This is sure to piss off Trump and the MAGA mob. Maybe Don isn't so Teflon coated.

... loved by the unamerican anti-democracy people.

That's awesome.  Of course his supporters/enablers continue to project, deflect, and deny.  It's all they have.  Poor things.

trump = fraud

It is amazing how accurate that statement is.

... loved by the unamerican anti-democracy people.

And loved by Putin and Kim Jong Un.

Is that why he lost the popular vote twice?

... impeached twice, multiple criminal indictments, 91 charges. fraud, sedition, and espionage.

This judge will be the latest one to be called a communist by Trump.

I wonder what his ethnic background is? That will probably be in the mix too. 

"Do you know the banks were fully paid? Do you know the banks made a lot of money?" Trump testified. "Do you know I don't believe I ever got even a default notice, and even during COVID, the banks were all paid? And yet you're suing on behalf of banks, I guess. It's crazy. The whole case is crazy."

The judge and James better have some pretty compelling evidence or Trump won't be found guilty of any real crime.

The judge and James better have some pretty compelling evidence or Trump won't be found guilty of any real crime.

He's already been found guilty. That is what happened today. 

This is a civil case. The trial will be about the penalty and additional counts.

The judge gave the state (James) a summary judgement today. 

First there is no Guilt in a civil case, and this will be appealed before the ink is dry.

"Do you know the banks were fully paid?

Because of the fraud, Trump got a sweetheart deal on the bank interest that he was not eligible for.

Trump also got a sweetheart deal on insurance rates.

Trump also got a sweetheart deal on insurance rates.

Really? Isn't insurance rates based on value?  if he over estimated the cost the rates would be higher not lower.

Trump also got a sweetheart deal on insurance rates.

Explain how he got a "sweetheart deal" on insurance rates!

Duh!

Explain how he got a "sweetheart deal" on insurance rates!

Insurance rates are tied to credit ratings.  Trump's inflated valuations gave him an extremely high credit rating.

The judge and James better have some pretty compelling evidence or Trump won't be found guilty of any real crime.

They have all the business records going back 10 years. So yeah... compelling enough for a judge to render a summery judgement on the one count. The other counts look to be going to jury trial. Of course Trump's lawyers will file an appeal when it's all said and done, but this will always be a stain on his business image even if overturned. 

this will always be a stain on his business image even if overturned

ABC News - 

Judge found evidence overwhelming, no need for a trial on this count.

Trump and sons overvalued their holdings by 2.2 billion dollars. 

Overvalued Trump Tower apartment by 200 million. 

Overvalued Maralago by 600 million. 

Trump and sons overvalued their holdings by 2.2 billion dollars. 

Overvalued Trump Tower apartment by 200 million. 

Overvalued Maralago by 600 million. 

SO WHAT!!  It's the bank's duty to appraise the property not the entity applying for the loan. 

BINGO!

”It's the bank's duty to appraise the property…”

Bingo. Bango. Bongo.

Capitalistic ‘collusion’ at its finest. Look the other way, nothing to see here, just the rich getting richer…rules don’t apply if you happen to have the cash and/or cache, fraudulently acquired or not. 

rules don’t apply if you happen to have the cash and/or cache. 

Are you trying to say banks just take the "word" of potential customers when making a loan?

SO WHAT!! 

When you become a judge we will accept your opinion on legal matters. Or do you think the judge didnt hear your argument from Trump's lawyers? (It was essentially his only defense.) 

Or do you think the judge didnt hear your argument f

No, I don't ! If someone was defrauded, bring them forward. 

“Are you trying to say banks just take the "word" of potential customers when making a loan?”

Guess it depends on the customer. In this case, yes. Otherwise no fraud case would have been brought. Rather self explanatory. 

It's the bank's duty to appraise the property not the entity applying for the loan. 

It is the duty of the entity applying for the loan to not commit fraud on the applications.

The "no harm" claim was the only defense Trump has, and his lawyers presented it to the judge, who rejected it. 

You can say all day long "no harm" and Trump will still be found responsible for fraud.  Maybe we can arrange for you to debate the judge about it. 

Otherwise no fraud case would have been brought.

Exactly!!!! The banks didn't bring the case!

Given where the case began, the SDNY and the fact that the person bringing it ran for election on the "I am going after Trump" platform, this should be thrown out. NO banks or insurance companies said a damned word.

The banks didn't bring the case!

The suing party (the party claiming damage) was the State of New York. Caring on about banks is irrelevant. Relitigating the charge is also irrelevant.

That argument was made and rejected by the judge. Perhaps it will be taken into account during the appeal, but considering the paperwork seem clear I wouldn't be certain Trump wins on appeal.

What damage did the State claim???????? That he got away with something? Again, you are bringing up damage when up above, some are saying proving "harm" is not relevant. Still, what damage/harm did the State have to deal with to bring the case except "orange man bad"?

The suing party (the party claiming damage) was the State of New York

What was their damage? Did they lose tax money? How was the State of New York harmed?

What damage did the State claim?

The state claims the fraud was so egregious it harms all real estate business in NY. The judge agreed. 

The state claims the fraud was so egregious it harms all real estate business in NY.

Is the real estate market in New York in some type of turmoil, I must have missed that.   

Oh please, don't be silly. 

So that makes them both wrong...........and what a f u c k i n g stretch

Oh please, don't be silly. 

I didn't make the claim. Perhaps you want to send the applet court a friend of the court brief?

So that makes them both wrong..........

Perhaps. We'll see when the appeals come back. 

The "no harm" claim was the only defense Trump has, and his lawyers presented it to the judge, who rejected it.

It's a sticky situation.  Typically, someone suing for fraud has to show how the victims were damaged.

It's a bit like the judge in a murder trial refusing to accept that the alleged victim is not actually dead.

The law doesn't see it that way...

Overvalued Maralago by 600 million. 

and it's only worth 27 million

hopefully this puts the kushner family real estate holdings under a microscope too...

He overvalues all of his alleged 'assets'

He inflated Mar - A -Lago more than 2000% (that's if I did my math right)

can you guess where I want the next hurricane comes ashore in florida? I hope he's self insured.

I can guess

Wouldn't that be awesome?!

He overvalues all of his alleged 'assets'

Particularly his own vocabulary and brain pan.

Why does this remind me of the Rolling Stones song "You Can't Always Get What You Want"?

I think, however, he'll get what he needs - a long prison sentence.

he'll get what he needs - a long prison sentence.

Perhaps in the other trials. This one is only civil, so fines and license to do business in NY are the only penalties awardable in this one.

Badda Bing

There are 3 main parts to a civil suit, first someone has to be harmed, second someone has to be found responsible, and to what degree, then damages are set. The state of NY brought the suit, on who’s behalf? Who was harmed?

Although I'm sure you'll say the banks and insurance companies suffered no loss and therefore were not harmed, the fact is that a FRAUD was proven to have been committed, and therefore deserves a criminal indictment.  Are you okay with FRAUD?   Would you not want retribution if a fraud were committed on YOU, whether or not you lost anything because of it?  Or would that depend on whether a Democrat or a Republican committed it?

You are a former lawyer are you not Buzz? It may be different in Canada, but in America a civil suit requires a victim who was harmed. So I will ask again, were the banks harmed? And in what way? 

So I will ask again, were the banks harmed? And in what way? 

Is it your opinion that Judge Engoron has erred?:

Judge Arthur Engoron, ruling in a civil lawsuit brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James, found that Trump and his company deceived banks, insurers and others by massively overvaluing his assets and exaggerating his net worth on paperwork used in making deals and securing loans.    Judge rules Donald Trump defrauded banks, insurers while building real estate empire

Is it your opinion that Judge Engoron has erred?

I know nothing on the particulars of the case, but I think that the judges have frequently been overruled by the NY Appeals Court on business and real estate cases.

Its pretty bad when you have to pin all your hopes on the verdict being overturned on appeal. 

How about not committing the bad deed in the first place? 

I haven’t seen the evidence, nobody but the lawyers and judge has, but that doesn’t change the fact that I haven’t seen a single victim come forth to say they were harmed, unlike the E Jean Carroll case where we had a victim and damages assigned base on the harm caused. This meets the requirements for a civil case.

Sigh…if it is overturned on appeal then your alleged bad act never occurred legally, even if it is trump.

How about not committing the bad deed in the first place? 

Why do you need a victim to come forward in public and declare their damages?

Bank and insurance fraud tricks lenders and insurers to make business decisions that almost certainly are adverse to them.   If a bank issues a loan, for example, based on fraudulent information they have diverted resources that they likely would have put to better use.  

Fraud is bad.   Those who were defrauded are, by definition, the victims.   

Sigh…if it is overturned on appeal then your alleged bad act never occurred legally, even if it is trump.

If overturned then Trump will no longer be legally liable.   That does not mean he did not engage in wrongdoing.

Dont make too much sense. They may not be able to handle it. 

Can you point out where I said a bad act never occurred, [deleted] you to see things I never said, I clearly wrote. “ your alleged bad act never occurred legally”

Not sure why that wasn’t clear .

Not sure why that wasn’t clear .

Here is what is clear.   Follow the context:

JR@7.1.4 ☞ How about not committing the bad deed in the first place? 

George@7.1.6 ☞ Sigh…if it is overturned on appeal then your alleged bad act never occurred legally, even if it is trump.

John spoke of Trump engaging in wrongdoing ("bad deed").   He suggested that Trump should have not engaged in the 'bad deed' in the first place.

Your 'rebuttal' pretended JR is being obtuse "Sigh" and then explained that Trump's wrongdoing would not be recognized in a legal sense.

That is correct, but JR was referring to the bad deed itself, not the legal recognition of same.

So we all know that if this ruling is overturned, Trump would no longer be liable for his wrongdoing in question.

Do you believe Trump should NOT be held liable ... do you believe judge Engoron was wrong ... that he made a faulty ruling?

