Trump partisan" will do. If you want to make the much longer argument you made above - that "TDS" is actually a thing and represents more than simply hating Trump - then you will have to do so, by making that argument (and explaining why it applies to the OP). I am not impressed by citations from Psychology Today. You may recall that back in the late 90s and oughts there was something of a cottage industry of articles from psychologists and linguists and others arguing very soberly that, essentially, conservatives are all mentally ill and/or fascists whose mommies didn't love them enough. I'm sure you would not be receptive to someone "shorthanding" this concept in such a way as to simply label conservatives crazy.

I respect you for being the resident leftist.

I'm very much not a leftist.

Higher courts typically defer to the trial court's fact-finding

Surely this doesn't apply when the judge is openly partisan and basically making stuff up out of thin air? In other words that has to have actually been an attempt at fact finding for them to defer to.

Surely this doesn't apply when the judge is openly partisan and basically making stuff up out of thin air?

Agreed, if that ever happened, it would probably be a different story.

  • -11

Surely this doesn't apply when the judge is openly partisan and basically making stuff up out of thin air?

It absolutely does. Either because the appeals judge is also biased (as will be true here), or because they see maintaining the integrity of the system as more important than maintaining justice.

Very curious who he will borrow from to pay. My guess would be Arab oil money, but I’m not sure how broad the definition of “registered in New York” is.

‘Having a president owe you a half billion dollars’ is a sweet, sweet deal- he’ll find someone to offer him the money.

Maybe Barron can take up art and sell his paintings to earn some $.

Farce of a case, the prosecution on the record as targeting Trump for political purposes, the judge a partisan hack, the alleged wrongs being that Trump exaggerated his business assets even though none of his partners were ever apparently harmed. Some of the banks Trump supposedly defrauded testified in his defense. Basic confusion of assessed value and appraised value. And Mar-a-Lago is just worth $18M. Show trial.

This is the kind of stuff that will massively, radially destabilize the country. You don't have a country anymore if hostile partisan judges in one-party states will just sue their political opponents into oblivion. At best, you have slow-boiling political turmoil and lawfare. But it's not really a country or a democracy in any meaningful sense. Critics of Trump who may feel tempted to defend whatever rationalization Engoron and Letitia have established should beware. This puts US down a troubling path.

Channeling my inner @Nybbler here.

In my mind, these show trials demonstrate how thoroughly the left now dominates the legal profession. Lawfare is asymmetrical. The left can use it to attack the right with no fear of repercussions.

There is no possibility that similar tactics get used against Democrats and everyone knows it.

Desantis won against Disney.

There's no possibilty it gets used against any mainstream conservative either. You can't use it effectively against anyone who is replaceable. Go after Dubya in 2000 you'd have handed the election to McCain, go after Romney in '12 you hand the election to Ryan or Huntsman. Go after Obama in 08 President HRC.

It only works against Trump because there is no backup Trump. The moment he is off the ballot he disappears.

This is 100% cope. They'll use it against anyone. Against someone other than Trump, they probably won't have to force it to a conclusion, they'll just file the case and the target will get in line.

This explains what’s been going on at the Texas border for months very well, doesn’t it?

Oh, right. Maybe trump should be threatening a civil war instead of ranting on Twitter.

If we believe Trump "In the end, they're not coming after me. They're coming after you — and I'm just standing in their way," then it's just a matter of time.

If they successfully manage to prevent Trump from getting elected in 2024, then that's done isn't it? The hordes of poor people wanting to move to the USA is not going away by November. Abbott is just in the way for a little bit. How much business does he even have in NY?

They can always find some guy who committed fraud in NY who talked to Abbott's wife's nephew once to get him subpoenaed and jailed for failure to appear in court etc once the proof of concept is established and everybody moved on from Trump.

There doesn't seem to be a statute of limitations on people Democrats really have a grudge against like the Charlottesville protesters.

Maybe trump should be threatening a civil war instead of ranting on Twitter.

Probably. Running a second time in a race that you claim was rigged the first time does have a certain unseriousness.

Abbott has no assets in NY. He may have assets in banks “registered in” New York, but that sounds like the kind of case SCOTUS would be much more interested in than Trump’s current predicament. Trump’s current problem is that he’s unquestionably a ‘New York businessman’ and longtime resident until recently, so his own Supreme Court justices are more likely to agree it’s a state matter.

It doesn’t appear that Abbott has done anything illegal except raise an army to physically prevent federal forces from performing a core federal function.

Ken Paxton, on the other hand, is facing federal charges for multiple unrelated issues and plays a key role in the administration’s border response.

I agree that politics was a motivation in pursuing the case, but it seems beyond doubt that Trump's organization did, in fact, engage in "creative" (i.e. fraudulent) accounting. I mean, he's a New York ex-Democrat real estate magnate. What were the chances that everything was above-board?

