A great analogy for the Trump fraud case

a reply to: Annee

Depends on who you ask! I guess 75 million people count for nada. And I think that number has only grown.

Black males. They are starting to identify with him as a persecuted victim of The Man. Not a good trend for dems. Also good for the Trump brand. Like a Boss!

Have you seen the scary polls in the swing states? Trump is thrumping Biden, in all but one.

I wouldnt call that 'diminishing'. I'd call that wishful thinking on your part.

Like Trump or dislike Trump, everyone should be very disturbed at twisting the law as it's a pretzel to manufacture a crime fit an agenda.

Using the bastardized interpretation of the law nearly all or any private business transaction can be made into a crime if the state so desires.

This got to away with sets a very dangerous precedent going forward.

"Ah I see you're a member of a disfavored class, let's examine your mortgage, auto, consumer loans and see what we can find"

"I promise something will be found despite your protestation otherwise"

There is no doubt in my mind if the state wants to it will find something to justify it's actions towards whatever it wants unchecked.

originally posted by: MoreCoyoteAngels
a reply to: Annee

Depends on who you ask! I guess 75 million people count for nada. And I think that number has only grown.

Black males. They are starting to identify with him as a persecuted victim of The Man. Not a good trend for dems. Also good for the Trump brand. Like a Boss!

Have you seen the scary polls in the swing states? Trump is thrumping Biden, in all but one.

I wouldnt call that 'diminishing'. I'd call that wishful thinking on your part.

I know you support him. His supporters are more ardent and vocal, IMO this affects polling.

I only read 538. And it’s still early.

BTW — I am fiscal conservative/social liberal — which I believe the majority of voters are.

I will only say — I will find it interesting to look back 10 years from now.

a reply to: Annee

538 says Trump is up by 3%.

This isn't reflective of anything but the popular vote. Which doesn't count.

Look at the swing states.

Otherwise, you are looking at the wrong data.

Yes, I support Trump over the current admin, all day, all night. I actually wouldn't mind a younger person that can do 8 years. But Im a realist. As of right now, it will be Trump, so I will support him.

I HOPE I can look back in 10 years!

a reply to: MoreCoyoteAngels

We’re only in the primaries.

A lot can happen.

a reply to: Annee

Indeed.

But my chrystal ball at least can see the present, that is if I just dont' try to look into it, and just look at the obvious.

And if the election were today, the present, Trump will be the next POTUS.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
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.

And he will appeal, but the fact that this all happened, in America is the disturbing part. The Judge heard ONE side of this, and made a judgement. As anyone with kids knows, there are three sides to every story. Your side, my side, and the truth.
As long as it's against Trump, you forgo any due process and cheer on a totalitarian agenda. You will have to sign in with your other account to complain when this happens in reverse, otherwise someone might point out your laughable hypocrisy.

a reply to: network dude

He heard both sides. Trump filed his own motion for summary judgment.

I'd be very interested in comparing this case to other cases where New York has prosecuted someone for fraud under the same circumstances.

Does anyone know of any other case where someone borrowed money from a bank, paid the loan back with interest, and was then accused by New York of fraud for overestimating the value of the collateral? Surely there are court cases on this which set a precedent.

Just as important, will New York be charging people over the Steele dossier? How about the COVID vaccine's "safe and effective" claims? How about the claims made by proponents of Obamacare?

If this case sets the standard for a fraud prosecution, NY courts are going to be very busy for years to come.

a reply to: network dude

So, let me get this right, Trump admits that he gave fraudulent valuations, but it's the other guy's fault for being conned, because he said in the fine print that you shouldn't trust him.

Tell me, would it be then fair to say that buyers should devalue a property by the amount that it costs them to get an independent valuation, or maybe a couple, just to be sure that the valuers aren't secretly in cahoots with the big real estate seller, who might give them a kick-back if the price is inflated enough?

And what rights do independent valuers have to enter a premises, question tenants, and assess it fully?

a reply to: chr0naut

Seem you have it twisted. Trump didn't admit to fraud.

originally posted by: Klassified

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.

I think the plan is for Trump to lose this case and take it to the supreme court, he knows he willget no fair tial in NY.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: network dude

So, let me get this right, Trump admits that he gave fraudulent valuations, but it's the other guy's fault for being conned, because he said in the fine print that you shouldn't trust him.

Tell me, would it be then fair to say that buyers should devalue a property by the amount that it costs them to get an independent valuation, or maybe a couple, just to be sure that the valuers aren't secretly in cahoots with the big real estate seller, who might give them a kick-back if the price is inflated enough?

And what rights do independent valuers have to enter a premises, question tenants, and assess it fully?

I would love to have a coffee and talk with you in person....I want to see the wild look in your eye, as you always twist things soo out of shape.

a reply to: theatreboy

This is a state law. The only way it would go to the Supreme Court is if he could show the law in question is unconstitutional. Companies wealthier than Trump have been found liable under Executive Law 63 and none of them have gotten their case before SCOTUS.

a reply to: Threadbarer

Name 3 other companies charged and penalized with this law. NY is a big place that should be easy.

a reply to: matafuchs

Exxon, AIG, UBS, Juul, and Vyera Pharmaceuticals are some of the bigger names.

a reply to: Threadbarer

In NY? You got a link I cannot find any?

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: network dude

So, let me get this right, Trump admits that he gave fraudulent valuations, but it's the other guy's fault for being conned, because he said in the fine print that you shouldn't trust him.

Tell me, would it be then fair to say that buyers should devalue a property by the amount that it costs them to get an independent valuation, or maybe a couple, just to be sure that the valuers aren't secretly in cahoots with the big real estate seller, who might give them a kick-back if the price is inflated enough?

And what rights do independent valuers have to enter a premises, question tenants, and assess it fully?

just so I am sure you understand what this is about, why don't you explain what Trump did wrong and who suffered.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: network dude

He heard both sides. Trump filed his own motion for summary judgment.

So going into this, he knew every financial statement had the disclaimer on page 1, no payments were ever in default, The bank admits they did their own due diligence, as the disclaimer stated, and he still finds a guilty verdict, before hearing any witnesses. Sounds just right. In clown world.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: theatreboy

This is a state law. The only way it would go to the Supreme Court is if he could show the law in question is unconstitutional. Companies wealthier than Trump have been found liable under Executive Law 63 and none of them have gotten their case before SCOTUS.

when else has this law been used in this way? And be a lamb and bring a link next time won't you.