I haven’t seen a single victim come forth to say they were harmed

Well then, I guess we just need to throw out the rule books since if Trump can get away with blatantly breaking them then so should everyone else.  This is America, man - we don’t need no stinkin rules!

That was an ignorant response, I guess in your America i can sue Biden for raping his daughter. In a civil case you have to prove harm, this is the most basic principle, maybe you are confusing civil with criminal. 

So it’s ignorant to say that Trump should have to follow the same rules as everyone else?  Trumptards will say anything to defend their cult leader.

No that isn't what i'm saying, TDS sufferers think there should be different rules for trump.  The rules should be the same for everyone. If you are harmed, then you sue to get compensated to be made right like E Jean Carroll, trump harmed her and was held liable for her damages, Who did NY sue trump for? who was harmed? that's how it works in America.  but blather on about me being a trump supporter because that just proves you comment is a lie.

[Deleted] Thankfully the legal system is in charge of addressing Trump’s inexcusable behaviors, not you.

Why do you need a victim to come forward in public and declare their damages?

I have George on ignore so I can't see his comment, but for him and those who say no one has been harmed - the State of NY is claiming harm since it brought forth the civil case. The State puts forth rules and Trump & Sons knowingly falsified business documents. A judge agreed. Even if successfully appealed this will have future consequences for the Trump businesses and may open them up for further civil trials from the banks and insurance companies he's done business with.

TDS sufferers think there should be different rules for trump.

Where are you getting this stuff?    Do you think the judge failed to properly follow the strict guidelines for summary judgment?

If so, make your case.   All you are doing is tossing out your hypothesis that the judge handled this improperly.   A claim without evidence is not persuasive.

Trump and his company deceived banks, insurers and others by massively overvaluing his assets and exaggerating his net worth on paperwork used in making deals and securing loans. 

Prior to a bank lending money, whose obligation is it to verify the collateral ?

MAGA dont like judges.  MAGA see MAGA do. 

Seems a lot of our friends here don't know the answer to that...................weird shit.

Prior to a bank lending money, whose obligation is it to verify the collateral ?

When signing a loan application one is attesting the information on the application is true. Inflating one's asset worth upwards of $600 million is fraud no matter what the bank did, or didn't do. This could also open up those banks to civil claims from their investors and/or the State.

This could also open up those banks to civil claims from their investors and/or the State.

Yes,  it could, for not properly appraising the collateral that they are accepting for the loan.

Inflating one's asset worth upwards of $600 million is fraud no matter what the bank

What if the assets are worth 60 Billion is your statement still true? 

What if...

What if pigs fly? The court found the Trump company libel of business fraud. The only thing left for us to do is wait for the rest of the charges to be litigated and the appeals to be returned. 

What if pigs fly?

You notice in all these claims of inflated values they don't give the Real Estate Appraised value, so you have no idea what you are comparing it to. 

so you have no idea what you are comparing it to. 

I'm not comparing anything. I'm reporting and responding to this charge and this ruling. Nothing more. I fully expected, of all the cases against Trump this one would be easier for him to skate from. Perhaps it will be overturned on appeal. I'm not putting money down on it either way. 

"That does not mean he did not engage in wrongdoing".

We don't know that for sure, since details seem to be lacking, as usual

If overturned on appeal, then the charges were spurious and of a political nature...as most of the cases against Trump have been

A bank typically engages in all sorts of due diligence.   But clearly, even with normal due diligence, it is possible to defraud an entity.

You seem to be implying that Trump's fraud was the fault of the banks and the insurance companies and not Trump.

You recognize that this is a wrongdoing by Trump, don't you?

I'm not comparing anything.

You seem to be with the "What if pigs fly" comment. 

Do you believe Trump should NOT be held liable .

Do you believe someone wrongly convicted of murder is still a murderer? 

We don't know that for sure, since details seem to be lacking, as usual

What do you need to acknowledge wrongdoing by Trump?   We now have the results of a formal judicial process.    Does this have to go before the state supreme court before you acknowledge wrongdoing?   More than that?

Do you believe someone wrongly convicted of murder is still a murderer? 

Of course not.   Good grief man.   If someone is wrongly convicted then that means, by definition, that the individual was NOT guilty and DID NOT COMMIT the murder.   

You did not answer my direct question and instead deflected to a nonsense question.    Do you think that Trump defrauded banks and insurance companies per the evidence underlying this summary judgment?

Why do so many kick the can down the road and never acknowledge wrongdoing by Trump?   Is honesty no longer valued when partisan politics is at play?

You did not answer my direct question and instead deflected to a nonsense question.    Do you think that Trump defrauded banks and insurance companies per the evidence underlying this summary judgment?

No and No.  Do you have a deposition from one of these banks stating that they were defrauded and would not have offered the terms provided?  

Have no idea how you make the claim that an insurance company was defrauded, when no claim was made and premiums were paid. 

And premiums are based on value, the higher you value something, the higher your premium, Saying he defrauded insurance companies is a retarded argument that overvaluing something defrauded an insurance company, especially if you never make a claim.

And premiums are based on value, the higher you value something, the higher your premium,

You are correct, in most cases its based on the replacement cost of the property.  Carriers will inspect a multimillion dollar building and determine what "they" will agree to insure it for. No one seems to know how an insurance company was defrauded. 

You seem to be with the "What if pigs fly" comment. 

No. When someone starts with, "What if...", the comment is often irrelevant, hence my reply. It matters what the court finds:

Justice Engoron wrote that the annual financial statements that Mr. Trump submitted to banks and insurance companies “clearly contain fraudulent valuations that defendants used in business.”

And to some degree what the penalties are:

While the trial will determine the size of the penalty, Justice Engoron’s ruling granted one of the biggest punishments Ms. James sought: the cancellation of business certificates that allow some of Mr. Trump’s New York properties to operate... nytimes

If you want continue to deflect with more hypotheticals you can start your own article.

Why do so many kick the can down the road and never acknowledge wrongdoing by Trump?

And then jump to conclusions as fast when it's someone they disagree with politically. It's not like they are fooling anyone.

Do you have a deposition from one of these banks stating that they were defrauded and would not have offered the terms provided?  

This is a deflection. 

No one seems to know how an insurance company was defrauded. 

That has not been litigated yet. It's a whole separate charge from the one we are talking about in the article.

Unlike you, I withhold judgement until all the facts are in and all appeals are decided.

Only if their if there is a R after their name?

No one seems to know how an insurance company was defrauded. 

That has not been litigated yet. It's a whole separate charge from the one we are talking about in the article.

How to say I didn't read the article without actually saying it.

Judge Arthur Engoron, ruling in a civil lawsuit brought by New York's attorney general, found that the former president and his company deceived banks, insurers and others by massively overvaluing his assets and exaggerating his net worth on paperwork used in making deals and securing financing.

“I withhold judgement until all the facts are in and all appeals are decided. Trump is accused of all sorts of things that may, or may not, be true.  Maybe…”

Hoist yourself upon that petard.

”…that may or not be true. Maybe…”

…but don’t pretend for a second you give a care about the ‘facts’ and have withheld ‘judgement’.

Few things in life are self evident…his insidious intentions and indifference and indiscretions are an absolute. 

If overturned on appeal, then the charges were spurious and of a political nature...as most of the cases against Trump have been

What will you continue to say if it's upheld? 

Although I'm sure you'll say the banks and insurance companies suffered no loss and therefore were not harmed, the fact is that a FRAUD was proven to have been committed, and therefore deserves a criminal indictment.

That may be so.  But this isn't that.

Well then, I guess we just need to throw out the rule books since if Trump can get away with blatantly breaking them then so should everyone else.  This is America, man - we don’t need no stinkin rules!

The rules on fraud in NY apparently require someone to be harmed. (see #5 )

Elements of Fraud:  To prove fraud in New York, the following elements must be present:

1. Material Misrepresentation:   The first element of fraud is material misrepresentation. This means that the party accused of fraud made a false statement or concealed a material fact.
2. Knowledge of Falsity:   The second element of fraud is knowledge of falsity. This means that the party accused of fraud knew that the statement was false or made it recklessly without knowing whether it was true or false.
3. Intent to Deceive:   The third element of fraud is intent to deceive. This means that the party accused of fraud made the false statement with the intention of deceiving the other party.
4. Justifiable Reliance:   The fourth element of fraud is justifiable reliance. This means that the other party relied on the false statement or concealment of material fact in making a decision that resulted in harm.
5. Damages:   The fifth element of fraud is damages. This means that the other party suffered harm as a result of the false statement or concealment of material fact.

So the real question may be who actually threw out the rulebook.  

No. When someone starts with, "What if...

I used "what if" because your article doesn't provide any values to compare the supposed fraud.  I don't know the values, you don't know the values, your article or the judge doesn't provide values, so to say some egregious fraud took place, I'd rather see the numbers.  

I'd like to see the numbers too, but it doesn't make all that much difference given what we do know. The general public doesn't often know the gritty details of court cases unless they are televised. We will know more when they rest of the case goes before a jury, I'm sure. 

What I'm wondering is if the lawyers have to wait for the whole of case to be completed OR if they can go directly to the appellate court to overturn the summary judgement? I guess we'll find that out within the week if the appeal if filed..

Fraud is bad.   Those who were defrauded are, by definition, the victims. 

By definition in NY, fraud only occurs when harm is done.  No harm = no victims = no fraud.

So the real question may be who actually threw out the rulebook.  

Are you trying to say the State can't be harmed? That would be interesting if it were true, but with so many states suing the feds these last several years I know it's not.

Are you trying to say the State can't be harmed?

Have I said that? 

No.  No I haven't.

But you're no doubt astute enough to notice that nobody seems to have claimed that Trump harmed the State of NY.

This is a deflection. 

No, it's not, I am trying to figure out who was harmed. 

the same people that have been harmed by all of trump's crimes, americans...

How so? Please be specific.

trump's crimes

Oh please, list ALL of these crimes, I'll wait. 

