Pretty much what the title says. I know he’s a former president and has all of his supporters, but what’s the official reason? Thanks.
I understand what you’re saying but the logic is a little flawed.
Yes, they both committed fraud.
SBF defrauded the crypto community, his investors, and FTX users.
Trump defrauded lenders, property insurers, and various tax authorities (and via that tax fraud, the taxpayers of NY and possibly the USA.)
SBF was charged criminally and found guilty. I assure you, the civil cases are coming against SBF. And the plaintiffs will most likely win those civil cases.
Trump was charged civilly and found guilty. I assure you, the criminal cases are coming against Trump. And the plaintiffs will most likely lose those criminal cases.
That’s the true difference.
I assure you, the criminal cases are coming against Trump
Fucking when, after he becomes president again and pardons himself, or after he croaks from obesity and dementia?
President can’t pardon state cases.
After all you’ve seen Trump get away with I can’t believe that you still somehow think this little detail will matter. SCOTUS will create an exemption of some kind for him.
“White male Presidents over the age of 75 that wear predominantly red ties can pardon themselves at both the federal and state level.”
As much as I’d like to believe that SCOTUS will honor separation between state and federal, I simply do not trust our current justices. I fully expect them to say, “Nah…it’s totes cool for Trump, and only Trump, to commit crimes.”
At some point people are just gonna start ignoring the SC completely. I can’t find any polls specifically about legitimacy per se, but confidence in the court is already very low, and even Republicans aren’t all that happy with it.
He’s not supposed to be able to do a lot of the shit he’s getting away with. At this point I fully expect him to try to pardon himself, NY will say he can’t do that, it’ll go to the SC, who will say that he can.
Do state cases stay state cases?
Could “someone” leak some evidence that would make the case a federal one, and then pardon himself?
technically he can but it would bring about a legitimate constitutional crisis if republicans look the other way since it would be the first time he openly acted against the constitution and received no push back for it.
the criminal cases are coming against Trump. And the plaintiffs will most likely lose those criminal cases.
Bank fraud seems relatively easy to charge him with. If you knowingly provide false info on a bank document, it’s a federal crime. His signature on each loan application was a crime.
You can’t tell the State of NY your building is worth $1 and tell the bank it’s worth $3. These banks literally had a procedure for dealing with his constant lies on bank documents. Large banks are federally regulated and it’s a federal crime to lie to them on your loan application.
Jesus fuck thank you, it’s so hard seeing a bunch of doomer shit in threads like this
Saying he’s going to win all the criminal cases is pretty doomer.
People keep asking this. I guess it’s the new spin the Trump fascists are trying to work.
Why New York state is suing Trump instead of charging him with crimes
James seems to be taking this approach, as opposed to a criminal indictment, because New York law empowers the AG to seek damages caused by fraudulent business behavior as a form of consumer protection. The law doesn’t require the AG to identify a victim or even demonstrate anybody suffered harm. Plus, the burden of proof is lower in civil cases than in criminal ones.
“What makes this statute particularly powerful is that there doesn’t have to be a loss,” Will Thomas, a law professor at the University of Michigan’s Ross School of Business, told Yahoo Finance. “This statute has been used to disgorge profits illegally gained. The government can be allowed to claw back all of those profits. Provable nature is lower, and you don’t have to prove intent or willfulness.”
A civil suit also prevents James from bumping into the criminal case against Trump’s company that the Manhattan district attorney is prosecuting. Those two offices sometimes work together on criminal cases, as they’re doing on the recent indictment of former Trump adviser Steve Bannon. With regard to Trump, however, they seem to be pursuing complementary approaches instead of overlapping ones.
So the answer is: it’s easier to win, it’s easier to punish Trump & they can still file criminal charges after a successful civil case if more crimes are uncovered.
Thank you. That’s pretty much what I was looking for.
they’re both terrible people who deserve everything they get but sbf didn’t nominate judges to the court who can rule in his favour.
Also nobody’s threatening to kill judges who rule against sbf
Trump subscribes to a higher justice tier than Sam does.
Sam didn’t spring for the ad-free tier and now has to have his time wasted?
Civil vs Criminal. Trump got a disgorgement, it’s not a fine. He’s been ordered to pay back his ill-gotten gains, that’s not the same thing as a fine. Anyhow, a civil case can’t end in jail time. That’s not how civil cases work.
