What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Razgovory]

Trump reminds me of those loopy defendants who defend themselves and just ramble on attacking the whole system.

[The Minsky Moment]

Again and again I keep seeing right leaning media expressing fake surprise about a bank fraud case where the bank sustained no tangible loss.    The NY Post just ran a breathless editorial warning of dire consequences to NY business from such a precedent.

And again this has always been the law.  The NYAG has been suing gobs of defendants for decades on frauds that involve no loss.  And perhaps even more to the point, the Feds have been indicting, convicting and sending to jail bank fraud defendants despite no evidence of loss, also for decades.  The defendants with felony convictions based on such charges don't seem to have caused any general collapse in American business.

Bank fraud is a public offense, the harm is to the public.  It doesn't matter whether in a given instance, the bank gets lucky and sustains no loss.  The harm is the exposure of the BANKING SYSTEM to greater risk.  It is a public not private harm and is entirely separate from any private harm or loss suffered by a bank.

Sorry for hammering the point, but the persistence of this bullshit narrative is driving me a bit nuts.  This is not Donald Trump being unfairly targeted.  This is Donald Trump losing his shit because for once he is being held to the same standard as everyone else and not getting special treatment.

[Barrister]

Bank fraud is a public offense, the harm is to the public.  It doesn't matter whether in a given instance, the bank gets lucky and sustains no loss.  The harm is the exposure of the BANKING SYSTEM to greater risk.  It is a public not private harm and is entirely separate from any private harm or loss suffered by a bank.

It reminds me of the Simpsons Sideshow Bob about being convicted of attempted murder:

Attempted murder. Now honestly what is that? Can you win a Nobel Prize for attempted chemistry?

The overall effect of a crime is always relevant in terms of sentencing.  The fact (if it's actually true) that a bank didn't in the end suffer a loss is relevant to that effect.  But it doesn't negate the crime itself.

[DGuller]

I don't think it should be relevant in the ideal world.  If I get a business loan for $1 million, put it all on black planning to declare bankruptcy if it came up red or pocketing the profit if it came up black, I stole half a million on expectation. 

Whether the bank actually lost the whole million when it came up red, or didn't even suspect it was freerolled when it came up black, is entirely due to the luck of the roulette spin.  Your actions and intent were exactly the same regardless of where the ball landed.

[Admiral Yi]

Trump reminds me of those loopy defendants who defend themselves and just ramble on attacking the whole system.

I was thinking similar.  Compare and contrast Donald with the Darrel Brook's trial, or any self proclaimed sovereign citizen.

Joan, are you talking about a situation where a bank lends Donald ONE BILLION dollars at 4% for Doral instead of the 8% they should have charged, and then gets paid back?

[Barrister]

I don't think it should be relevant in the ideal world.  If I get a business loan for $1 million, put it all on black planning to declare bankruptcy if it came up red or pocketing the profit if it came up black, I stole half a million on expectation. 

Whether the bank actually lost the whole million when it came up red, or didn't even suspect it was freerolled when it came up black, is entirely due to the luck of the roulette spin.  Your actions and intent were exactly the same regardless of where the ball landed.

So, in Canadian criminal law (and the principle is broadly the same the world over) a sentence must be "proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender".

Lets go away from fraud and turn to violence.  Lets say I pick up a knife and stab you.

In one example, I miss any organs.  You go to hospital, get stitched up, and are discharged in a few hours.

In the other example I nick your heart.  You go into cardiac arrest, get rushed to hospital, nearly die, spend weeks in hospital, and will suffer major effects for years to come.

In both examples "actions and intent were exactly the same".  In the language of the Criminal Code my "degree of responsibility" is the same.

But I think almost everyone would agree that the second example should get a more serious penalty.  The "gravity of the offence" is much more serious, even though it's just a matter of "where the ball landed".

[Sheilbh]

I don't think Trump is entirely like those sovereign citizens to be honest.

They are really deeply sincere in a very wrong way. They wouldn't be doing it if they didn't believe in it.

Trump's just a bully from the real estate world - there is literally no sincerity anywhere with him. He has a history of suing people and threatening to sue people in a way that, for an everyday person, would be vexatious - in his world it's just caveat emptor aggressive. And obviously - real estate - just lying about everything. It's the "best", it's "amazing", "many are saying it's the most tremendous" etc.

None of it has the unhinged sincerity of sovereign citizens. It's the same aggrandisement and threats and bluster that's been displayed in everything he's done ever. And he has a lot of buyers now.

[Admiral Yi]

I don't think Trump is entirely like those sovereign citizens to be honest.

They are really deeply sincere in a very wrong way. They wouldn't be doing it if they didn't believe in it.

Trump's just a bully from the real estate world - there is literally no sincerity anywhere with him. He has a history of suing people and threatening to sue people in a way that, for an everyday person, would be vexatious - in his world it's just caveat emptor aggressive. And obviously - real estate - just lying about everything. It's the "best", it's "amazing", "many are saying it's the most tremendous" etc.

None of it has the unhinged sincerity of sovereign citizens. It's the same aggrandisement and threats and bluster that's been displayed in everything he's done ever. And he has a lot of buyers now.

Weeeeeeell...Darrel Brooks loses his shit, runs over and kills 12 Wisconsin grannies and todlers and claims he's innocent because the court doesn't have jurisdiction over him.  Is that sincere?  Or self serving?

[Sheilbh]

I'd say probably sincere - that doesn't mean it's good.

What's self-serving about something that has literally no legal basis whatsoever and that judges hate dealing with?

Bias, prosecutorial misconduct, even the court of public opinion - these are actual things that can have an impact or (for the first two) form the basis of an appeal. There is a reason sovereign citizens normally self-represent because it's literally impossible to advise them, Trump may not pay or listen to his lawyers, but he has them.

[Admiral Yi]

I'd say probably sincere - that doesn't mean it's good.

What's self-serving about something that has literally no legal basis whatsoever and that judges hate dealing with?

Bias, prosecutorial misconduct, even the court of public opinion - these are actual things that can have an impact or (for the first two) form the basis of an appeal. There is a reason sovereign citizens normally self-represent because it's literally impossible to advise them, Trump may not pay or listen to his lawyers, but he has them.

Those are all gambits Brooks used.

Every sovereign citizen self made video for a traffic stop is an appeal to the court of public opinion.

[PDH]

I think the nuance is that the Sovereign Citizens believe the system has been evilly changed and the have to work to undermine it, even if it means self-serving appeals as the basis for them is sincere.

I do not think there is a sincere bone in Trump's body, other than one one that simultaneously thinks he is great and that is worried others think he is weak and not great.

[Jacob]

I think Trump is weak and not great 

[Barrister]

I don't think Trump is entirely like those sovereign citizens to be honest.

They are really deeply sincere in a very wrong way. They wouldn't be doing it if they didn't believe in it.

I disagree that sovereign citizens are sincere. 

They do it because they think it means they can get away with stuff.  They think it's some magical incantation that allows them to break the law.  They don't actually believe the stuff they are saying however.

[Admiral Yi]

I think the nuance is that the Sovereign Citizens believe the system has been evilly changed and the have to work to undermine it, even if it means self-serving appeals as the basis for them is sincere.

Sure, noble civil disobedience and all that.  But really totally moot.  Either we want driver's to be licensed or we don't.  Either we want mass murderers punished or we don't.  Either we want orange real estate developers fined for inflating property values or we don't.  The sincerity of their belief it should be different makes no difference.

[Sheilbh]

Interesting you'll know a lot more about them - but isn't it also because they believe it works? As you say it's like magic. If they write "no contract" on court documents or use their "true legal name" they're not subject to the state etc.