Trump responds
Link to Qute: Donald Trump's civil trial stemming from New York AG Letitia James begins Monday | Live Updates from Fox News Digital
Donald Trump just effectively responded to Judge Letitia James. Every word he said was true.
"Judge Engoron’s Valuation of Mar-a-Lago, the most spectacular property in Palm Beach, Florida, IS FRAUDULENT! He states a value of 18 Million Dollars, knowing full well that it is worth, perhaps, 50 to 100 times that amount. Engoron is working diligently to misrepresent me, and my net worth, which is substantially MORE than is shown on my fully “disclaimed” Financial Statements. I have not even included my most valuable asset - BRAND!" Trump wrote on Truth Social."
Trump expected in Manhattan Monday for trial | Live Updates from Fox News Digital
"He should resign from the “Bench” and be sanctioned by the Courts for his abuse of power, and his intentional and criminal interference with the Presidential Election of 2024, of which I am leading all candidates, both Republican & Democrat, by significant margins. Likewise, Letitia James should resign for purposeful and criminal Election Interference. She is fully aware that Mar-a-Lago, and other assets, are worth much more than what she is claiming. Both of these Democrat Operatives are a disgrace to New York, and to the United States of America!" Trump continued.
The merits of this case works to Trump's advantage.
The AG preceded Trump's entry into the courthouse and she appeared to be positively giddy.
"We have a rogue judge," Trump said. "We have a racist attorney general who's a horror show, who ran on the basis that she was gonna ‘get Trump’ before she even knew anything about me--she used this to run for governor she failed in her attempt to run for governor…she came back and she said, 'well, now I'll go back to get Trump again and this is what we have."
"It's a scam. It's a sham," Trump said. "Just so you know, my financial statements are phenomenal."
Trump said "no bank was hurt--they don't even know why they have to be involved."
Trump defends ‘phenomenal’ financial statements ahead of ‘disgrace’ of trial out of ‘corrupt’ NYAG James probe | Fox News
Tags
Who is online
66 visitors
An obvious case of a malicious prosecution.
If anyone is being maliciously prosecuted here it is the Judge and the AG. @!@
Well, no, he's guilty Vic.
Trump ranting and raving at the judge is the same as fucking with the person making your food...not a great idea, but then trump has the IQ of a turnip so there ya go.
Meh. When the judge issued the summary judgment on the bank fraud, it immediately became all about the appeals court.
And ranting and raving (taunting) at the court "Law-giver" helps the situation he is in,how exactly? It could assist in the Judge meticulously with intent putting him away properly where other considerations might have been factored in instead of ignored.
I saw that - it looked like his attorney and all the police and clerks surrounding the turd were wishing he would just shut the fuck up.
She ran on promising to get Trump.
The timing of these cases was to keep Trump in Court during the election.
Trump loves the optics because the voters get it.
All that is irrelevant if Trump is guilty.
It will be a while. There will be an appeal. And maybe another.
Wow, Trump, the 'robber baron,' has got MAGA in the 'bag.' The steal is IN! How GREAT is that?! Republicans used to care, used to matter, now they are just not relevant anymore. It's all about: A noun, a verb, and Donald Trump!
This is what happens when one party thinks they can prosecute their opponents.
Trump loves the optics because his supporters will believe anything and everything he says, no matter how stupid.
Trump’s Trial Starts Monday. It Will Spotlight What He’s Really Worth. - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
"Let the jury consider their verdict," the King said, for about the twentieth time that day.
"No, no!" said the Queen. "Sentence first–verdict afterward." ........From "Alice in Wonderland."
[deleted]
Trump deserves more than just a sentence, he deserves a whole paragraph.
It's called falsification of business records . Familiarize yourself with it.
Is that what it's called?
How about putting out political statements in the middle of the trial?
"Today was the third day of our trial against Donald Trump and the Trump Organization. Regardless of how many dangerous, racist comments the former president makes, I am not going to back down from my duty to enforce the law."....Letitia James
Will the judge put a gag order out on her?
If Trump would just shut the fuck up Letitia James would have no reason to say anything during the trial.
We could have said the same thing to Sen John McCain. It doesn't take much to set off the ideologue who ran on "getting Trump."
You need to get your contexts straight. A reply to a comment (L. James to Donald Trump's "whining" in the halls - which by the way you partisanly ignored just now) is not a political statement.
Anyway, if you are going to give blatantly partisan comments on this maybe you should put a DISCLAIMER at the top of your comments! Just sayin'!
Your 'service' to Trump is duly noted. It is plain and clear. You want Trump free and clear. . .come hell or high water!
I want the rule of law back.
No, MAGA does not want the rule of law to be enforced against Trump at all. Tell the truth! Can you handle the truth?!
You and your emperor have no clothes.
The crime was the submission of false documents itself. You know, kind of like Hunter Biden and his handgun application. You cannot have the one be a crime and the others not.
The head of the argument has come clear around to the point where it is eating its own tail. I wonder what all the proto-fascists will do when they realize they have defeated themselves?
proto fascists now?
well, that's a switch from the usual [deleted misuses of 'fascists'!]
First learn how to direct a comment to someone.
Second: Find out how many people in NYC have been charged with fraud for inflating their income/value on a loan application.
Have a good one.
Each case/trial is plainly a case unto itself. Every tub must sit on its own 'bottom' and this is Trump's little red wagon to pull around and try to off-load. That is, it won't matter what Tom, Dick, and Harry got away with to the judge who will rule on the penalty at the end of this. Vic, by now, you should realize all of this after watching the trashing of the Capitol by artless fools who thought protesting and rioting on the street would be a license to pick a target and ACT! Now their asses aren't worth two-cents in the larger scheme of their existences and all they have to show for it is nasty pool of regrets!