A civil case can end with a criminal indictment however, which is certainly coming at this point.
See my other post in this thread for why it was done this way.
Disgorgement isn’t a fine, it’s a special attack that deals acid damage.
It’s not federal vs state
It’s protected vs sacrificial lamb.
The powerful avoid the mobs by occasionally giving up one of their own to the horde.
If that is the case, why is Trump being tried at all?
Just because the powerful enjoy breaking laws with impunity doesn’t mean occasionally people won’t try to hold them to account.
In Trump’s case even powerful wealthy people think he went too far, and some of them are terrified of the consequences of a second term.
Trump’s fines are from his Civil cases. SBF had Criminal charges.
Yeah but that was what I was asking. They both committed fraud. I realize the nature of the fraud was different but was wondering why one was criminal and the other not. They seem to have jumped on Fried pretty quickly and gave him a high penalty. It seems pretty obvious that Trump is a former president of but he’s being prosecuted for other criminal charges so it seemed to me there must have been some crucial difference the two, other than their standing.
Trump defrauded the state/city/taxpayers while Bankman defrauded rich investors. Also, the aforementioned civil vs criminal cases.
Trump defrauded rich investors as well, one of the big cases against him right now is about him using a Forbes article to lie about his net worth to get loans.
Thank you.
It’s a matter of privilege. Trump had the opportunity to stack the courts in his favor. SBF didn’t. The rich rally around Trump because they see him as one of their own. SBF was an interloper. Trump has a rabid fan base willing to commit violence in his name. SBF cloaked himself in effective altruism.
If they both don’t rot in jail, then the myth of the social contract in the US will be torn to shreds. I fear what would happen after that.
deleted by creator
Basically, just fraud.
deleted by creator
Mainly because Trump can start riots with a word and nobody gives a fuck about Sam Bankman Fraud. Obviously the cases are different, but the reason the approach is different is the aforementioned riots and possible civil war.
Yeah, I was looking for the legal reason.
I understand, but that’s the reason. Even though legally he may have defrauded a bunch of people, they can’t go after him as hard, because he can set the country on fire with a word. That’s why no matter what he does, he seems to get away with it. He’s not bulletproof. It’s just that if you take a shot and miss, you’re gonna kill innocent civilians.
In as barebones as I can make it, SBF disappeared money from the wealthy with no return of investment. Trump held office and was able to deregulate and reduce taxes for the wealthy allowing their wealth to accumulate.
Your bones are broken then, because that’s just straight up not how it works.
Trump was fined because it was a civil trial that he lost. In this instance. His criminal trials are ongoing.
SBF is getting locked up because it was a criminal trial that he lost.
The laws that lead to such actions being classified as they are, are a direct result of the the rich imposing their desires on the world. Trump is a vessel for that to happen for most of them, so he is tolerated, more or less.
The fact that Trump was able to commit the frauds in the first place and only get attention from the law just now is part of the wealthy’s SOP
Going by that logic, hasn’t Trump defrauded big banks rich people have huge amounts of assets in?
I didn’t say he was an ideal vessel. He’s just managed to somehow be cool(?)er than they are with the population, and they benefit still. I don’t mean like some illuminati type BS, just a matter of happy coincidences, and a few convenient occasional suggestions I’d imagine. Oh, and money.
Besides, the amount he’s defrauded is essentially chump change once you consider insurance and assets etc.
SBF was a poor who got money through a fluke. Trump was born a rich and therefore the system is set up to protect him. Poors are not allowed to become riches unless they got it from exploiting the poors. Steal from the rich: that’s theft. When you steal from the poor: capitalism.
I mean, if you want to stay safe in life, maybe don’t make your own last name “Fried”
Bit of a difference between outright theft and a civil dispute over the value of a property put up for a loan,
Really? Isn’t fraudulently paying less in taxes, stealing from the government? I thought Al Capone went to prison for tax avoidance.
Tax evasion and a dispute over property valuation are not the same thing either. Tac avoidance is legal, think loopholes, evasion is not, but i think you knew that and intentionally used the wrong term.
Pretty sure fluxuating your property valuation depending on your need is actually illegal and not just loopholes. But i think you knew that.
Nobody knows that until sometime after the next three-five appeals. Besides, assessed value is for taxes, real value is for loans.
