A great analogy for the Trump fraud case

www.foxnews.com...

After a break in his testimony, Trump again took the stand, defending himself and his businesses and blasting the investigation.

"We shouldn’t be having a case here because we have a disclaimer clause that every court holds up except this judge," Trump said, referring to the disclaimers on all of his financial statements and statements of financial condition.

"They're trying to hurt me – especially her," Trump said, referring to James, "for political reasons."

So apparently all of Trump's financial statements have a disclaimer that the lender has to do their own due diligence. I have argued that in fact, that should be implied in all transactions, but in this case, they even spell it out for the slow folks.

But something else I have said and others, is that a property or item is worth exactly what someone else is willing to pay for it.
Take for example Judy Garlands red shoes from the Wizzard of Oz. In a normal setting without the "Wizzard of Oz" brand attached, these shoes would be $100 max. Likely yard sale junk. But in this case, with the brand attached, well, see what others say:

That is nothing close to the value placed on the stolen pair. The slippers, which were insured for $1 million, may be worth between $2 million and $3 million, John Kelsch, executive director of the Judy Garland Museum, told the Associated Press in 2015.

www.cnbc.com...

So to argue over the value of a property that hasn't been sold yet, is placing the cart squarely before the horse.

Will it matter? Likely not. because with Trump, it's just (D)ifferent.

I know Teflon Don ain't perfect, but he done a better job looking after America than what I could of done. As for Pretendant Biden, I would of done done better just saying in bed all day.

a reply to: kwaka

I totally get the apprehension, he's an egotistical asshole. But his out of the box thinking did some great things. If people are willing to put personality aside, and focus on policy, I think we can have a good run of success. I appreciate that he takes lives of actual people into account when making decisions, and he's anti-war. (probably why he's so horrible)

a reply to: network dude

From everything I have read and seen, this judge is unhinged and acts like a child in the courtroom yelling and slamming things on his desk, let alone his total lack of respect for the defendant and his attorneys.

What I want to know is why he has been allowed to continue judging this case when his conduct is clearly unprofessional and unethical, not to mention obvious political motivations. You can't tell me there is nothing that can be done legally to put this Marxist moron in the hotseat and call into question his ability to adjudicate.

This is a sh@tshow and everyone knows it.

a reply to: network dude

Isnt this trial hurting the NY brand?

I sure would be thinking of moving any business I had there. And regretting that I ever had one.

Sure wouldn't start a business in NY.

Basically they are saying that fraud and using a beneficial end of an estimated, but realistic, number are the same. One would think the VICTIM would be the distiquishing factor.

Are all white lies subject to prosecution in NY now as well, even tho' nobody was hurt.

If someone cheats on their spouse now, and lies about it, is it fraud? There's clearly a victim, but I dont think its actually illegal. Maybe it is in NY.

THis is crazy.

a reply to: Klassified

He decided on the case before the trial. That alone should set off some alarm bells.

a reply to: Klassified

Im wondering what a US POTUS back in office, can actually influence in a state judicial system?

In the bullring, if a bull is spared, (usually because of remarkable stamina and bravery, they want his offspring) they NEVER put him in the ring again. His experience gained the first and only time around would make him absolutely too dangerous.


I sure would be tempted to see what I could do about this fellow, myself. All of us would. Just a fact. Aint nobody an angel. I'm not asking Trump to be one either. The pair of these fruitloops made it personal.

I cant wait to see them reap what they have sowed for themselves.

a reply to: network dude

The worthless statement clause does not say what Trump says it says. It would not be able to protect the company if they committed intentional fraud. It also doesn't negate that every contract has an obligation of good faith.

The argument about his brand is also ridiculous. He deals in real estate. While his brand may be attached to a certain property now but the second that property is sold it is no longer a Trump brand property so why would the brand be included in a valuation?

McDonald's is one of the biggest brands in the world. If I buy property from them but don't build a McDonald's, why would I pay for the McDonald's brand when it has no bearing on my current business.

That said, the golf courses were valued with a brand premium included.

"No one is above the law"

It's as simple as that. In short this means the Law can do anything it wants to you because it is Supreme above all else.

If the Law wants to harass you for having a certain color skin, it can because "No one is above the Law".

