Examples, but shortly after the judgement I wondered about its consistency with precedent. My firm has a sophisticated real estate team, so I asked the sr guy who’d never shown any political preferences over the 20 yrs I’ve known him - he’s got around 30 yrs in commercial real estate. He thinks Trump was guilty of valuation practices way beyond the normal games ethically challenged operators and landlords play in a somewhat ethically challenged industry. He agreed Trump and his peeps show no willingness to recognize wrongdoing, which has been true for decades, and that he didn’t help his cause with his conduct during the trial.

But he thinks the penalty itself was many multiples what it would be if anyone other than Trump were found guilty of this, even given all the brazen, disrespectful behavior. So, you can place the burden on me to produce a study showing assets haven’t been seized (even after the business certificate suspension was stayed on appeal), but I don’t think a precedent exists where the penalty was set at maybe 10 times what it would have been for a different, less divisive figure. The unprecedented size of the penalty itself is the reason for it.

If you ask this guy, that penalty will be knocked down on appeal. By a factor of 10? I don’t know. But how will any asset seizures set by a penalty which is knocked down significantly on appeal be remedied? I think I can’t find a study meeting the burden you placed on me because they don’t exist - penalties that would essentially board up a business, causing asset seizures while the business is still authorized to operate, while appeals are still available.

In other words, it does not appear that Trump is receiving equal treatment to a different defendant not named Trump under analogous circumstances.





[Post edited by hoolstoptheheels at 03/23/2024 3:10PM]