Trump's star witness...Michael Cohen?

originally posted by: Threadbarer

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.

Last time I checked Trump has been the front-runner for 4 years and they want to take him out, do you disagree?

a reply to: Threadbarer

you don't really believe that do you?

Leticia James campaigned on getting Trump. This is all a LARP. And it drags the integrity of anyone trying to ligitimize it through the shltter, at least those who had integrity to begin with.

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

In a civil court? Where does the 200 million go if there are no damages? You do know this is the new normal to just keep throwing people into court until they are bled dry. Can't win the case but boy they can destroy people financially, and I'm assuming you agree with that tactic.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Because all powerful rich men are BAD!

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Threadbarer

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.

Last time I checked Trump has been the front-runner for 4 years and they want to take him out, do you disagree?

The bitch of it for them is, he is going to get elected.

Then the crying, hand wringing and pearl clutching resets and starts over.

I can’t wait.

originally posted by: network dude

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.

As I said before their mode of operation is to throw everything they can at a person of interest and then just keep doing it with zero intent to win any case until a person is financially broke. Those on the left cheer it on, make jokes about the people they attack, and say things like well you will think twice before you say something. They do all this without even a remote thought that what they are cheering for is the destruction of our right to free speech.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: network dude

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.

As I said before their mode of operation is to throw everything they can at a person of interest and then just keep doing it with zero intent to win any case until a person is financially broke. Those on the left cheer it on, make jokes about the people they attack, and say things like well you will think twice before you say something. They do all this without even a remote thought that what they are cheering for is the destruction of our right to free speech.

Nobody ever said Liberals were smart.

originally posted by: RazorV66

The bitch of it for them is, he is going to get elected.

Then the crying, hand wringing and pearl clutching resets and starts over.

I can’t wait.

Then we can play the F around and find out the game. This is how it always goes down...The left creates something to attack the right with and it ends up backfiring right back on them. It's like they let loose the junkyard dog and it bites a couple of people and they cheer, then the dog turns on them and rips them a good one.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: FarmerSimulation

Section 12 is the specific law being used against the Trump Organization.

Case law states that the prosecutor doesn't need to show damages or that sdny other laws are broken. They merely need to show that a company has a persistent history of performing fraudulent actions.

You could literally use such a law for wrecking the life of some schmuck who repeatedly lies to his neighbor about the weather, or the size of his dong.

The law was clearly not meant for abusing people for saying something that ends up being wrong, a few times. Or a few dozen, or few hundred times.

If there’s no definable damage or specific fraudulent profit to be found, they’re known as “little white lies”.
Every family has an auntie or crazy uncle who tells them. We don’t criminalize them, solely for Donald Trump.
And you still have no proof they were lies. We’re still at the point where it’s competing opinions of value, which Trump and other developers do for a living. And any car dealer, or antique seller, or artist, as you’ve been reminded 100 times.

This law could be used against Hunter Biden for his childish pictures, more properly than Trump.

As a matter of fact this law was probably written for just that scenario, to catch bribery and pay for play just like the Bidens are doing with the paintings.

I know you’re to the point of making up any possible story to feel better about your hate for Trump. So none of this matters.

originally posted by: FurPerson
are you sure your taxes have nothing to do with property value?

My assumption of the value of my property has nothing to do with the taxes. NY like all states does independent assessments of your property every year no matter what you say. You can fight their assessment and even win, but it isn't easy and you better bring a lot of proof to the table.

a reply to: blindmellojello

I know you’re to the point of making up any possible story to feel better about your hate for Trump. So none of this matters.

The truth and facts are alien to the Liberals.

All they go on is how hurt their fragile feelz are, then they make anything up to stick on Trump.

originally posted by: blindmellojello

You could literally use such a law for wrecking the life of some schmuck who repeatedly lies to his neighbor about the weather, or the size of his dong.

The law was clearly not meant for abusing people for saying something that ends up being wrong, a few times. Or a few dozen, or few hundred times.

America’s justice system allows for anyone to sue anyone at any time—for any reason—even if there is no legal cause of action. All it takes is filing the papers.

That's it, that is all they did... If there are zero damages there really is no case, but one can still sue...

a reply to: blindmellojello

You can believe whatever you want but the courts have ruled that prosecution does not need to prove damages in a 63-12 case.

a reply to: RazorV66

Except, of course, liberals.

a reply to: Threadbarer

What is this all of this accomplishing? Answer that one simple question. If you do not have to prove damages...why? You know the answer....

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: blindmellojello

You can believe whatever you want but the courts have ruled that prosecution does not need to prove damages in a 63-12 case.

What court is that with 75 people ?

I have a feeling the one with 9 will not agree.

a reply to: Threadbarer

2019 to 2022 is not a pattern. 1971 to 2023 would be....give me a break man. An Cohen lied before Congress...so....whats your point?

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: blindmellojello

You could literally use such a law for wrecking the life of some schmuck who repeatedly lies to his neighbor about the weather, or the size of his dong.

The law was clearly not meant for abusing people for saying something that ends up being wrong, a few times. Or a few dozen, or few hundred times.

America’s justice system allows for anyone to sue anyone at any time—for any reason—even if there is no legal cause of action. All it takes is filing the papers.

That's it, that is all they did... If there are zero damages there really is no case, but one can still sue...

And I’ll make you one promise -

If Trump somehow beats the steal and gains the WH, Congress, and Senate ….. the first scream you’ll hear from threadbare and all other lefties -

“You do NOT prosecute a former president!!”

The minds and logic and morals of a 5 year old.

a reply to: Threadbarer

I can say my house is worth 3 million dollars. Does not mean I will get that value. Again, you said you bought a house who you know how this works.

Ever look into Cohens real estate holding and his cash deals? AG should....

You are reaching soooooo hard right now.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: blindmellojello

You can believe whatever you want but the courts have ruled that prosecution does not need to prove damages in a 63-12 case.

Classic answer when a guy is confronted with logic or proof, and he has none to offer in return.

Pretty much wraps up the argument.