Selective prosecution is a problem, but it's a lot less of one when you aren't guilty. It's like the left-wing pundits who are angry about air time being given to Biden's cognitive decline. DOJ prosecutors can certainly communicate prosecution decisions to the public in a politically-motivated way, and the media can decide how much to cover them, but ultimately the effectiveness of these attacks hinges on Biden actually having declined cognitively. At some level, Democrats are responsible for painting themselves into a corner with this liability. So it is for Republicans who are staking their political future on someone as unreliable as Trump.

Trump literally campaigned on 'I know how to deal with corporate criminals because I was one'.

'Oh no, the open criminal we decided to turn into the messianic central pillar of our party is being prosecuted for the crimes we all knew he was committing' is not a super sympathetic position. You rolls the dice, you takes your chances.

I agree that politics was a motivation

It was the sole motivation. If you don't understand that you don't understand the moment.

Trump's organization did, in fact, engage in "creative" (i.e. fraudulent) accounting

No one was harmed. New York brought a civil case, not a criminal case, because no laws were broken. The banks involved had all their loans paid back, and testified in Trump's defense. So what creative accounting? That the appraised and assessed values of Trump properties are not the same thing? This is like if I accused you of having child porn on your computer, and someone said: Well, it can't be denied that there's porn on his computer.

You're trying to turn this into a both-sides case. It isn't. Political actors who promised to bring Trump down brought him in court, declared that his assets weren't worth as much as he said they were, then used their own valuations to accuse him of

So it is for Republicans who are staking their political future on someone as unreliable as Trump.

This is a form of victim-blaming: Democrats prosecute Trump to an unprecedented degree, and the logic says Republicans have to abandon Trump because he's the risky one. Do you think other Republicans will not be subject to these same attacks in future? This is a one-off? The Great Trump Exception?

That the appraised and assessed values of Trump properties are not the same thing?

For those of us who are unfamiliar with real-estate finance, can you explain the difference between them and how it applies to this case? They both sound like they mean 'How much is this building/land worth?', but if there is a legitimate difference between them....

An appraisal will tell you roughly what the market value of a property is. An assessment will tell you what the government values the property at for tax purposes. You might think that those should be the same, but in many, if not most, jurisdictions, they aren’t. Some city and county assessors even provide separate assessment and appraisal values each year.

The last time we discussed this, I gave the example of farmland in my area, which is pretty much universally assessed at around $2,000 per acre, even though the sale price of farmland is typically close to $20,000 per acre. The counties choose to assess farmland at a far lesser rate than its market value in order to keep farming financially viable in the area. It’s essentially a sort of hidden subsidy. Some jurisdictions also cap the rate at which property taxes can rise from year to year, which can eventually cause assessments to fall far behind appraisal values, even if they were once fairly close.

I mean California is the obvious example that does this explicitly. I believe Cali assessed tax value is based on approximately last sale value.

Two identical properties next door each other will have vastly different assessed values. If house 1 was last sold in 1955 it’s value will be like $10k for taxes even if the identical house next door sold in 2023 has a tax assessed value of $3 million.

This is a form of victim-blaming: Democrats prosecute Trump to an unprecedented degree, and the logic says Republicans have to abandon Trump because he's the risky one. Do you think other Republicans will not be subject to these same attacks in future? This is a one-off? The Great Trump Exception?

I think this mistakes the nature of politics. Political actors will virtually always use whatever weapons they can against their opponents. It's not as if we've existed in a state of peace and harmony up until this moment.

Democrats will not sue DeSantis for fraud like they did to Trump for the same reason that Republicans did not impeach Obama for perjury like they did to Clinton. That is, they don't have the weapon available to use.

Trump is indeed the great exception, in that he has handed his enemies a uniquely large array of weapons to use against him.

Democrats will not sue DeSantis for fraud

Well, I saw a lot of online rejoicing that DeSantis was a fool and an idiot to take on Disney with its deep pockets and array of the best lawyers money can buy, and that they would totally destroy him in court.

How's that working out for Disney?

DeSantis managed to hobble his campaign all on his own, but Disney lawsuits had nothing to do with it.

Political actors will virtually always use whatever weapons they can against their opponents. It's not as if we've existed in a state of peace and harmony up until this moment.

This seems untrue for any sense more meaningful than the tautological one where any tool unused 'must' have not be available.

Eric Holder was not impeached nor charged with contempt of congress after the DoJ switched hands, despite his original Congressional contempt vote being widely bipartisan. Despite the fevered wishes of every progressive on the internet from 2003-2008, Dubya never faced criminal charges. Lujan Grisham was not impeached, the calls to censor couldn't even get all Republicans, and she will not be facing a hundred citizen grand juries for clearly unconstitutional executive orders; she has not so far faced a single one.

