Trump's star witness...Michael Cohen?

originally posted by: matafuchs
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.

I think we have enough websleuths here to make that happen. For all of Congress and their "witnesses".

Let's do this!

a reply to: matafuchs

It's a consumer protection law. It's meant to protect the citizens of New York from being fleeced by con men with a history of fraud.

a reply to: blindmellojello

63-12 is a reference to the law in question. Executive Law 63 (12.)

a reply to: matafuchs

The time period in question is 2011 to 2015.

a reply to: blindmellojello

Yeah such a classic answer to point out case law supports what I'm saying when confronted by someone speaking about something they know nothing about.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: WingDingLuey

If you're interested in the case, Lisa Rubin has been livetweeting the entire thing from the courtroom.

darn. i was hoping for some quotes from you since you're citing specifics. oh well

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: blindmellojello

Yeah such a classic answer to point out case law supports what I'm saying when confronted by someone speaking about something they know nothing about.

What's your level of knowledge? Are you a law clerk, paralegal, an attorney?

a reply to: Threadbarer

You can keep repeating the same thing but, if that is the case.

Who was fleeced or conned? Loans were taken, paid and closed. He also has no history of fraud. Name a conviction he has. One.

Not he filed bankruptcy. Not he did not pay someone. A conviction. That is a pattern. Same will apply in the RICO case.

You cannot show a pattern of fraud convictions. there is no case.

a reply to: SourGrapes

Just an amateur enthusiast who knows how to use the internet.

a reply to: matafuchs

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: matafuchs
a reply to: Threadbarer

You can keep repeating the same thing but, if that is the case.

Who was fleeced or conned? Loans were taken, paid and closed. He also has no history of fraud. Name a conviction he has. One.

Not he filed bankruptcy. Not he did not pay someone. A conviction. That is a pattern. Same will apply in the RICO case.

You cannot show a pattern of fraud convictions. there is no case.

I think the actual question is, "What documents were filed by Trump and his organization, what values are attested to by those documents, and were those documents and the information and values they contained proffered under a legally binding oath of accuracy as defined by the law".


It would seem that the question therefore is not what one party said/believed or another party believed/accepted, but what was required...by the law.

I thought this was going to be a fill in the blank.

Trump's star witness...Michael Cohen is a ____________

Darn it.

Haven't several people who were originally "under Trump's thumb" and his provided lawyers done the same thing?

I personally don't think what Cohen did is unusual.

And with accumulation of others saying the same thing, it presents a pattern.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: matafuchs

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.

My house was appraised for $250k
I pay property taxes on a tax appraisal of $300k.
I lowered the price over the last year till it sold for $180k.

I made payments for 30 years where I purchased it for $80k.

Which party committed fraud?

originally posted by: Annee
Haven't several people who were originally "under Trump's thumb" and his provided lawyers done the same thing?

I personally don't think what Cohen did is unusual.

And with accumulation of others saying the same thing, it presents a pattern.

Jeffery Epstein purchased a few multi million dollar mansions from Les Wexner for $1.00. Does that show a pattern that all Victoria secret models are m/f transsexuals? Alot of people were defrauded into buying men's underwear thinking it was women's lingerie. Because everyone knows queen Victoria was a dude.

Show some context Annee

a reply to: FarmerSimulation

Apples & oranges. Once again, top level executives testified they knowingly based their valuations on non-existent assets and tripling the actual size of an asset. They also tried to lend credence to their valuations by name-dropping ab expert in the field when they never actually talked to him about the properties.

originally posted by: FarmerSimulation

originally posted by: Annee
Haven't several people who were originally "under Trump's thumb" and his provided lawyers done the same thing?

I personally don't think what Cohen did is unusual.

And with accumulation of others saying the same thing, it presents a pattern.

Jeffery Epstein purchased a few multi million dollar mansions from Les Wexner for $1.00. Does that show a pattern that all Victoria secret models are m/f transsexuals? Alot of people were defrauded into buying men's underwear thinking it was women's lingerie. Because everyone knows queen Victoria was a dude.

Show some context Annee

Stick to the subject of the thread.

Damn! Always deflection with you "guys".

This is about witnesses against Trump -- specifically Cohen.

Several have done the same/similar as Cohen.

Changed their testimony after getting out from under Trump's "thumb/control".

While his kids are currently scheduled to take the stand starting next Wednesday, it looks like Trump will be testifying on November 6th. Trump's lawyers have been dreading have him testify in any of his cases and have tried everything they can to prevent it from happening. But the clock has finally run out.

a reply to: Threadbarer

It'll be interesting if it goes anything like his deposition. That was a meandering mess. Maybe he'll elaborate on his statement that Saudi Arabia will pay him any price he says for MAL after he claimed its worth billions.