After an appeals court ruled on Monday that Donald Trump could proceed with a much lower amount than the $454 million penalty against him in his civil fraud case, New York Attorney General Letitia James fired back at the former president.

“Donald Trump is still facing accountability for his staggering fraud. The court has already found that he engaged in years of fraud to falsely inflate his net worth and unjustly enrich himself, his family, and his organization. The $464 million judgment – plus interest – against Donald Trump and the other defendants still stands,” James said in a statement.

  • Buffalox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    No, it was because of different requirements in evidence, and this was the best option against Trump.
    It’s sad to see such a misinformed opinion upvoted so much here IMO.

    There are enough cases to prove the sentiment, that it’s unnecessary to make shit up. Letitia James absolutely did a good job here, representing the state and justice, and it was her decision to make it civil for best chance of success.

      • Buffalox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        The fact that this is civil fraud and not criminal fraud is an example of the two tiers of justice.

        It’s right there. By claiming this is part of the 2 tier justice, you directly accuse Letitia James since it was her decision, of going soft on Trump by making the case civil. That’s very clearly implied.

        • snooggums@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          The fact that hundreds of millions of dollars of fraud is civil and not criminal is what I was criticizing. Not the prosecutor who is working with what is available.

          There was no implication.

          At best you inferred that it was about the prosecutor based on your assumptions about something I neither said nor existed on the context of the comment chain.