I'm not proposing people avoided these mistakes out of the goodness of their cold, shriveled hearts. Indeed, there may well have been tactical causes, or even simple ignorance or inability. And yet.

Democrats will not sue DeSantis for fraud

That's an interesting specific example to bring forward! Let's go drink from a tall glass of water and look at some headlines from a little over a year ago.

That's on me, I set the bar too low.

Ok so fair call out, but I'm not sure to what extent we actually disagree on substance. As you say, there may be tactical restraint, or ignorance or inability. But my core position is that political actors will attack their enemies in the most effective ways they can, and the most effective methods available will vary according to the person and situation. And I'm not sure that you even disagree with that.

I think I disagree.

Yes, there's a trivial sense that we aren't going to see DeSantis sued to destroy or dissolve his real estate business operating under New York State laws, given that he doesn't have one. I'm rather hoping that's not the core and central argument for your claim. Political actors have made no small number of attacks, both legal and social, against people who did nothing, or did nothing legally wrong; that fraud case against DeSantis is just the funniest. Federal politicians have been lost their seats and been convicted for allegations that didn't make sense and weren't true.

Political actors are neither unified nor rational nor solely motivated by effectiveness. Their preferred approach will vary according to the person and situation, but they'll also vary based on personal flippery, on the motivations of volunteers and donors, and on the recognition of norms and fear of retribution, among other things. And many of these, most critically, will be more important than the actual guilt or perceived vulnerability of the target.

That's why for Trump -- with all of his clear and tremendous faults -- also got slapped with a wide variety of aggressive lawsuits based on hilariously false claims and/or with no interest in the facts. It's very unclear that this will be different for anyone else; it's not even clear that the trial results would be tremendously different.

Yes, this didn't happen historically. There were a ton of calls among progressives to jail (or try in the Hague) Dubya, but it never happened. But it's been sixteen years since the end of the Dubya presidency. Even ultimately 'unsuccessful' attacks have turned out to work, progressive efforts to take over institutions that would defang or blunt these attacks have been wildly successful, and we've learned the hard way that a small industry can operate solely around building this class of tool.

I think this mistakes the nature of politics. Political actors will virtually always use whatever weapons they can against their opponents. It's not as if we've existed in a state of peace and harmony up until this moment.

Trump is indeed the great exception, in that he has handed his enemies a uniquely large array of weapons to use against him.

I would like for you to spell out and defend the idea that Trump is the only president who has committed actions his enemies can call crimes and attempt to prosecute.

I don't claim this. Nixon would also have been prosecuted for crimes if Ford hadn't pardoned him.

"Actions his enemies can call crimes" carries the connotation "action which his enemies would call crimes but other people would not". Nixon's actions wouldn't count under that, even if it is literally true that his enemies call them crimes.

I think that Nixon's actions were both less bad than Trump's and less clearly criminal.

New York brought a civil case, not a criminal case, because no laws were broken

The case was a civil action brought under New York Executive Law § 63(12), which explicitly enables the Attorney General to bring suit against someone engaged in repeated fraud. Not all fraud is criminal; most is a civil matter.

So what creative accounting? That the appraised and assessed values of Trump properties are not the same thing?

One of Trump's properties jumped in reported value from $80 million to $150 million between 2005 and 2006 without explanation. He admitted under oath in 2007 that he overstates property values and thinks most other people do as well. Trump's former attorney, Michael Cohen, testified before Congress that Trump regularly inflated or deflated the values of his properties for ego or tax purposes. Trump's own CFO testified at trial that Trump had overstated property values by hundreds of millions of dollars (around double their value). In facilitation of this, he also falsely reported other data about his properties, such as reporting a 10,000 sq. ft. apartment as 30,000 sq. ft. These are not small technical discrepancies, but a repeated pattern of massively fudging numbers for financial and tax benefits.

Do you think other Republicans will not be subject to these same attacks in future?

The ones that engage in decades of systematic fraud, yeah.

Got it. The Democratic prosecutor who campaigned on going after Trump for political purposes is a one-off that will only be used when Republicans deserve it. Incidentally, Trump deserved it. Maybe if they prosecuted literally anybody else for financial crimes in the State of New York, I'd believe you.

Maybe I'd take your position a little less skeptically if you were arguing that every politician in the stock market, or every banker behind 2008, should also be charged with fraud. I'd still think it was convenient, since none of those people are actually getting prosecuted, and likely never will. But at least you could claim that your claim to principles is principled.