If the Law wants to throw you in jail for months waiting for a trial because you committed petty violations, it can because "No one is above the Law".

If the Law wants to persecute you because they do not agree with your religious and political beliefs, it can because "No one is above the Law".

If the Law wants to turn a blind eye to government corruption, it can because "No one is above the Law".


Orwell would be spinning in his grave ... the worst part is that it is Liberals who are bringing us down this road and most of them can't see past their own pettiness to see how dangerous it is ... their predecessors would also be spinning right allong side Mr Orwell.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Klassified

He decided on the case before the trial. That alone should set off some alarm bells.

Absolutely. He has made it clear that no evidence presented by Trump will be given credence. The judge needs to be removed from the case at the very least, since he will not recuse himself.

a reply to: Threadbarer

If the property is sold with rights to use the brandname "Trump", then nothing wrong at all with including the value.

I don't believe he actually owns some of the buildings his name is on. But they still carry his name.

This is why he refers to 'Trump' all the time. Its obvious to all but his haters, that there is a man and then there is a brand. Nothing wrong with that.

As his lawyer pointed out, look at the skyline. Trump is responsible for alot of that growth. NY owes Trump an apology and compensation for putting him thru this nonsense.

NY should embrace the fame, and the name Trump, as in 'Home of the President'. Work WITH him instead of against him.

He has been good for NY, not this travesty.

a reply to: Klassified

Summary judgments are well within the law. The AG presented insurmountable evidence during pretrial hearings. So far, neither Trump, his children, or his business associates have presented anything that refutes the claim the data they provided to the banks was incorrect. In fact, they have all admitted that fraudulent numbers were provided to the banks.

originally posted by: MoreCoyoteAngels
a reply to: Threadbarer

If the property is sold with rights to use the brandname "Trump", then nothing wrong at all with including the value.

I don't believe he actually owns some of the buildings his name is on. But they still carry his name.

This is why he refers to 'Trump' all the time. Its obvious to all but his haters, that there is a man and then there is a brand. Nothing wrong with that.

As his lawyer pointed out, look at the skyline. Trump is responsible for alot of that growth. NY owes Trump an apology and compensation for putting him thru this nonsense.

NY should embrace the fame, and the name Trump, as in 'Home of the President'. Work WITH him instead of against him.

He has been good for NY, not this travesty.

I’m not new to Trump. I’ve actually followed his story for many years.

I’m not 100% certain, but I think I remember reading it was the banks during the Atlanta fiasco that decided to start selling the name Trump as a brand to help pay off his debt.

www.nytimes.com...

a reply to: network dude

You are right about value being subjective.

The current president's son makes figurines using silly putty, and gets $500,000 per masterpiece.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: Klassified

Summary judgments are well within the law. The AG presented insurmountable evidence during pretrial hearings. So far, neither Trump, his children, or his business associates have presented anything that refutes the claim the data they provided to the banks was incorrect. In fact, they have all admitted that fraudulent numbers were provided to the banks.

ND and others have spoken to this nonsense repeatedly, so I'm not going to rehash it.

originally posted by: WeMustCare
a reply to: network dude

You are right about value being subjective.

The current president's son makes figurines using silly putty, and gets $500,000 per masterpiece.

Art is a well know way to launder money due to the impossibility to place a value on it.

But when "No one is above the Law" the Law can deside who they want to investigate and who they do not.

a reply to: Annee

Trump has had its ups and downs. All businesses have. Even Apple. Even Microsoft. Even IBM. Just to name a few.

And that history just proves his point that Trump brandname has value. If it was being used to pay debt it means it wasnt worthless, I think that means.

a reply to: Klassified

Just because you don't agree with the decision doesn't change the fact that the judge is well within his right to issue a summary judgment. Just as Trump is well within his right to appeal that summary judgment.

originally posted by: MoreCoyoteAngels
a reply to: Annee

Trump has had its ups and downs. All businesses have. Even Apple. Even Microsoft. Even IBM. Just to name a few.

And that history just proves his point that Trump brandname has value. If it was being used to pay debt it means it wasnt worthless, I think that means.

Perhaps at one time.

I do believe it’s losing its luster.

a reply to: network dude

Because this is another 'civil' case. They want to bankrupt him and strip his name from the building. That is it.