Do you have a deposition from one of these banks stating that they were defrauded and would not have offered the terms provided?  

No such deposition is required by the law.   Fraud is determined by comparing formal representations to facts.

Have no idea how you make the claim that an insurance company was defrauded, when no claim was made and premiums were paid. 

Well then I will give you a prime example.   When a bank loads money for real estate they will routinely (as part of their due diligence) ensure that the property is adequately insured.   To secure insurance that satisfied the bank, the insurance must match the value of the property.   So if one is defrauding a bank, one must also defraud insurance companies to satisfy the bank.

Unlike you, I withhold judgement until all the facts are in and all appeals are decided. Trump is accused of all sorts of things that may, or may not, be true.  Maybe he is being railroaded in a kangaroo court of disgruntled leftists. Kinda like what happened with the two failed attempts to impeach him.

I withhold claims of legal liability until same has been determined by a legal process.   Now it has.   

Instead of acknowledging this legal, formal adjudication, you claim conspiracy.

Although I am not surprised, it is still a shame that people think this way.

No such deposition is required by the law.   Fraud is determined by comparing formal representations to facts.

The establishment of injury is required by NY law.  

Now, that may have happened behind the scenes and we just don't know, but it seems conspicuous in its absence.

Yeah, he defrauded in the amount of billions.

So what!!

No one seems to know how an insurance company was defrauded. 

From the judgment - 

Lability under New York Penal Law 176.05 (insurance fraud) requires that a person submitted an application for insurance either: (1) knowing that it "contain[ed] materially false information concerning any fact material thereto"; or (2) "conceal[ed], for the purpose of misleading, information concerning any fact material thereto." 

The judge further writes:

Accordingly, unlike a standalone cause of action under Executive Law 63(12). the second through seventh causes of action require demonstrating some component of intent and materiality...

OAG has demonstrated that there remain, at the very least, disputed issues of fact as to whether defendants violated these statues, intentionally and materially. This, there are issues of fact to causes of action two through seven that require a trial. 

According to what I'm reading from the judge, the Office of the Attorney General still has to prove Trump's company intended to defraud insurance companies by providing the false information and that trial hasn't happened yet.

 To secure insurance that satisfied the bank, the insurance must match the value of the property.   So if one is defrauding a bank,

No it doesn't ! You will need at least as much coverage as the loan, very seldom if ever do they "match".  In many instances the insurance on a property exceeds the sales value do to increased cost of construction and materials.  Insurance is based on the replacement cost of the building and how they wish to insure it.  No insurance company that I am aware of would insure a multimillion dollar building without inspecting it, they know exactly what they have, not what someone puts on an application.  To say an insurance company was defrauded is bullshit!

You should be his lawyer, George, but if you take on his case you better make sure you're paid up front.  LOL.  You're too nice a guy to allow yourself to be defrauded by that expert.  

The establishment of injury is required by NY law.   Now, that may have happened behind the scenes and we just don't know, but it seems conspicuous in its absence.

I think the judge likely knows the nuances of the law better than what one would glean by browsing the web (from his decision document ):

No it doesn't ! You will need at least as much coverage as the loan, very seldom if ever do they "match".

By 'match' I am referring to satisfying the bank.  You should know that since I stated that in my comment: 

TiG@7.1.58 ☞ When a bank loads money for real estate they will routinely (as part of their due diligence) ensure that the property is adequately insured.   To secure insurance that satisfied the bank, the insurance must match the value of the property.   So if one is defrauding a bank, one must also defraud insurance companies to satisfy the bank.

You are cherry-picking and being absurdly literal on a word ("match') and attempting an irrelevant and feeble 'gotcha' while ignoring the immediate context.    Note "adequately insured" and "to satisfy the bank".   

Intellectual dishonesty is a poor substitute for a flawed argument.

The point is that being fraudulent with the bank requires being fraudulent with an insurer.

To say an insurance company was defrauded is bullshit!

You apparently cannot or will not comprehend that fraud is not obviated by transferring the burden of truth to the victim.   False representation is the wrongdoing — the fraud.   The lack of proper due diligence by the victim does not make the fraud wrongdoing disappear.

You know the extensive list as well as anybody.

Trump is a lifelong grifter/con-man, thief and liar.

Only his money has kept him out of prison so far.

Seems his evil ways have finally caught up to him.

Objection!

Excessive legalese and the badgering of my reading skills!  

In short, the (fraudulent) misrepresentation is a wrongdoing; there is no requirement to prove damage to victims.

So if one is defrauding a bank, one must also defraud insurance companies to satisfy the bank.

You really know nothing about the insurance industry! Insurance is based on replacement cost of the structure, not the bank loan.  Insurance carriers run credit inquires on their clients, if their credit sucks their rates go up if its good they go down.  Multimillion dollar buildings are all inspected, to determine value, maintenance, safety, occupants and insure it accordingly.  The insurance company was not defrauded and is not a victim!    

Seems his evil ways have finally caught up to him.

I have never seen Trump charged with Insurance Fraud!

You really know nothing about the insurance industry!

Are you suggesting that banks do not demand proof of adequate insurance when granting a loan on real estate?

Your entire comment was a strawman, arguing something I did not claim.   Try again.  See above.  ⇡

Also, if you read the summary judgment, the fraud is executed by delivering false documents.   Thus fraud is committed when false documents are provided to an insurance company (and, of course, to the lender) to secure insurance to satisfy the lender.

How many times will I have to repeat this before you read it?

if you read the summary judgment, the fraud is executed by delivering false documents.

This is all that needs to be stated. They can keep arguing what they THINK the law is, but this is the law in NY according to the ruling and some of Trump's business licenses will be terminated because of it unless overturned on appeal... which doesn't look likely given the evidence (200% to 400% increase in fraudulent valuations).

Are you suggesting that banks do not demand proof of adequate insurance when granting a loan on real estate?

Please point out where I said anything like that. 

Thus fraud is committed when false documents are provided to an insurance company 

An application is submitted by the agent/broker to the carrier, not the client, this isn't fucking GIECO.  Are you saying the agent/broker submitted a false document? 

think the judge likely knows the nuances of the law better than what one would glean by browsing the web (from his decision document ):

I don't think anybody is questioning materiality.  

I just don't think anybody has said how there was any harm.

In a state where people won elections by campaigning on the promise to target a single individual, I think it's problematic to just presume impartiality if all of the other data doesn't confirm it.

Please point out where I said anything like that. 

Note that 'banks (lenders) DO demand proof of adequate insurance for real estate loans' is my point.     Thus submitting fraudulent records to an insurance company to secure insurance to satisfy the lender is fraud.

If you agree with me then why are you arguing?    You are not going to prevail with intellectual dishonesty no matter how much you cuss and how many strawmen you pose.

In a state where people won elections by campaigning on the promise to target a single individual, I think it's problematic to just presume impartiality if all of the other data doesn't confirm it.

Yeah, well presuming bias goes only so far.   Looks like a number of Rs here are questioning the integrity / knowledge / intelligence of the judge.   Having read the judgment, I do not see the grounds for such an assessment.

Also, if one wants to entertain external factors (as you gave), another external factor is what we know of Trump.   It is quite easy to believe that Trump committed fraud.  I trust I need not make an argument to substantiate that claim.

The point is that being fraudulent with the bank requires being fraudulent with an insurer.

How?  

Banks (lenders) demand proof of adequate insurance for real estate loans.   Thus submitting fraudulent records to an insurance company to secure insurance to satisfy the lender is fraud.

The judge has already found Trump and his sons and his company "guilty" of fraud, it is done, and yet we have dozens of comments on this seed disputing the verdict. 

Trumpism has created a pervasive and probably long lasting disrespect for the judicial system among the MAGA.  Its sad. 

I just don't think anybody has said how there was any harm.

Harm doesn't seem to be a component of any charges or requirement of the law so largely irrelevant.

Does not surprise me a bit.   And if this case goes to the state SC and is upheld, I expect the scope of 'foul play by the system' will simply be extended to include the SC.  

Truth does not matter ... Trump is likely to be the GOP nominee so loyal Rs are duty bound to defend and support no matter how absurd the arguments.

Thus submitting fraudulent records to an insurance company to secure insurance to satisfy the lender is fraud.

You assume that if a fraud was committed obtaining a bank loan, that a fraud is committed when submitting for insurance. The bank loan does not effect the amount of insurance, its the STRUCTURE being insured determines the insurance.   

You assume that if a fraud was committed obtaining a bank loan, that a fraud is committed when submitting for insurance. The bank loan does not effect [sic] the amount of insurance, its the STRUCTURE being insured determines the insurance.   

Yes, goosie, nobody has suggested otherwise.   This is basic, yet you seem to be stuck in your strawman and never address the point I actually made.  

I will break it down for you:

A lender accepting real estate as collateral will normally demand that suitable insurance is on the real estate to protect the collateral.

You get that, right?   This is an extremely common and logical practice.

Now, this is how it works:

1. Borrower seeks a loan with real estate as collateral
2. Lender, if all other factors are satisfactory, demands proof of insurance to protect the collateral
3. Borrower secures required level of insurance
4. Insurance company certifies and delivers required proof of insurance
5. Loan is granted by the lender

If the loan is being sought based on fraudulent information (e.g. making it appear as though the real estate is worth substantially more than the FMV would hold) then that is fraud.

Presenting the fraudulent document to the lender defrauds the lender.

Presenting the fraudulent document to an insurance company defrauds the insurance company.

Presenting fraudulent documentation is the wrongdoing. 

Read the summary judgment.

Yeah, well presuming bias goes only so far.  

I didn't say I presumed it.  Merely that the conditions for it are more favorable than they would normally be.

Do I think Trump & Co made material misrepresentations?  Undoubtedly.  

Do I think Trump knew about it?  I think it was his idea.

That said, almost nothing else about this smells right.  

If the banks were actually defrauded, where are their lawyers?  Banks don't sit by and quietly accept fraud.