I'm sure plenty of Democrats would like to go after everyone with an (R) after their name, but the ability to successfully prosecute or sue political opponents is still heavily contingent on them having provably committed crimes or torts. This is not an endorsement of selective prosecution, merely an observation that Trump is a uniquely vulnerable target because he can't seem to stop breaking the law. It's hard to discern if his legal troubles represent an unprecedented weaponization of the justice system versus him being an unprecedented outlier in terms of surface area for liability. Maybe indiscriminate Democrat lawfare against Republicans will become the norm, but it's hard to conclude that based on evidence available today since it's so deeply confounded by the singular choice of opponent.

What are you talking about? Politicians break the law all the time! Whether it's through illegal schemes as part of the political process, or graft conducted at the expense of the political office. Explain to me why Trump "can't seem to stop breaking the law" compared to: Nancy Pelosi's infamous insider trading; Diane Feinstein's husband profiting off business ties to China; Joe Biden profiting off Hunter Biden's foreign business dealings.

American politicians break the law all the time by selling themselves to the highest bidder, and you want to grandstand about how Trump keeps breaking the law. I bet you jaywalk.

Nancy Pelosi's infamous insider trading

Insider trading laws are extremely lax with regard to transactions made by congresspeople. This is very convenient for them, and they should be pressured to ban congressional stock trading. The same can be said for Feinstein's conflicts of interest due her husband's business ties. Improper? Unethical? Sure. Illegal? They have expensive law degrees and lawyers (also with expensive law degrees), and they wrote the laws. Chances are they know exactly where the line is and didn't cross it. Prosecutors can't be held responsible for selective prosecution if the law hasn't actually been broken; they have no recourse even if they think lawmakers are scumbags that belong in prison.

Joe Biden profiting off Hunter Biden's foreign business dealings.

There is an impeachment investigation over this run by congressional Republicans. It's not going well, by the way. I share your cynicism that he might have colluded with his son in influence peddling, but coming up with compelling evidence that stands up under scrutiny hasn't gone well even with motivated people at the helm. Trump, by contrast, managed to get caught on tape admitting that he possessed classified documents that he didn't declassify before leaving office. He's not merely unethical (like most of Washington), but also criminal (by the letter of the law) and incompetent. This astonishing combination of characteristics suffices to explain his legal troubles, or at least casts doubt on the theory that unprecedented Democrat norm-breaking is primarily to blame.

More comments

Maybe if they prosecuted literally anybody else for financial crimes in the State of New York, I'd believe you.

Are you suggesting that Trump is the first person to ever be found liable for fraud in New York? I'm willing to bet a large amount that's not true.

If you are going to keep making this claim you need to show another victimless fraud case that occurred that had zero pressure from an victim pushing for prosecution.

We can avoid discussing whether Trump did fraud. Just show me a victimless fraud case in NYC.

Here.

More comments

This demonstrates the US is already well along that path. As AshLael points out, there's no avenue for appeal; Trump can't put up the money and even if he could, the higher courts in NY would rule against him and there's no substantial Federal question. Conservatives will just convince themselves that Trump did bad and deserved it and everything is fine, and the left will keep on winning.

You seriously believe that a 50% chance of the POTUS owing you half a billion dollars(and a 50% chance of taking a loss on some of that half billion) will have no takers?

Trump can't put up the money

If there’s nobody willing to lend someone with a 40-60% chance of being the next president $400m, they have bigger problems than their debt. Of course Trump can raise the money, at least provided he does so before November.

I'm confident they'll find a way to criminalize it

That’s much more likely to go to the Supreme Court than the current ruling. For example, if the court ruled that they wouldn’t allow a Saudi-affiliated fund or individual of some kind to pay because Trump was a political figure that would be naked interference in federal politics that SCOTUS would be much more interested in. They already tried to skirt around this by suggesting he couldn’t borrow the money from banks ‘registered in New York’ which once including affiliates is pretty much any bank, but even then there are a huge number of funds or individuals-related-to-funds that could lend the Trump Organization the money. NY might try to challenge it, but precedent is tough in these cases (see what happened to the building they tried to seize by claiming it was owned by Iran) and if they draw the lines so expansively that everyone involved in finance is included because Wall Street is technically in New York then SCOTUS is again going to look upon that pretty dimly; preemption rights already limit the state’s authority across a huge number of financial services matters. Preemption precedents in finance strongly suggests that this action - under one interpretation barring Trump from raising money from any major financial organization - already violates existing federal legislation and there would also be extensive commerce clause considerations if, say, a Utah bank with an office in NY was blocked from lending the money.

The source of the money has to be acceptable both to the court and to the public. He won't be borrowing it from MBS, on both accounts.

He doesn’t need to borrow it from MBS directly.

Hell there are probably seven figures of hardcore Q population that will send him a nice Andrew Jackson portrait (or two), no repayment expected. Honestly I'm tempted as payback for all the lulz.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats