All of Trump's children seem to have issues recalling details of their key roles in the family business.
Maybe they shouldn't be running such a big, important business with their memory problems.
I find it hilarious his children are still pretending like his will won't read like a happy meal receipt from McDonald's.
I think I believe them about this. All of them have been wildly wealthy their entire life. Super duper wealthy and cavalier about how they experiment with spending it (what more careful people might call “business ventures”). I figure their father leads by example.
I think they really might spend their time do stupid shit, signing papers people that hang around them give them to sign, look for media opportunities and basically ENJOY being fucking stupid wealthy. It’s possible they’ve been cosplaying at being successful business people.
If thats the case then why would they remember how things went down? How big a penthouse is? Or anything. I think they’re fucked because Trump cares about his actual wealth and has probably seen it go down over his lifetime way more than he wants. That core fear is might be why all the bluster and cons and fraud?
I'm not surprised this was her strategy. Seems likw the easiest way to avoid perjury.
It was either that or the fifth and because it's a civil trial taking the fifth can absolutely be used against you unlike a criminal trial so thats probably why she went with the "I dunno" defense
"i can't recall" allows inferences too. Remember, it's a civil trial so the bar is "a preponderance of the evidence"- which, as a standard, is that a claim is 'more likely true than not true';
the "i can't recall" and the "i plead the fifth" are both a refusal to provide evidence, and that refusal allows the judge to make inferences about what you're not providing evidence. That said, they've already lost the trial, and they're probably going to get fucked even if she had perfect clarity... so the civil trial is more or less a lost cause (and a poltiical campaign point for Trump.). providing testimony might mitigate some of the fines... but probably would expose them to further criminal charges.
Also, politically, pleading the fifth will absolutely imply wrongdoing to most people.
But why is her neck so long?
She doesn't recall
Fantastic game. Little nightmares.
They must have had to pull her sternum up to give her a chin. She looked like a beardless version of her brothers before the surgery
Guess she found a babysitter….
So, assuming the ability to recall emails that contain evidence of an intent to defraud or a crime does not exonerate people (eg, saying you don’t remember robbing the bank isn’t going to get you out of the video evidence of you doing so), what’s the procedure here?
Since this is a civil trial, can the court infer the intent to deceive based on the evidence presented? I know that taking the 5th in civil trials can be inferred as evasive and negative in some states for civil but not criminal trials, but I don’t know how that applies here.
Judge has already ruled that fraud was done. This part of the trial is just to figure out the penalties. The more they can muddy waters as to who, exactly did the fraud, the more they can hope the judge treats them like absurdly negligent morons rather than criminal masterminds.
It's like there's this committee of Trumps, and they're going one by one, asking "who shat in the punchbowl?" None of the kids can remember doing it, and their daddy just thinks it's a travesty that we're even talking about the steaming load. The evidence is all there, everyone knows what happened, but it's hard to know how much of a team effort it was and whom to punish.
As far as I know, the judge can directly compare the evidence to testimony and use it as part of the ruling.
So since she isn't providing anything to refute the evidence, the evidence is accepted as is?
Well, testimony can give context to evidence. The judge can infer a lot from what they won’t say.
These people aren’t secretaries or interns. They are top executives and they can’t seem to recall any of their duties that went into these evaluations. The judge is at least able to glean that they are incompetent and fraudulent when deciding damages.
Since this is a civil trial, can the court infer the intent to deceive based on the evidence presented?
yes.
"I don't recall"
aka
"I definitely recall but this canned phrase is basically a get out of jail free card in America"
Only if you're rich.
https://securityaffairs.com/59757/hacking/iphone-passcode-police.html
https://casetext.com/case/gray-v-state-336 5 Months for 'Not Remembering something'
In civil trials out didn't work like that. If they can at all prove you knew or should have known the answer you can catch contempt.
Yeah and if you act like a baboon then you also get contempt yet here we are - Trump has not been found in contempt. Anyone else in the entire world would be locked up for attitude alone
They don't have to charge contempt at the time it can be added concurrent to sentences. Doing it now could spark a riot so they'll wait.
Oh Bullshit if any other person acted that way they would be in jail.
The legal system is not tied to 'what will unrelated crazy people do' because you know what - they're gonna fuckin do whatever they want anyways.
If we succumbed to that then we should've stopped the count when they oh so politely asked. Allowed Congress to refuse to certify. Allowed them to hang Mike Pence because shit - they're gonna riot some more.
Likely yes.
Unfortunately when it effects due process it does, he deserves a fair trial just like why other asshole.
In criminal cases, the charges must be proven true beyond any reasonable doubt; probably == innocent. In civil cases, the bar is only more likely than not; probably == guilty.
Yes, that doesn't at all change what I've said.
In civil cases, “the Fifth Amendment does not forbid adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them.” (Baxter v. Palmigiano (1976) 425 U.S. 308, 318.)
This is the best summary I could come up with:
In one exchange Ivanka Trump was shown a series of emails and other documents relating to a loan from Deutsche Bank’s private wealth management division.
“I don’t recall,” she said, when asked about multiple documents and emails that showed she played a key role in deals to obtain financing for the Trump Organization.
Trump’s lawyers made the case that Deutsche Bank was delighted to do business with the family and favorable loans were part of their attempts to woo them.
The attorney general’s office had wanted Trump’s eldest daughter to testify in court before the former president himself took the stand, but ultimately rescheduled her appearance because of her appeal.
Before the trial started, Judge Arthur Engoron found Trump guilty of inflating the value of his assets on state financial statements that were used to broker deals and obtain loans.
Though Trump’s team is appealing the decision, he stands to lose his state business licenses if the appellate court sides with Engoron.
The original article contains 830 words, the summary contains 162 words. Saved 80%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Smartest person in the Trump family.
Which is still dumb compared to the average
The McConnell Defense! Ah do nawt recahul.
Those people must be all suffering from dementia
Looks like someone learned from Olaf Scholz
"i forgor"
💀
To be fair, I don't recall most of my time on hard drugs as well.
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News