The absurdity of the fraud case against Trump

a reply to: Irishhaf

It's not the judge's claim. It is the assessment provided by the Palm Beach assessor. Rump paid $5 million for it in 1985, another $3 million for the furniture, and then $2 million for the plot of land that connects the property to the beach.

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: tanstaafl

Is it often assessed for 1000 times less than what it's actually worth?

could be a backroom deal with the tax assessor. I'd rather pay taxes on 18 mill than 300 mill.

runn tell dat.

a reply to: CoyoteAngels

It was added to the registry in 1969. Why would Trump be compensated for something that happened before he purchased the property?

a reply to: network dude

If there was a backroom deal why would Trump draw attention to it by arguing that the 2020 assessment of $26 million was too high?

By the way, you're not doing Trump any favors by using the argument that he's a corrupt businessman.

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: network dude

If there was a backroom deal why would Trump draw attention to it by arguing that the 2020 assessment of $26 million was too high?

By the way, you're not doing Trump any favors by using the argument that he's a corrupt businessman.

almost as if it's justice and not partisan douchebagery I'm after. But in all honesty, if you are going after a former president over how he valued his property, when the banks have the responsibility to do just that, you are scraping well below the bottom of the barrel.

even the slow kids on the short bus can see this for what it is. Perhaps someone will make a meme so the left can finally grasp it. DERP on pal.

a reply to: network dude

Clearly the judge disagrees with your assessment considering he's already ruled Trump liable of fraud.

a reply to: network dude

the banks have the responsibility

Except that they don't cook the books?

No idea why you think to be a fast kid on the long bus, or how a meme could help to explain bookkeeping to you derps, but I guess we're going to find out soon enough.

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: network dude

Clearly the judge disagrees with your assessment considering he's already ruled Trump liable of fraud.

Clearly the judge is just as corrupt as you think Trump is.

originally posted by: Insurrectile
a reply to: network dude

the banks have the responsibility

Except that they don't cook the books?

No idea why you think to be a fast kid on the long bus, or how a meme could help to explain bookkeeping to you derps, but I guess we're going to find out soon enough.

Banks have one goal.
Profit.

a reply to: Quadrivium

Or he's seen insurmountable evidence that Trump has spent years committing fraud. His accountant has already testified that the Trump Organization withheld information from them that should have gone in the financial statements that were sent to banks.

And that's just the first witness in a case that has over 100.

originally posted by: Insurrectile
a reply to: network dude

the banks have the responsibility

Except that they don't cook the books?

No idea why you think to be a fast kid on the long bus, or how a meme could help to explain bookkeeping to you derps, but I guess we're going to find out soon enough.

Yea, when I refinance my house, they always take my value and loan me whatever I ask for. DERP

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: network dude

Clearly the judge disagrees with your assessment considering he's already ruled Trump liable of fraud.

the Judge is an anti Trump democrat. he already ruled on this when the idiot prosecutor called him about it.

I'd say you know this, but it's entirely possible you haven't even started to understand this yet.

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: Quadrivium

Or he's seen insurmountable evidence that Trump has spent years committing fraud. His accountant has already testified that the Trump Organization withheld information from them that should have gone in the financial statements that were sent to banks.

And that's just the first witness in a case that has over 100.

Trump will take the fall on this one, and open the door to using this exact function to go after each and every one of his detractors. Because everyone undervalues their property for the tax man. You just have to find the one's that can't afford 250 mil, and go after them first.

I hope you get him this time. I'll cheer the underhanded repercussions on with a bigly smile. Hell, they might even reach back to social media influencers such as yourself.

a reply to: Quadrivium


Surprise! Why pretend capital would want them to handle their investments differently, with those brand sales-pitches in the books?

Are you done burning the bankers yet?

originally posted by: Insurrectile
a reply to: network dude

the banks have the responsibility

Except that they don't cook the books?

No idea why you think to be a fast kid on the long bus, or how a meme could help to explain bookkeeping to you derps, but I guess we're going to find out soon enough.

could you explain this a bit more please? I don't think you understand any of it, and I'd like to know if I'm wrong. (i'm not)

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: Quadrivium

Or he's seen insurmountable evidence that Trump has spent years committing fraud. His accountant has already testified that the Trump Organization withheld information from them that should have gone in the financial statements that were sent to banks.

And that's just the first witness in a case that has over 100.

"We got him this time!"
TDS + Tribalism =
Broken individuals

originally posted by: Insurrectile
a reply to: Quadrivium


Surprise! Why pretend capital would want them to handle their investments differently, with those brand sales-pitches in the books?

Are you done burning the bankers yet?

I totally agree with ND on this.
Could you explain your reasoning, as you seem to not understand any of it.

Why would I "burn bankers"?

originally posted by: Insurrectile
a reply to: Quadrivium


Surprise! Why pretend capital would want them to handle their investments differently, with those brand sales-pitches in the books?

Are you done burning the bankers yet?

You carry water for the bankers now? I thought Democrats hated banks.


Are Democrats honest about ANYTHING?

a reply to: network dude

could you explain this a bit more please? I don't think you understand any of it, and I'd like to know if I'm wrong. (i'm not)

Nah, of course not. Just evil Leftists with a taste for monumental surplus value lurking at the outskirts of yet another perfectly corrupt business deal.

originally posted by: Insurrectile
a reply to: network dude

could you explain this a bit more please? I don't think you understand any of it, and I'd like to know if I'm wrong. (i'm not)

Nah, of course not. Just evil Leftists with a taste for monumental surplus value lurking at the outskirts of yet another perfectly corrupt business deal.

Well the above post explains it, you don't understand what is happening in the case.
Thank you for clearing that up.