Even MSNBC hosts have fallen for the dangerous "there was no victim" nonsense in the Trump fraud
As he rails against his $355 million plus interest judgment, Trump claims there were no victims, as all the banks were paid back and even made money. Call it the “no harm, no foul” philosophy. Even MSNBC’s Katy Tur has bought into this nonsense.
On Friday night, she asked her panel,
“You don’t have to show that anybody was hurt by your practices. There’s nobody you defrauded specifically.
So, even though the threshold is harm shown, in the past, it has only been used to ban someone doing business when it’s been shown that somebody was hurt. Say you’re selling cosmetics that are poisoning you; there’s somebody that was hurt there, and the cosmetics company gets banned.
Is this fair to go after Donald Trump like this in this environment, is my question?”
Using Tur’s logic, you could say that a drunk driver who does not get in an accident should not be charged with drunk driving. We know that would be nuts. Why? Because someone who drank a bottle of vodka and got in their car has created a potential for disaster. And that potential is illegal — the law does not require a disaster.
If I try to shoot you and miss, should I be absolved because no harm came to you? No. There is a reason why attempted murder is a crime.
Trump also bleats his ‘caveat emptor’ defense. In one of his interminable series of posted rants, he boasts of
“This “decision” is a Complete and Total SHAM. There were No Victims, No Damages, No Complaints. Only satisfied Banks and Insurance Companies (which made a ton of money), GREAT Financial Statements, that didn’t even include the most valuable Asset – The TRUMP Brand, IRONCLAD Disclaimers (Buyer Beware, and Do your Own Due Diligence) “IRONCLAD Disclaimers (Buyer Beware, and Do your Own Due Diligence)”
Nice try. Not enough. It is fair for one party to a contract to tell the other to check for mistakes. However, warning the buyer to beware does not indemnify you if you deliberately lie. If I sell you a box of 24 tomatoes, I can ask you to check the quantity to be on the safe side. But the boilerplate does not protect me if I tell my packers to put 21 tomatoes in every box — and hope to get away with it.
Trump, his enablers, and even liberal media personalities may have bought the “no victim” argument. However, there was a victim. The banks may have made money, but they did not make as much money as they would have if Trump had told the truth. That loss is the result of fraud. And that is why he has to pay the sizable disgorgement.
To support his position that everyone was happy, Trump points to the testimony of Deutsche Bank Managing Director David Williams as exculpatory. Williams said the bank had made downward adjustments to Trump’s financial statements — as was their policy. And they were happy that Trump had met his obligations.
This favorable review sounds good for Trump, but just because one victim of fraud is OK with it does not mean the fraud did not happen. The first people to cash out of a Ponzi scheme make money — but it is still a Ponzi scheme. Bernie Madoff’s early investors — the ones who took their profits — did great. But no one questions his criminality.
Sometimes crime victims do not want to admit they are victims. It could be pride — or something else. The case of a battered wife not pressing charges against her abuser is a stereotype. It is why most states have laws allowing prosecutors to pursue a case against an abuser, even if the victim does not press charges.
If that is not enough, consider Trump’s history of stiffing his subcontractors. They were usually paid something and did not take him to court. Trump would argue and frequently does, that he compensated them for the job they did. And they must have been happy because they did not sue him. But faced with a man who lives to go to court, they cut their losses and did not take legal action. But in no way is that proof they were satisfied.
We can even put it in biblical terms. Either one or two of the Ten Commandments (depending on how you enumerate) forbid coveting — which is a victimless crime. Yet conservative evangelicals would have those commandments placed in courthouses. Surely this condones punishment even when there is no victim?
Tur’s decision to question the credibility of Judge Engoron’s penalty is symptomatic of why the media’s coverage of Trump and American politics is unbalanced. Even the liberal legend John Stewart in his heralded return to the Daily Show, has suffered some dings for his both-siderism on Biden’s age.
I understand that it is in the liberal DNA to play fair — even rise above the fray. I congratulate Michelle Obama on her noble sentiment, “When they go low, we go high.” But the future direction of the country — even democracy in America — is at stake. This year is not the time for liberals and liberal media to be more concerned about balance and nobility than winning.
Democrats need to retain the presidency, not win Miss Congeniality.
“This is no time for ease and comfort . It is time to dare and endure” Sir Winston Churchill , thank you Pitt