tldr;
Honestly, if any family member knows the details of the Trump companies’ inflated valuations, it would be Ivanka. She was the main reason Deutsche Bank agreed to work with Trump in the first place, and bank officials apparently understood her to be the heir apparent. Forbes magazine dealt with Trump’s valuation problems for years, and Ivanka was right in the thick of it. As the magazine reported this week:
" The attorney general will have plenty of questions for Donald Trump’s eldest daughter. Ivanka helped lead the acquisition of two assets at the center of the lawsuit, the Trump hotel in Washington, D.C. and the Trump National Doral golf resort in Miami. She also lived in another property caught up in the proceedings, a condo building named Trump Park Avenue in New York City."
Hopefully your comment isn’t taken down. I lost three posts because I posted short excerpts summarizing the post, and because they were removed I couldn’t go back to edit them to fix them. So now I don’t try to offer any tldr’s any longer.
Two paragraphs should be fine, it’s when you start quoting large blocks that it’s problematic.
Think of it like this:
If the article is 4 paragraphs, and you quote 3 of them, that’s not really fair use.
If the article is 30 paragraphs and you quote 3 of them to make the point, that’s fine. :)
Keep it less than, say, 30% of the original article and you should generally be safe. More than 50%? Not so much.
Pulling those numbers out of a hat, it’s not a defined rule. ;)
I quoted two or three paragraphs out more than a dozen, just enough to establish the context, and got removed.
So I’m done posting anything but the link and headline.
If in doubt, leave it out. :) Safest assumption.
That’s what I’m doing, yes.
ahhh bummer. i didnt realize the reddit mod nazis had migrated also
This is apparently from the admins, so that the site doesn’t get DCMA takedowns that they can’t afford to fight.
ahhh, i see. double bummer
Then why did she get a pass?
She got a pass on being a defendant because of statute of limitations. (You know, the thing were as long as you get away with a crime for long enough, you can never be prosecuted for it!)
She did not get a pass on testifying, although she really, really wants one. Which means that her honest testimony is damning to Donald, to Ivanka, or to both.
And, lol, she’s “heir apparent” to a company in receivership.
deleted by creator
Important to note, you CAN plead the 5th in a civil trial, but it has a different meaning civilly than criminally.
In a criminal trial, pleading the 5th cannot be used against you. It’s your right to say nothing.
In a CIVIL trial:
https://www.advocatemagazine.com/article/2016-october/pleading-the-fifth-in-civil-cases
"the Fifth Amendment does not forbid adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them.” (Baxter v. Palmigiano (1976) 425 U.S. 308, 318.)
Under Baxter, an opposing party can’t simply point to the silence and claim victory in their civil case. A court is entitled to draw adverse inferences against the party who “pleads the Fifth.” As Justice Brandeis said, “Silence is often evidence of the most persuasive character.” (United States ex rel. Bilokumsky v. Tod (1923) 263 U.S. 149, 153-154.)
The courts of California have held the same. A party claiming a privilege to avoid disclosing facts essential to a claim or defense may be barred from asserting that claim or defense at trial. (Steiny & Co., Inc. v. California Elec. Supply Co. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 285, 292, 93 – by invoking trade secrets privilege to avoid disclosing proprietary information relevant to its damage calculations, plaintiff was barred from proceeding with damages claims; Fremont Indem. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (Sharif) (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 554, 560, – court could order dismissal of suit against fire insurance company where plaintiff invoked 5th Amendment privilege to preclude questioning as to whether he committed arson and started the fire.)
Whereas the privilege may be invoked by a civil litigant. (Segretti v. State Bar (1976) 15 Cal.3d 878, 126 Cal.Rptr. 793; Alvarez v. Sanchez (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 709.) It does not provide for protection against civil penalties, and in a civil case, a witness or party may be required either to waive the privilege or accept the civil consequences of silence if he or she does exercise it. (Blackburn v. Superior Court, (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 414.)"
Bonus, any “adverse inferences” would be made by the judge in this case because Trump’s lawyers failed to file the paperwork for a jury trial. DOH! And he’s shown little patience for Trump’s bullshit.
With that title, I thought it might be an editorial from Donny himself at first
but only Ivanka matters.
Eric: God fucking damn it! *snorts coke*
Hey man, he works hard. He pours concrete. You would do a little coke too!
It actually appears that Eric Trump, despite his dunderhead reputation, was far more involved in running the place. He took the Fifth more than 500 times during his pre-trial deposition and also testified, “I pour concrete. I manage properties. I don’t focus on appraisals. It’s just not what I do in my day-to-day responsibilities.” But other testimony by Trump Organization employees has suggested he was highly involved and James has documents to prove it.
there is no Victim (except me!) – Donald J. Trump.
He could have saved a few minutes of typing and just cut right to the chase. Hell, he could just post this over and over again and the result would be the same. This is what all of his posts boil down to anyway.
