Search Posts

Byron York: It’s all in a case that was suspiciously weak from the very beginning. James alleged that Trump overstated the values of his various properties for purposes of getting better terms for big real estate loans. One big problem in the case was that the banks involved, the alleged victims of Trump’s alleged fraud, testified that 1) they made the loans based on their own assessments of the properties, not Trump’s; 2) they were paid back on time and in full; 3) they made money on the loans; and 4) they would do business with Trump again. All that meant James’s case against Trump was uniquely unfair. 'An Associated Press analysis of nearly 70 years of civil cases under [New York] law showed that such a penalty has only been imposed a dozen previous times,' the Associated Press reported in January, 'and Trump’s case stands apart in a significant way: It’s the only big business found that was threatened with a shutdown without a showing of obvious victims and major losses.'"