Normally, when the state brings a fraud case, they're defending a large number of regular people who have suffered losses and lack the ability to fight for themselves individually.  They let multi billion dollar institutions fight for themselves, in part because they have much better lawyers.

When is the last time the atate of NY went after a fraud case on behalf of a group of Fortune 100 companies?   Maybe it's happened before, but it's surely very unusual.

It's damned near impossible to defraud an insurer when purchasing a policy on a large commercial building.  They inspect the hell out of those things.  And again, if any of them were defrauded, where are their lawyers?  Insurance fraud usually happens at claim time, BTW.

Returning to the idea that fraud requires damage of some kind.  I knew that to be true in most states, so I looked it up for NY, and it's true there also.  I don't doubt for a minute that Trump made material misrepresentations.   But it's not actually fraud until someone loses money, kinda like its not actually murder unless the victim dies.  We have yet to hear of anyone losing anything.

The loss is important in civil cases because that's how the damages are determined.  The plaintiffs not only have to prove they were defrauded but also how much it cost them.  If you sell me the Grand Canyon for $300, Im not entitled to $2,000,000 in damages because I wasn't damaged that much. If nobody lost any money, where does the $250million come from?  If they did lose that much, where are their lawyers?

There my be perfectly reasonable explanations for all of these issues and we just don't know.  But without those explanations, this smells fishy AF.

If the banks were actually defrauded, where are their lawyers?  Banks don't sit by and quietly accept fraud.

The summary judgment explains that actual damages are not required for fraud to be perpetrated.

As for your question, I obviously cannot speak for banks.   But you are implying that the judge got this wrong.   On what grounds?

It's damned near impossible to defraud an insurer when purchasing a policy on a large commercial building.

I would think so too, but that belief in principle contradicts the evidence in this case.   So what do we do?   Do we sit on the sidelines and simply claim that this judge is willing to compromise his career to take down Trump ... and that this judge would think that a faulty summary judgment (given the high bar for such a thing) would not be overturned on appeal?

It is well known that Trump is quite capable of fraud.  This case details the fraud he perpetrated.  If Trump did not perpetrate fraud then the AG and the judge and many others are working together to falsely punish an innocent man.

Returning to the idea that fraud requires damage of some kind.  I knew that to be true in most states, so I looked it up for NY, and it's true there also.

Then the judge, et. al. is wrong on the law or the requirement for damage is satisfied in the evidence.   If the judge got this wrong, the shit will hit the fan.  

I think it is far more likely that the judge got this right.

You have the right to choose what you think is most likely.

Presenting the fraudulent document to an insurance company defrauds the insurance company.

Why can't you get it through your head one has nothing to do with the other. Entities don't buy insurance "JUST" to satisfy a loan!  Insurance companies don't give a shit about the loan you have on a structure, they are going to insure it for the value they see fit, not the loan you have on it.   

Actually, every single business loan with a mortgage I have been involved in (I work in an attorney's office), you have to provide proof of property and liability insurance and the lender has to be named on certificates of insurance as "loss payee/mortgage" for the property insurance and "Certificate Holder" for liability insurance, and the amount of insurance has to be equal to or above the loan amount.  Lenders absolutely care about the insurance on a property when someone is getting a loan. 

Entities don't buy insurance "JUST" to satisfy a loan!

Yes they do.   If you want to secure a loan and the loaner demands that the collateral be insured to protect their investment, you will modify your existing loan or secure a new one to satisfy the lender.

Pretending this is not true is ridiculous.   Your argument is ridiculous. 

Insurance companies don't give a shit about the loan you have on a structure, they are going to insure it for the value they see fit, not the loan you have on it.   

Correct.   Now attempt to insert this one more piece of information.   When an individual needs insurance to be for a certain minimum value of the property and submits fraudulent documentation arguing that the real estate has a much higher value than it has, the presenting of the fraudulent document is the fraud.

It does not matter if the insurance company tosses the fraudulent document in the trash.   The fraud is the presentation.

See?

Lenders absolutely care about the insurance

Yes they do, but the loan doesn't dictate the amount of insurance, the structure does. 

And the Lender won't lend more than the insurance coverage so it's actually important to both the Lender and the insurer.  

Yes they do. 

Bullshit, entities buy insurance on a regular basis when no loan exists! 

When an individual needs insurance to be for a certain minimum value of the property and submits fraudulent documentation

Here's your problem, you assume that the building has a lesser value that what's being applied for.  You have no idea what was submitted, hell it may have been underinsured.  

Yes they do, but the loan doesn't dictate the amount of insurance, the structure does. 

Nobody (and that especially includes me) has suggested that the loan dictates the value of the property and thus the maximum amount an insurance company would offer.

You insist on getting this wrong.

To secure the loan, the collateral property needs to be covered at a level that satisfies the lender.   The borrower thus needs to get an insurance company to certify the existence of a policy that is sufficient to satisfy the lender.

You continue with your stupid strawman rather than deal with the point I actually made.   You keep going with this blatant intellectual dishonesty and I promise I will  keep calling it out.

Bottom line, submitting a fraudulent document that inflates the worth of the collateral in an attempt to get insurance sufficient to satisfy the lender is fraud.   Even if the insurer ignores the fraudulent document.   Even if the insurer rejects the request and does not issue the insurance.

And the Lender won't lend more than the insurance coverage

Actually they will, If a developer has to purchase a 25 acre tract of land to build a 300,000 sq ft shopping center they will lend the cost of the land along with the cost of the structure. 

Bullshit, entities buy insurance on a regular basis when no loan exists! 

WTF are you talking about now?   Another strawman.

Here's your problem, you assume that the building has a lesser value that what's being applied for. 

Good grief man, that is the whole premise of the fraud case.   Hello?

“ You have no idea…” 

And neither do any of us. Let the courts decide. 

Who do you think you are fooling? Yourself?

Just try financing a home for $200,000 and then only insure it for $50,000 and see how quickly you get a legal demand letter forcing you to fulfill your contractual obligation to insure for the full amount if the loan. To falsely over or under estimate values to lender or insurers on loan or insurance contracts is criminal fraud which costs lenders, insurers and the public trillions. Our federal prisons are full of those who committed tax and financial frauds on banks, insurers and the tax man...

Even if the insurer ignores the fraudulent document.

You just contradicted you own claim! If the insurer ignores the document they don't provide the coverage therefore they don't get the loan.  

Just try financing a home for $200,000 and then only insure it for $50,000

Please understand the thread before posting.  

You can't finance a home without proof of insurance so there is no fucking way your example holds water. Try again.

Yes, they will, but that's a totally different scenario.  In that scenario, the Lender will also hold all of the loan funds in escrow and make scheduled payments to the contractor (not the borrower).  The Borrower actually never has that money in hand.  The Bank keeps it and makes the payments.  

Yes, they will, but that's a totally different scenario.

That's my point, assuming an inflated loan application creates an inflated insurance application is ridiculous. 

Where did you and your buddies get your law degrees?

This is fucking ridiculous.  This armchair lawyering.  

Nice guy?  George?

Yeah and Just Jim is asking for a list of the former 'president's' life-long list of crimes.

How fuckin ridiculous.

You just contradicted you own claim! If the insurer ignores the document they don't provide the coverage therefore they don't get the loan.  

I need to break this down for you too?

Remember, goosie, I have stated that presenting a fraudulent document is the wrongdoing.   Remember that?   That is the claim.

If the insurance company does not look at the document or ignores it entirely that does not change the fact that fraud was perpetrated.   Even if the insurance company refuses to issue the policy, the fraud was perpetrated by presenting the fraudulent document.

This is easy to understand, yet no matter how many times I explain this to you, you come back with some other stupid strawman or, as in this case, a laughable failure in logic.

That's my point, assuming an inflated loan application creates an inflated insurance application is ridiculous. 

Not the claim.   That is your strawman, that is not what I claimed.   Endless intellectual dishonesty.

Presenting the fraudulent document, regardless of what the insurance company does with it, is the fraud.

THANK YOU!  How ridiculous to have to state that to the other folks who are doing all this armchair lawyering.  

I wasn't arguing with you.  I was just kind of explaining the procedure and the relationship between lenders and insurance companies.  Sorry if my comments were confusing in that manner. 

And, you are correct in that, if the construction costs are less than the amount of the loan, the lender would keep the balance of the monies in the construction escrow to pay down the original loan balance.  

[Deleted]

You can't finance a home without proof of insurance so there is no fucking way your example holds water. Try again.

Can you secure a loan using a $200,000 real estate structure as collateral and insure the real estate structure for $50,000 and have a normal, competent lender accept this?

Let's see if we can get you to at least agree on the basics here.

It's mind boggling and stupefying and incomprehensible and fucking nuts.

And the endless comments about the 'two tiered justice system'

7.1.58 : To secure insurance that satisfied the bank, the insurance must match the value of the property.

You stated what I've been telling you along  "the insurance must match the value of the property". So by your own words the insurance matches the value of the property. If the loan was made, the insurance had to be at least the value of the loan amount.  The carrier wouldn't have issued the coverage if the building wasn't worth at least the loan amount.  Show me where the fraud took place.    

Don't be absurd...............no.

I have repeatedly explained this.   

Presenting a fraudulent document is the fraud per the judge.   It does not even matter what the insurance company did with the fraudulent document.

Read the summary judgment.

You need to know what you're talking about before posting,

Oh, wait. . 

the same people that have been harmed by all of trump's crimes, americans

was the assertion. How were all Americans hurt by any crime Trump may have committed. He didn't list any and I know neither can you.

Do I think Trump & Co made material misrepresentations?  Undoubtedly.  

Do I think Trump knew about it?  I think it was his idea.

That said, almost nothing else about this smells right.  

According to the ruling. Only the first point is necessary to commit executive fraud (not bank fraud or insurance fraud, but executive fraud in repeated business documents). The second point is part of the ongoing trial where witnesses will speak and there they may determ

If the banks were actually defrauded, where are their lawyers?  Banks don't sit by and quietly accept fraud.

