Trump's star witness...Michael Cohen?

a reply to: Xtrozero

Last time I checked the election was over a year away. Not to mention the fact that this case has been open since 2019 and could've gone to trial earlier if Trump hadn't delayed for so long.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: FarmerSimulation

The case is looking at a series of financial statements made between 2011 and 2015 where the Trump Organization would overinflate the value of assets to lenders while providing a smaller valuation to tax officials.

What laws overlap these assessments?

The lenders have to succumb to their own evaluations and appraisals in due diligence for loans.
We're they harmed?

As for tax assessments there are an entirely different set of requirements than for loans.
It's like requiring my cheeseburger to have both real cheese and real beef in order for me to eat it first.
But later the fda tells me the cheese was plastic and the beef was pink slime.
I still ate it.
And liked it.
I paid for it.
And I would consider that a crime by the fda for even allowing it in the first place.
But it is not a crime for either entity even though the laws could claim it is by being false advertising and a bait and switch.
Buyer beware is the basis for the laws in these cases.
Who is the victim?
I as well as the banks have an obligation for due diligence and that is what happened.

I ate the cheeseburger.

a reply to: FarmerSimulation

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: Xtrozero

Once again, the law does not require the prosecutor to prove damages. Just a persistent history of fraudulent actions.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: Xtrozero

Once again, the law does not require the prosecutor to prove damages. Just a persistent history of fraudulent actions.

But, as we see here, "fraud" is subjective. No fraud has been proven. It's all heresy, "he says it's worth this", "court says its worth that", "bank says its worth the other".

So, it's basically a pick and choose scenario. Which value should we pick and which judge should we choose?

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: FarmerSimulation

Cohen's February 2019 testimony in front of the House.

lol, which based off of Cohen's testimony, was a lie.

It's like you aren't even trying anymore.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: FarmerSimulation

Cohen's February 2019 testimony in front of the House.

lol, which based off of Cohen's testimony, was a lie.

It's like you aren't even trying anymore.

Let's see if I can answer for Thread: That doesn't matter! They found fraud and now Trump has to pay!

Ammirite?

You mean like County tax
Assessors in every County that are designed to defraud the property owners?

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: FarmerSimulation

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: Xtrozero

Once again, the law does not require the prosecutor to prove damages. Just a persistent history of fraudulent actions.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Threadbarer

The case is looking at a series of financial statements made between 2011 and 2015 where the Trump Organization would overinflate the value of assets to lenders while providing a smaller valuation to tax officials.

New York does their own tax evaluations. Lenders should do assessments to protect their loans, if they don't then it's on them. In this case, all loans were paid back. There might be a case if Trump defaulted on a loan, and the lender could get much back from his assets, but still, that is on the lender and would be a private civil court event.

that's just it. None of this matters. The judge is corrupt, the AG is corrupt. And the poster on this thread cheering for them is morally bankrupt. But it's all good. As you said, it's a political hit job, and once the appeal is won, along with the presidency, things will take a drastic turn against the left. New people installed, this exact same law being used to shut down most democratic run businesses. (tell me you can't look into just about anyone and find something like this)

And it will be wrong, and Partisan, and many will say Trump should be spending his time better. But my lockjaw will have set in by then, and as much as I'd like to say "hey, that's wrong", I nor anyone else will have the power.

If the freedom of speech aspect continues to be attacked, folks may even come after posters on the internet. Likely the ones that cheered it on when they thought it was just to be used against the other guy.

a reply to: SourGrapes

Weisselberg testified to tripling the actual size of Trump's triplex and basing his valuation off of that.

McConney testified to valuing a property based on including multiple mansions that didn't exist.

The AG presented evidence showing that Trump Organization claimed the valuations of 40 Wall Street and Niketown were determined based on advice from Cushman & Wakefield exec Douglas Larson. Larson testified he never discussed these properties with anyone at the Trump Organization.

These are fraudulent actions were intentionally done and there's nothing subjective about them.

Don Jr., Eric, and Ivanka are expected to start their testimonies next Wednesday. I'm sure there will be some more incidents of fraud highlighted coming from those testimonies.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: SourGrapes

Weisselberg testified to tripling the actual size of Trump's triplex and basing his valuation off of that.

McConney testified to valuing a property based on including multiple mansions that didn't exist.

The AG presented evidence showing that Trump Organization claimed the valuations of 40 Wall Street and Niketown were determined based on advice from Cushman & Wakefield exec Douglas Larson. Larson testified he never discussed these properties with anyone at the Trump Organization.

These are fraudulent actions were intentionally done and there's nothing subjective about them.

Don Jr., Eric, and Ivanka are expected to start their testimonies next Wednesday. I'm sure there will be some more incidents of fraud highlighted coming from those testimonies.

If an investigation starts with a lie, doesn't that negate the investigation?

I know little about law, but Judge Judy calls it the "no clean hands" deal.

a reply to: network dude

Since when does the President have the power to appoint a state judge or AG?

a reply to: network dude

If the police receive a tip that turns out to be wrong, but in the course of investigating that tip they turn up evidence of a crime, they're still allowed to investigate that crime.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: tanstaafl2

The law in question does not require proof of injury, only a persistent history of performing fraudulent actions. Whether or not the banks and insurers accepted the inflated values is irrelevant. The fact that Trump Organization consistently and knowingly provided inflated numbers to these companies year after year in hopes of securing better deals is what matters in this case.

Ridiculous - except I guess to the mind of the TDS sufferer. I would offer my sympathies, but ... I won't, because I don't want to.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: network dude

If the police receive a tip that turns out to be wrong, but in the course of investigating that tip they turn up evidence of a crime, they're still allowed to investigate that crime.

This isn't criminal court.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: network dude

Since when does the President have the power to appoint a state judge or AG?

Good point.
We should leave that to George Soros

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: network dude

Since when does the President have the power to appoint a state judge or AG?

Don't worry, the president of the United States really doesn't have any power to do anything, everyone coming after Trump is doing so on their own.

DERPing is free, so get all you want in.

I'll be looking forward to the retribution.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: network dude

If the police receive a tip that turns out to be wrong, but in the course of investigating that tip they turn up evidence of a crime, they're still allowed to investigate that crime.

I thought this was a civil court. If there is a crime here, why isn't it being tried as a criminal case?

(ask your paralegal friend)

a reply to: network dude

It's called an example. Cohen's testimony triggered authorities to look into Trump Org's financials. They discovered evidence that efforts what Cohen testified. That evidence doesn't go away because Cohen was never overly ordered to inflate values.

a reply to: Xtrozero

are you sure your taxes have nothing to do with property value?

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: network dude





It's called an example. Cohen's testimony triggered authorities to look into Trump Org's financials. They discovered evidence that efforts what Cohen testified. That evidence doesn't go away because Cohen was never overly ordered to inflate values.

This is a civil case, where one party brings a case against another prty for damages.

Both parties need to come before the court with clean hands.

The state's witness lied. The state does NOT have clean hands.