All kinds of irregularities came out about Deutsche Bank and Trump loans when Cohen was going to prison. 

Thus you should understand that an attempt to secure a loan will necessarily force securing insurance that satisfies the lender’s concerns for the collateral.

Right?

So if someone fraudulently inflates the value of their collateral, the lender will, at the very least, demand insurance covering the collateral to protect their investment.

Right?

If the borrower submits a fraudulent document in an attempt to secure a loan, that is defrauding the lender.   When the borrower submits that fraudulent document to secure insurance for the collateral, that is defrauding the insurance company.

Even if the loan is denied or the insurance is denied, the fraud already took place by presenting the fraudulent document.

Read the summary judgment.

And if the same documents, inflated value, are used for the loan and the insurance, the lender is more than covered.

And if the same documents, inflated value, are used for the loan and the insurance, the lender is more than covered

Surely you must know that this is not and never was the point.

The point is that presenting fraudulent document to secure a loan and/or secure insurance is fraud regardless of what the lender and insurance companies do.

Read the summary judgment.

Banks (lenders) demand proof of adequate insurance for real estate loans.   Thus submitting fraudulent records to an insurance company to secure insurance to satisfy the lender is fraud.

Let's review how the business process works here.

The (absolutely believable) accusation here is that Trump overstated the value of his other assets, presumably to appear more credit worthy.  The fraud claim relies on the idea that the banks believed those statements (which seems unlikely) and would not have loaned him the money anyway.

Yes, the lender(s) would have required insurance on the building.

The insurer agreeing to cover Trump Tower in Manhattan (for example) will not ask and completely does not care what Mar-A-Lago or any of the Trump casinos are worth.  They have zero liability on any of those, so any misrepresentations about their value are as immaterial to that insurer as claims that Mexico would build a wall or that Lionel Messi is actually an alien from the Alpha Centauri system.

That insurer is not going to carry that liability on their own.  They're going to re-insure it through a series of other insurance companies who specialize in insuring insurance companies.  You may remember that this is how the Twin Towers were covered.  Every one of those carriers is going to be on the hook for at least $50 million, so they're going to send a small army of inspectors to check out that property, and assign a small army of accountants to verify its value.  They verify everything, so even if Trump made material misstatements about Trump Tower, the insurers know better and don't make their decisions based on that.

The higher the agreed upon value of the building, the higher the face amount of the policy and the higher the premiums.  It's very unlikely Trump lied to increase his premiums.  

I didn't make that assertion.  Don't speak for me.  Buzz off.

The fraud claim relies on the idea that the banks believed those statements (which seems unlikely) and would not have loaned him the money anyway.

It totally does NOT. The fraud claim relies on the continued practice of artificially inflating valuations on submitted applications for a decade. FULL STOP.

Some folks move the goal posts or argue points never made or just argue to argue or because of lastworditis?  Refusal to admit they're wrong?  

You dissed me for wanting a list. You buzz off. Take a toke.

The summary judgment explains that actual damages are not required for fraud to be perpetrated. As for your question, I obviously cannot speak for banks.   But you are implying that the judge got this wrong.   On what grounds?

Every other reference you look at with regard to NY law says fraud requires injury.  Yet we have a claim for a quarter billion dollars with no explanation of anybody losing anything, much less anywhere near that amount.  The claim is made by an AG who actually campaigned on the promise of aggressively going after a single citizen, and upheld without jury trial by a member of her party.  I cannot believe you don't see how that looks suspicious.

I would think so too, but that belief in principle contradicts the evidence in this case.

Does it?  What evidence do we have that any insurer issued a policy based on bad information?  

So what do we do?   Do we sit on the sidelines and simply claim that this judge is willing to compromise his career to take down Trump ... and that this judge would think that a faulty summary judgment (given the high bar for such a thing) would not be overturned on appeal?

How would that compromise his career?  He's an elected Democrat in a place that hates Trump.  If anything it boosts his career.  And if it is overturned on appeal, he can claim he did his best and use that in the campaign.

It is well known that Trump is quite capable of fraud.

Oh yeah.  No question.

This case details the fraud he perpetrated.

I'm not so sure.  

  If Trump did not perpetrate fraud then the AG and the judge and many others are working together to falsely punish an innocent man.

I think it's a massive leap to call Trump "an innocent man".  I can see how it would be quite easy to rationalize this action as a means to stop him by whatever means possible. We've certainly seen people do that before when it comes to Trump.

If the judge got this wrong, the shit will hit the fan.  

That's not how the system works.  Judges get things wrong all the time and shit almost never hits anything.  Now, I don't know for certain that he's wrong in this case, and we're operating on very limited data, but as it stands there is a whole lot that doesn't add up.

It totally does NOT. The fraud claim relies on the continued practice of artificially inflating valuations on submitted applications for a decade. FULL STOP.

Tell you what... cite the NY law that supports your statement.  Or cite a law firm or law school that supports your statement.  I already have cited sources for mine.

Just try financing a home for $200,000 and then only insure it for $50,000 and see how quickly you get a legal demand letter forcing you to fulfill your contractual obligation to insure for the full amount if the loan.

You won't be able to do that at all.  No insurer is going to issue that policy.

What law school did YOU go to?

Fo shizzle

I was taking a toke

You should try it - gummies maybe - [deleted]

Tell you what... cite the NY law that supports your statement. 

From the ruling: 

Are we good, or would you like to continue to argue about banks and insurers? 

Oh, wait. . 

Feel free to join in. 

Every other reference you look at with regard to NY law says fraud requires injury. 

Do you believe the judge, in this high profile case, with the high bar for summary judgment does not have sufficient command of the law in New York?    Or, possibly, that he will risk worldwide embarrassment for issuing a summary judgment that would be easily overturned by what you suggest?   Or, possible, that he hates Trump so much that he will torpedo his career in a futile attempt to jab him (knowing it will be overturned)?

Rather than results one can query on Google, I tend to hold more confidence in the New York judge who has listened to the arguments, considered the evidence, and issued a summary judgment knowing that the bar is high for someone to do that.

If the judge is wrong, we will find out via appeal.   If that happens, I will consider the facts at the time and draw a new conclusion.

That's not how the system works. 

If this ruling is wrong you know it will be appealed.   If it is appealed and is wrong, it is likely to be overturned.  That is how our system works.

It does not even matter what the insurance company did with the fraudulent document.

I have repeated this as well, because the Loan app is fraudulent doesn't mean the insurance app. is fraudulent!

The New York judge in this case says you are wrong.

Submitting a fraudulent document is all that is required to be liable for fraud.

You are clearly not an expert here and I am sick of explaining the same basic facts (which come from the summary judgment) to you.

Read the summary judgment.    Then if you disagree with the judge, make your case in legal terms.

The higher the agreed upon value of the building, the higher the face amount of the policy and the higher the premiums.  It's very unlikely Trump lied to increase his premiums.  

The higher the agreed upon value of the building the more value is the collateral.   The downside for Trump is that he will need to secure an insurance policy to cover the collateral.

Trump did not lie to increase his premiums, he lied to get a loan.  The increased premiums would be a means to his end.

Do you believe the judge, in this high profile case, with the high bar for summary judgment does not have sufficient command of the law in New York? 

I've merely said it looks suspicious.  Keep in mind, we don't have anywhere near all the facts.

   Or, possibly, that he will risk worldwide embarrassment for issuing a summary judgment that would be easily overturned by what you suggest?

I don't understand why you think a) it would be 'easily' overturned or b) any judge who has a ruling overturned would feel embarrassed by it.

   Or, possible, that he hates Trump so much that he will torpedo his career in a futile attempt to jab him (knowing it will be overturned)?

We've discussed the potential impact on his career.  There are no torpedoes in that story.  It's a very shrewd career move, which adds to the whole bad smell factor.

If this ruling is wrong you know it will be appealed.   If it is appealed and is wrong, it is likely to be overturned.  That is how our system works.

What's not part of our system is "shit hitting the fan" when a case is overturned.  But I suspect you knew that's what I was talking about.

The higher the agreed upon value of the building the more value is the collateral. 

Banks appraise absolutely every major asset they hold as collateral.  Have you never bought a house?

 The downside for Trump is that he will need to secure an insurance policy to cover the collateral.

Insurance companies independently value the real estate they agree to cover.  And again.. they have no interest in the stated value of things they don't cover.

Trump did not lie to increase his premiums, he lied to get a loan.  The increased premiums would be a means to his end.

Look, the idea that anybody took his word for the value of anything is ridiculous and only possible for people with zero experience in commercial real estate or insurance transactions.

On deals this large, nobody takes anybody's word for anything that matters.

Now you are off arguing that lenders and insurance companies normally engage in due diligence.

This is not in question.   

And it is not in question that a lender or insurance company bought anything Trump said.   Whether they did or not is irrelevant per the judge.

Per the judge, read the summary judgment (pages 18-21 in particular), the presentation of a fraudulent document to secure a loan, etc. is the fraud.   It does not matter what the receiving entity does with the document.

I don't understand why you think a) it would be 'easily' overturned or b) any judge who has a ruling overturned would feel embarrassed by it.

If the judge totally got the law wrong as you claim, then this would easily win in appeal and be overturned.

If the judge totally got the law wrong and was overturned, you do not see why that would be professionally embarrassing?   

It's a very shrewd career move, which adds to the whole bad smell factor.

Not if he is wrong on the law and is overturned on appeal!

What's not part of our system is "shit hitting the fan" when a case is overturned.  But I suspect you knew that's what I was talking about.

You think that THIS CASE if appealed and overturned would not initiate a shit storm??

If the judge totally got the law wrong as you claim, then this would easily win in appeal and be overturned.

I've made no such claim.

If the judge totally got the law wrong and was overturned, you do not see why that would be professionally embarrassing?

Because the law is very often a matter of interpretation, and decisions get overturned all the time.

Not if he is wrong on the law and is overturned on appeal!

You have got these very strange ideas that a judge is somehow professionally damaged if their decisions are overturned and that partisan voters will give a solitary shit about that.  He is an elected Democrat. 

Any elected Democrat in NY who goes hard after Trump is increasing their popularity.  The AG has shown that "out to get Trump" is a great campaign strategy.

You think that THIS CASE if appealed and overturned would not initiate a shit storm??

Nah.  Not at all.  It's one raindrop in a monsoon.  It will last 24 hours in the news cycle and another 24 on Trump's social media.

Now you are off arguing that lenders and insurance companies normally engage in due diligence. This is not in question.

Your statements assume it is very much in question.   

And it is not in question that a lender or insurance company bought anything Trump said.   Whether they did or not is irrelevant per the judge.

We all realize what the judge has said.  The debate is about whether or not his interpretation is correct.

I've made no such claim.

Okay, then you believe that the judge is likely correct in his ruling that presenting a fraudulent document alone is fraud regardless of what the receiving entity does with it.

You have got these very strange ideas that a judge is somehow professionally damaged if their decisions are overturned and that partisan voters will give a solitary shit about that.

You seem to ignore that this is an extremely visible case.   If this were not Trump (the leading candidate for the GOP nomination and former PotUS) but rather some regular Joe, I would have not made a comment about embarrassment.

The debate is about whether or not his interpretation is correct.

Set the record straight (see @7.1.145).   Are you claiming the judge's interpretation is likely correct or likely incorrect?

Looking into Trump's relationship with Deutsche Bank is interesting to say the least. As for appraisals some of the loans to Trump were through their ''private wealth unit''. In fact that unit loaned Trump $48 million after he had defaulted on his $640 million loan with DB and their commercial division.

I would guess that the private or wealth units of banks play by a very different set of rules since they deal with high-worth individuals. Could a personal guarantee of the loan by Trump avoid an appraisal?

Okay, then you believe that the judge is likely correct in his ruling that presenting a fraudulent document alone is fraud regardless of what the receiving entity does with it.

Also, I've made no such claim.  I'm not sure why my comments can't stand on their own without you trying to restate them. 

You seem to ignore that this is an extremely visible case. 

What a preposterous suggestion. We've seen far less than 1% of the documentation.  We've heard less than 1% of the conversations.  All we have is a 20 page decision which leaves a lot of unanswered questions.  Those questions may well have perfectly reasonable explanations within all the documentation and/or testimony we haven't seen. Or maybe they don't. Or maybe some do and some don't.  Or maybe there are explanations that seem fine to this judge but won't hold up under appeal.  

The possibilities are myriad. 

 If this were not Trump (the leading candidate for the GOP nomination and former PotUS) but rather some regular Joe, I would have not made a comment about embarrassment.

I still disagree on it.  Yeah, he's a high profile defendant, but it's not like anybody has a lot of success against him in courts and hearings.

Set the record straight (see @7.1.145).   Are you claiming the judge's interpretation is likely correct or likely incorrect?

I'm not sure.

There is certainly evidence enough to question it.

What a preposterous suggestion.

You deem it preposterous that I think this is an extremely visible case???   You then (strangely) argue that we have seen only a tiny bit of evidence.   

By extremely visible I was saying that this case is headline news.   Read my full comment:

TiG@7.1.145 ☞ You seem to ignore that this is an extremely visible case.   If this were not Trump (the leading candidate for the GOP nomination and former PotUS) but rather some regular Joe, I would have not made a comment about embarrassment.

I go on to explain why this is extremely visible:  because it involves the leading candidate for the GOP nomination and former PotUS rather than an ordinary citizen.

You somehow interpreted the phrase "highly visible" into the equivalent of "highly transparent" and then argue that we know almost nothing about the case.

I thought my comment was quite clear.

I'm not sure why my comments can't stand on their own without you trying to restate them. 

I am reading your comments, they seem to contradict, and I am paraphrasing to encourage clarity from you.   I routinely paraphrase as a tool to encourage clarity when needed.

For example (one of many) here you are arguing that fraud requires damage (e.g. victim loses money):

Jack @7.1.85 ☞ Returning to the idea that fraud requires damage of some kind.  I knew that to be true in most states, so I looked it up for NY, and it's true there also.  I don't doubt for a minute that Trump made material misrepresentations.   But it's not actually fraud until someone loses money, kinda like its not actually murder unless the victim dies.  We have yet to hear of anyone losing anything.

Okay, got it.   This suggests that you think the judge was wrong in his summary judgment because he did indeed rule that the mere presentation of a fraudulent document was fraud.   

Your thread of comments have been heavily questioning the summary judgment so naturally one would take that to mean that you are leaning one way or the other.   I was trying to tease out which way you are leaning.

From your "I'm not sure." @7.1.149,  you have stated that you have not decided if the judge's interpretation is likely correct or likely incorrect.

My position is this:

• I recognize the bias of the AG.  But she had to make a case that would stand up to scrutiny.   She does not get to simply find Trump liable.
• I do not have reason to think the judge is significantly less objective than any of his peers.  It is possible, but nothing leads me to this conclusion.
• The bar for summary judgment is high.   No judge wants to be overturned so logically this judge was confident that the case met the standards of evidence for a summary judgment — a judgment that the evidence is so overwhelming that no jury trial was needed.
• I have yet to see evidence that this judge wants to martyr himself to 'get' Trump so I am inclined to think the judge is being honest with the law.
• I find it to be quite unlikely that the judge does not properly understand New York state law and has made a legal error on the requirements for liability in a civil case.  

In short, having read the entire summary judgment, my position (pending further information) is that the judge knows the law and has offered rational reasons for his decisions.   So until I get credible evidence to the contrary, I am comfortable with the finding that Trump committed fraud 

Although I don't agree with his politics, Tess, he is one of the few right wingers who treats me with respect and decency and doesn't use off topic whataboutisms in attempts to harass me (an effort that normally earns them points towards a forced vacation from NT). 

Thanks Buzz, my politics are more libertarian than anything, and I haven’t voted for either major party since Obama’s first term.
I think I read that your sight isn’t as good as it used to be so I try to remember to increase my font size when responding to you. If I forget to do so sometimes I do apologize. I appreciate how you treat me too, and always try to read your opinions with an open mind, you have had a life well led, so you perspective should be considered.

Thank YOU George.  Actually, being a Libertarian is more tolerable to me than any other what some might call semi-extremism - enjoyed reading Ayn Rand, and watching The Fountainhead about my favourite architect Frank Lloyd Wright.  For a long time I had a great dream about living in his Falling Water House, but these days it would make me run to the toilet every ten minutes to pee. 

As for my vision, although I KNOW I need new glasses, my wife just told me to wash the glasses.  Maybe she doesn't want me to see her hair is turning gray. 

The bar for summary judgment is high.   No judge wants to be overturned so logically this judge was confident that the case met the standards of evidence for a summary judgment — a judgment that the evidence is so overwhelming that no jury trial was needed.

Not only that, but the appeals court (5 judges) has already ruled against the defendants yesterday on a point that would render the summary moot. It isn't impossible to say at this point, but I would wager it's more likely now to stand on appeal.

You deem it preposterous that I think this is an extremely visible case???   You then (strangely) argue that we have seen only a tiny bit of evidence.    By extremely visible I was saying that this case is headline news.

Yeah, we were using the word "visible" differently.  I agree it's high profile.

Your thread of comments have been heavily questioning the summary judgment so naturally one would take that to mean that you are leaning one way or the other.   I was trying to tease out which way you are leaning.

I'm leaning toward "not as clear cut as it may seem".

So until I get credible evidence to the contrary, I am comfortable with the finding that Trump committed fraud 

That's fine.  I'm going to wait and see.

victims.

I am a victim.

Far right wing fascists tried to beat me up one night for speaking truth about Trump in a red-neck biker bar. 

Yep! No politics or religious topics around fascist drunks is a good idea.

Luckily 50 years of martial arts training has saved my ass this far.

All it takes these days is to trash Trump to trigger fascist violence.

Pretty sure I will continue to trash Trump and fascism.

Better to die a glorious death other than just fading away.

DON'T PISS OFF OLD FOLK! THE OLDER WE GET THE LESS LIFE IN PRISON IS A DETTERENT!

My favorite T shirt.

You are cherry-picking and being absurdly literal on a word ("match') and attempting an irrelevant and feeble 'gotcha' while ignoring the immediate context.    Note "adequately insured" and "to satisfy the bank".    Intellectual dishonesty is a poor substitute for a flawed argument.

goosisback is correct. You are wrong. The bank requires the property is insured to the bank's satisfaction. There is nothing that states over insuring is a crime. Anyone can insure their property for ten times the value of their property if they wish although they'd just be wasting the money. Insuring your property doesn't mean that if you have a loss of property the insurance has to cover in the amount you purchased. They only have to cover the actual value of the property. 

So, if you buy a million dollars of insurance on your $100,000 home and the home is completely destroyed, you're not getting a million dollars for it. It's going to be a hard sell to claim that the insurance company was defrauded because they don't care what the insured think the value of their property is. They don't pay out claims based on what the insured thinks about any of it so whatever Trump submitted has little to no relevance to the insurance company. They cannot be defrauded in that way. The insurance company only cares what the insurance company thinks it's worth. 

Presenting the fraudulent document to an insurance company defrauds the insurance company.

Within the context of the case we are speaking of, how, exactly, does it defraud the insurance company, especially since whatever documentation presented is not the basis for the insurance? It is the value of the property as determined by the insurance company, not the insured, that insurance companies go by. 

Since this is so, either the insurance company is happy to over insure for the profit represented by the increased (and wasted) premiums or for some other reason. They certainly didn't make any decisions based on Trump's paperwork. That isn't how insurance companies work. If they over insured, they did so knowingly and willingly. 

As far as the insurance is concerned, the only one who could reasonably defrauded here is Trump because he's paying more in premiums than the insurance is worth and it's himself doing the defrauding. 

The bank requires the property is insured to the bank's satisfaction.

I have not once suggested otherwise.   Read what I write, Drakk.

There is nothing that states over insuring is a crime. 

Who suggested this was a crime?   Where are you getting this crap?

Insuring your property doesn't mean that if you have a loss of property the insurance has to cover in the amount you purchased.

Do you have any idea what we were debating??   Good grief, Drakk, you are way off base.   I have not claimed otherwise on any of this.

They cannot be defrauded in that way. The insurance company only cares what the insurance company thinks it's worth. 

I gave a scenario where one is trying to secure a loan based on inflated net worth and inflated valuation.   If the bank were to grant that loan, they would ensure that it was properly insured to cover their collateral.   Thus one needs to try to get that insurance.   If one submits fake documentation to the insurance company (to get the insurance) that is fraud even if the insurance company denies the request.

The judge in this case has rule, per New York law, that presenting a false legal document in order to achieve favorable terms for a transaction is fraud.   It does NOT matter if the recipient denies the transaction.  The presentation of the false legal document is fraud.

Read the summary judgment.    And also, pay closer attention to the actual debate rather than simply accepting the strawman of my interlocutor.

Within the context of the case we are speaking of, how, exactly, does it defraud the insurance company, especially since whatever documentation presented is not the basis for the insurance?

The judge in this case has rule, per New York law, that presenting a false legal document in order to achieve favorable terms for a transaction is fraud.   It does NOT matter if the recipient denies the transaction.  The presentation of the false legal document is fraud.

Read the summary judgment.    

The point is that being fraudulent with the bank requires being fraudulent with an insurer.

Are these not your words? I even kept the color. Point being, considering how insurance works, how is it possible to defraud them? Trump could have valued his property at the same price as 16 Psyche and there would be no fraud because insurance companies don't pay out at the customer's valuation. 

Your point, which you think I'm unaware of, is because in your opinion Trump defrauded the bank, it necessarily means he defrauded the insurance company. goosisback's point was that the insurance company fraud is irrelevant since they can't be frauded in the manner you apparently think banks can be. You said to gooseisback...

You are cherry-picking and being absurdly literal on a word ("match') and attempting an irrelevant and feeble 'gotcha' while ignoring the immediate context.

... when in fact it is you who are being absurdly literal on a word (fraud) in the case of insurance companies. Trump's valuation of his properties concerning insurance has as much relevance as his height. 

The judge in this case has rule, per New York law, that presenting a false legal document in order to achieve favorable terms for a transaction is fraud.   It does NOT matter if the recipient denies the transaction.  The presentation of the false legal document is fraud.

I don't care what the summary judgement says. That represents the opinion of the judge and nothing more. If it were otherwise, there would be no provisions for appeal. You understand that, right? 

And, since we're talking about whether Trump defrauded the insurance company, please explain to me how a higher insurance premium is considered "favorable" to Trump? 

Are these not your words?

Yes, Drakk.   Being fraudulent is the phrase you should focus on.   The example recipients are banks and insurance companies.

Now, note:

The judge in this case has ruled, per New York law, that presenting a false legal document in order to achieve favorable terms for a transaction is fraud.   It does NOT matter if the recipient denies the transaction.  The presentation of the false legal document is fraud.

Read the summary judgment: especially pp. 18-21

You have been fooled by a strawman argument.   Ignore it and focus on my actual argument before you engage in rebuttal.   I must have repeated my point more than half a dozen times with Goosie alone.   Hard to miss.

And, since we're talking about whether Trump defrauded the insurance company, please explain to me how a higher insurance premium is considered "favorable" to Trump? 

How many times must I explain this?   Here, read what I already wrote to you:

TiG@7.1.159 ☞ I gave a scenario where one is trying to secure a loan based on inflated net worth and inflated valuation.   If the bank were to grant that loan, they would ensure that it was properly insured to cover their collateral.   Thus one needs to try to get that insurance.   If one submits fake documentation to the insurance company (to get the insurance) that is fraud even if the insurance company denies the request.

The advantage to Trump is securing insurance to cover the value of the collateral to satisfy the bank.   If the insurance company grants the policy then Trump has satisfied a critical condition for the loan.  See how that is favorable to Trump?

Now don't do what Goosie did and ignore my point and argue that no insurance company would be stupid enough in its due diligence, etc. etc. etc.    None of that matters.   The judge ruled that the presentation alone is the fraud ... even if the transaction is denied.

I don't care what the summary judgement says.

Well alrighty then.   Then why are you conversing with me?   My posts were stating what the summary judgment said.   You jumped into a discussion / debate that you do not even care about.

You are pretending (or possibly still believe) that Goosie's strawman argument reflects an actual argument that I made.   That is incorrect.   Your assumption is dead wrong and thus your recent posts are all wrong.

Goosie has 'fraudulently' presented a distortion of my argument and you bought it.

And, since we're talking about whether Trump defrauded the insurance company, please explain to me how a higher insurance premium is considered "favorable" to Trump? 

Good grief man, see @7.1.164

The advantage to Trump is securing insurance to cover the value of the collateral to satisfy the bank.

The issue is whether securing insurance on those documents is fraud. It would literally make no difference whatsoever if Trump accurately (assuming he didn't) valued his property or over valued them as far as insurance goes. This is so because the value of those properties for insurance properties has no relation to what Trump, or any other person, places on their insured items. 

The only way Trump could commit insurance fraud in this case is to undervalue his property in an effort to get lower insurance premiums while still secure the bank loan. Trying to claim that Trump defrauded the insurance company simply rests on mental gymnastics. 

Using the reasoning you're attempting, we could say the insurance company defrauded Trump because there was no way they were going to pay out according to what the premiums were paying for. 

The issue is whether securing insurance on those documents is fraud.

No, that is part of the strawman.   Even if insurance is denied (not secured) the judge ruled that fraud had taken place.

The issue is whether or not Trump committed fraud.   Hello?

The judge in this case has ruled, per New York law, that presenting a false legal document in order to achieve favorable terms for a transaction is fraud.   It does NOT matter if the recipient denies the transaction.  The presentation of the false legal document is fraud.

Read the summary judgment: especially pp. 18-21

The only way Trump could commit insurance fraud

Who exactly do you think you are?   You are implying that the judge in this case either does not understand New York law, is incompetent, or is corrupt.   Until a legal analysis emerges that shows this judge is wrong, comments from those who clearly do not have access to the evidence, the legal arguments made, and New York law carry no value.

Using the reasoning you're attempting,

What exactly is your problem, Drakk?   I AM STATING THE REASONING OF THE JUDGE, not my reasoning.   You just keep going with this strawman crap while ignoring the point I have repeatedly made.   There is no reasoning I am attempting.   I have been stating quite clearly what the judge determined.  

I did not rule on this case.   But before I posted a single comment on this topic, I read the summary judgment (all 35 pages).  Having read the summary judgment, I am attempting to encourage you and others who are ignorantly opining to at least understand what you are talking about.

Read the summary judgment.   Stop arguing a strawman; doing so is slimy and dishonest.

Well alrighty then.   Then why are you conversing with me?   My posts were stating what the summary judgment said.   You jumped into a discussion / debate that you do not even care about.

TiG, as much as you deny making this about you, you always do. I was responding to and backing up what gooseisback was saying, not you. As far as insurance fraud is concerned, Trump may as well have submitted a form that said he prefers mint chocolate chip ice cream when he really prefers rocky road, as it would have as much applicability as what he valued his property has. 

The overall point of all of this is the speciousness of the charges. If you want to convince me otherwise you have to tell me in what conceivable way the insurance company could be harmed or affected or defrauded by what Trump valued his property as. 

You are pretending (or possibly still believe) that Goosie's strawman argument reflects an actual argument that I made.   That is incorrect.   Your assumption is dead wrong and thus your recent posts are all wrong.

Actually, based on all my previous interactions with you, what I see is your refusal to recognize someone else may have an argument that differs from yours. For whatever reason, you always take that as a distortion of your argument rather than a critique as to why your argument is wrong, as if that couldn't possibly be. 

Goosie has ' fraudulently ' presented a distortion of my argument and you bought it.

You are, of course, welcome to your opinion. Mine is that he read you right, told you why you were wrong and you rejected it because it doesn't agree with you. 

Good grief man, see  @7.1.164

Thanks. I did prior to you suggesting it. Are you so narcissistic that you think that because you said these words it explains it? It doesn't. Your words suggest that, had Trump made what you consider a true and factual valuation, it would have altered something. It would not have, unless Trump undervalued it. That is the only scenario where what Trump valued the property at would have any effect as far as the insurance company was concerned, and subsequently, the loan. 

See, here's the thing with this "fraud" case. By invoking "fraud", it implies that had the actual "truth" been told, something entirely different would have happened and, according to many of the objections I have seen, would not have profited as he did. I think this ignores reality. The reality is that banks operate on the principle "what will bring the most profit?" They were not mislead by any document Trump submitted. They had their own evaluation of what those properties were worth. They made their decisions based on a number of factors, one of which was what they thought the actual value of the properties were. They made the loans accordingly. 

What we are being asked to do is to ignore all of that and base this case on a technicality for the purpose of "getting" one individual. We are being asked to look at a technical definition, divorced from the real world, in order to condemn an individual for what is, ultimately, a political agenda. In other words, we are being asked to judge without political considerations, even though the asking is according to political considerations. 

Who exactly do you think you are?

I am a human being, with the same rights as anyone else. That means I get to have my opinions on things. Just like you, who apparently thinks that a judge somehow cancels my right to an opinion. 

I was responding to and backing up what gooseisback was saying, not you.

Goosie was arguing a strawman!    I do not object to most of what he said.    But it was not a rebuttal to what I wrote.

It was a strawman.   Get it?

The overall point of all of this is the speciousness of the charges.

What, specifically, do you know of the actual evidence presented and the legal arguments made?

Actually, ...

And now, as usual, you make this personal.   Stop doing that.

Mine is that he read you right, ...

Bullshit.   My opinion is that you are currently intentionally writing obnoxious posts.

Your words suggest that, had Trump made what you consider a true and factual valuation, it would have altered something.

More bullshit.  

My words state what was in the summary judgment.

The judge in this case has ruled, per New York law, that presenting a false legal document in order to achieve favorable terms for a transaction is fraud.   It does NOT matter if the recipient denies the transaction.  The presentation of the false legal document is fraud.

Read the summary judgment: especially pp. 18-21

That is the only scenario where what Trump valued the property at would have any effect as far as the insurance company was concerned, and subsequently, the loan. 

Repeating myself.   If Trump sought a loan for an overvalued property as collateral then the bank would want to ensure that their loan is properly covered by the collateral and would demand insurance coverage at some stated level.   This requires securing insurance that no doubt overvalues the property.   If Trump attempted to secure this insurance by submitting a false legal document then the judge has ruled that is fraud.

Bottom line, you (like most everyone else) has not had access to the evidence or heard the legal arguments.   You are not an expert in New York law.   You are simply some guy posting on a forum making strawman arguments and implying that this judge is wrong (and you are right), or that he is corrupt.

Not a persuasive argument.   But it has been quite obnoxious.

I am a human being, with the same rights as anyone else. That means I get to have my opinions on things. Just like you, who apparently thinks that a judge somehow cancels my right to an opinion. 

Your opinions, compared to those of the judge, are based on ignorance.

You have not had access to the evidence nor have you heard the legal arguments.  And you are not an expert in law, much less New York state law.

So your opinion, at this point, is based on profound ignorance compared to that of the judge.

I, in contrast, have not been opining.   I have been reporting what I read in the summary judgment.

See the difference?

[deleted]

condescension vs conversation

it isn't, but funny how that's suddenly intolerable if it isn't being done by a maga blowhard politician...

Page 29 of the Judge's decision hits the spot on the matter:

iapps.courts.state.ny.us

Image: Page 29 of 35.

"Bartov is incorrect.  . . . ."  In the Judge's opinion/decision.

I don't care what the summary judgement says. That represents the opinion of the judge and nothing more. If it were otherwise, there would be no provisions for appeal. You understand that, right? 

Drakkonis, you should understand and accept that for our purposes of discussion if you "don't care about the state supreme court's summary judgement" - you won't care about the appeals court's judgement either. Why? Because the first decision by Justice Engoron will be approved, modified, or reversed by appeal. 

. How could you not care: J. Engoron's decision is why you are addressing comments to this room. So you do care, you just don't want to admit it here and now

done by a maga blowhard politician...

and his low info supporters...

[deleted]

Who was harmed?

The fraud caused the banks to receive less interest than they were entitled to.

Insurance companies were similarly ripped off.

The fraud caused the banks to receive less interest than they were entitled to.

In a legal case the banks have to prove they were harmed and wouldn't have given him the same rates, they have the burden of proof to show they were damaged. 

Insurance companies were similarly ripped off.

Insurance rates are based on replacement value, the higher the value the higher the rates. 

Insurance companies were similarly ripped off.

HOW, was an insurance company ripped off!

HOW, was an insurance company ripped off!

This is a separate charge that hasn't been litigated yet. We'll see how/if later under what looks to be a jury trial.

This is a separate charge that hasn't been litigated yet

It's part of the headline in "YOUR' seeded article.  Please explain how the insurers were defrauded? 

It's part of the headline in "YOUR' seeded article.

Are you being purposefully obtuse? The ruling in the article is on one of six charges in the same case. We will see what we learn as we go along. 

Did you read your own article?

Judge Arthur Engoron , ruling in a  civil lawsuit  brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James, found that Trump and his company deceived banks, insurer s and others by massively overvaluing his assets and exaggerating his net worth on paperwork used in making deals and securing loans.

If you don't know just say, I DON"T KNOW, don't accuse me of being obtuse. 

On page 20 of the ruling the ruling is

Summary Judgment Burden on Stanalone Law 63(12) Cause of Action

OAG moves for partial summary judgment, seeking to hold defendants liable under OAG's first cause of action, for fraud under Executive Law 63(12)...

As the OAG's first cause of action, the only one upon which it moves for summary judgment...

A little further up that same page under:

The Second through Seventh Causes of Action Liability under New York Penal Law 176.05 (insurance fraud) requires that a person...

So if you read the ruling (see below @10 for a link) it's evident the judge did NOT rule on insurance fraud yet. More reading the Summary Judgement you will see your answers to your question on the numbers you brought up before. 

Here is the ruling. iapps.courts.state.ny.us

The ruling contains the arguments both the prosecution makes AND the arguments the lawyers for Trump make. The judge sites the laws and how they apply or don't apply. Many of the arguments I'm reading here were made by Trump's lawyers along with other like Tolling (who is libel) and Statute of Limitations. Those lawyers were sanctioned for making the same arguments to dismiss 3 times. The request by the prosecution to sanction Trump for that was denied.

The inflated properties and their numbers are listed in this ruling starting on page 21.

I suggest everyone for, or against read it so they know what they are talking about before further comment.

Also the case is a bench trial so no jury. It is scheduled to start again on Monday, but Trump's lawyers have filed with the appeals court that both the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) and the Judge have not followed a directive to narrow the case. I expect things will go on hold until that's been ruled on. 

This appeal to narrow the scope of the case has been denied today and trial will start on Monday as scheduled.

bbc

Witness lists have also been submitted and James plans to call Trump, Donny Jr, Eric and Ivanka to the stand.

Doing a deeper dive the trial is still on for Monday as of today. This will be pretty much about the scope of damages since the judge has already ordered most of Trump's NY business licensees cancelled on the executive fraud charge. The other counts seem to have an intent component that has not been ruled on. The original order was 10 days to do that, but will most likely be extended to 30 days as it won't be simple to figure out which fall under the judge's order. As of yet no appeal has been filed though Trump lawyers said they were going to. There are some 300 witnesses expected to testify, but neither side has a list of the other's witnesses as of yet. I'm assuming they'll figure that out before Monday OR an extension may be 

And still this BASTARD of a politician who is sinking even lower to the bottom of the septic tank, is buoyed up by a network of cult worshippers masquerading as republicans and conservatives. Shame on the GOP for being so gullible as to run for president AGAIN an amoral man who is now a legally proven FRAUDSTER!

How could they legally stop him?

By not voting for him.   By not supporting him in the polls, etc.   By not defending him. 

'they' = The GOP = all members of the GOP.

Also, the RNC could sanction this legally proven FRAUDSTER and throw its vast support behind some other party member. It has not and highly probably will not due to its want/need of his 'cult'-followers!

'EVERYBODY' is telling the GOP how silly it looks standing shackeled to a legally declared FRAUDSTER with their in yo face attitude that he can win with all his legal baggage surrounding his ankles and atop of his feet!

CB wrote “run”.

Obviously voters don’t have to vote for him while running.

they' = The GOP = all members of the GOP.

Are you including the blue collar workers that previously voted Dem?

Also, the RNC could sanction

Sanction, how?

Like it did when the RNC censured (sanctioned against) Cheney and Kizinger:

RNC votes to censure Cheney, Kinzinger

The Republican National Committee (RNC) on Friday voted formally to censure GOP Reps.  Liz Cheney  (Wyo.) and  Adam Kinzinger  (Ill.) over their criticism of former President Trump and participation in the special House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

. . . . 

The entire package passed by a voice vote at the RNC’s winter meeting in Salt Lake City.

. . . .

The resolution adds the RNC “shall immediately cease any and all support of” both lawmakers “as members of the Republican Party for their behavior which has been destructive to the institution of the U.S. House of Representatives, the Republican Party and our republic, and is inconsistent with the position of the Conference.” 

The censure marked the strongest effort thus far to specifically punish the two House lawmakers but stopped short of calls by some to boot them from the House Republican Conference

thehill

So Drinker, are you going to tell me/us that a legally declared FRAUDSTER is a better man for the GOP presidential campaign then two GOP representatives convicted of absolutely nothing in a court of law, but condemned anyway? Go ahead: Try it!

Obviously voters don’t have to vote for him while running.

This is why included in my comment the following blue sentences:

TiG@13.1.2 ☞ By not voting for him.   By not supporting him in the polls, etc.   By not defending him. 

Are you including the blue collar workers that previously voted Dem?

I am including everyone who identifies as an R (to pollsters, et. al.)

So Drinker, are you going to tell me/us that a legally declared FRAUDSTER is a better man for the GOP presidential campaign then two GOP representatives convicted of absolutely nothing in a court of law, but condemned anyway? Go ahead: Try it!

Don't be silly, I written here numerous times that I've never voted for Trump and have always found him unfit for office.

TiG@13.1.2 ☞ By not voting for him.   By not supporting him in the polls, etc.   By not defending him. 

You got that right, thanks for the insight.

I would suggest a clean 'cut' with MAGA and the RNC, because until you do what else you might write on the topic of MAGA/RNC/Trump is belied by your clear association with the lot of them!

I would suggest a clean 'cut' with MAGA and the RNC, because until you do what else you might write on the topic of MAGA/RNC/Trump is belied by your clear association with the lot of them!

What does clean cut mean, I haven't voted for him, haven't donated to him and made my thoughts clear when called on a poll.  What else would you have me do?

because until you do what else you might write on the topic of MAGA/RNC/Trump is belied by your clear association with the lot of them!

WTF does that mean?

The GOP, RNC, and MAGA are polluted and corrupted by Donald J. Trump, its standard-bearer and legally proven FRAUDSTER, and you can not deny with any validity that you carry feelings for the 'lot' in part/or in whole. The taint is smeared top to bottom and side to side all over your comments. Become an independent in discussion or accept the guilty association that binds you to Trump's corrupt political party/sphere.