CB, try and remember this:
“It is not a matter of ends justifying means: but of the creation of new means and new ends.”
― Joseph O'Connor, Star of the Sea
*facepalm*
So... a "proto-fascist"... is that some sort of code for 'people who don't agree with you'?
Not in all instances, certainly. In a limited number of instances, such as this one in conjunction with certain people, I feel comfortable calling them that.
Why the amateurish attempt at deflection?
You imagine it's deflection.
I would need to be taking it seriously first.
OK. Good Trolling to you!
If you want people to take you seriously, don't use asinine sociology class bullshit like "proto-fascist". WTF?
Fzz-zzz, plop. Click. Whrrr
Gotta beer?
I see plenty of proto-fascist people. Some of them are politicians, some people who follow politicians blindly or with avarice, there are even some people here who are so sure that their way is the "right" way that they agree that legislation should be passed to make others illegal just for being who they are. So, you may call me or my word choice" ...asinine sociology class bullshit" but people who fit the definition will be called that by me.
Evil doesn't "just happen" overnight. Evil does not just happen to bad people or the lunatic-fringe. Fascism didn't just pop up one day and say "Hello! Everyone in-line with my political ideology! Chop-chop!" It had influential and charismatic people at the helm scheming until it was so.
And right here we have people who do not respect the rule of law when it goes against their wishes on something that was so evident that the judge issued a summary judgement. These same people are convinced that Hunter Biden's lying on a handgun application should result in fines and jail time, yet when the Trump organization did the same, that should just be let go because he is "one of them."
So, I will continue to call some people proto-fascists because they are. And you can continue with your non sequitur argument at your leisure.
Mmmmkay
Is that like seeing dead people? Aren’t proto-fascist people those that predate the fascism of the last century and set the stage for those ideologies and cultural movements that shaped the subsequent fascism?
No.
Then what does proto-fascist mean?
You are intelligent enough to figure out what it is.
Proto
proto-
/ˈprōdō/
combining form
prefix: proto -; prefix: prot-
original or primitive.
"prototherian"
first; anterior; relating to a precursor .
"protomartyr"
I use the bolded sense of the word/prefix.
FASCIST (one of many definitions) from Wikipedia :
Among the many definitions, this seems to be close to what I am observing in today's societies. Some more, some less. There is a great deal of variance, but most definitions include a highly autocratic figurehead and a powerful governmental structure that promotes not just patriotism, but jingoism. Also frequently in the mix is governmental interference/dictates in social norms and business dealings.
"Make America Great Again ", "I am the only one who can ______", "Law and Order Party", ....
I see this world-wide, but it is right here too. DJT, the jerk from FL who's name I cannot remember right now are some obvious people who would fall into the category. Ah, DeSantis!
Since the word "proto-fascist "is already in use to denote certain people inclined towards fascism in the period between WWI and WWII, I can avoid ambiguity by calling them "fascistic" or "pre-facist"... just doesn't sound as good. Maybe "wannabe fascist without the cajones" is a better descriptor. I dunno. They are all total jerks.
People who know what definitions are but still use the word improperly are a blast.
I've been thinking about that. We're talking about fraud, right? So, what do you call it when a bank approves a loan that, allegedly, was based on 2,000% inflation of supposed value and they don't notice???? Do you really think, I mean honestly think, the bank wasn't completely aware of this? Do you think people just walk into a bank and claim a certain value on a security and, what, the bank just says, okey dokey, here's a ton of money?
No. These banks knew what the reasonable value of these securities were and loaned him the money anyway because they wanted to make money. So, whatever fraud was committed, it wasn't against the banks. If anything, the banks should be seen as accomplices. My guess, though, is that there's a lot of people and businesses out there who are watching this intently, because they've done the same thing. In other words, I'll bet this is fairly common among players at Trump's level.
Personally, I think this whole thing has nothing to do with fraud. That's just a tool. What this is about is politics. This is a Democratic political effort to keep Trump out of the presidency and nothing else.
I am assuming the judge understands New York law.
The judge has ruled (based on New York law) that the presentation of fraudulent legal documents to qualify for a loan, etc. is fraud. It does not matter if the recipient approves or disapproves the transaction. It does not matter if a fraudulently acquired loan is paid off. The presentation of the false legal document is the fraud.
If the judge is wrong about the presentation = fraud angle, this case will take quite a turn.
This case certainly seems politically motivated. But politics alone does not make a case. The judge here issued a summary judgment which means that the evidence met the very high bar to allow for a summary judgment. Again, if the judge knows the law, there is something here.
Since this deals with Trump the citizen, I am far less concerned about this case (in and of itself) than with the cases dealing with Trump's Big Lie. The documents case is also important because it addresses the precedent that former PotUS' are in some way above the law.
That established, the significance of the New York case is that if it fails, this will make the other —substantially more important— Trump cases look bad. The mantra of 'it is all political' will be wrongly stronger with those cases. Not good for the nation.
If the D party was strictly playing politics, it should pursue the strongest case first. That is not what is happening IMO.
The attorney general in NY says that Trump made 100 million dollars off of his fraudulent financial statements. That is more than enough reason to drag him to court. No need to call it political.
The argument that this case is politically motivated stems from the AG's campaign promise to get Trump. That makes anything she does vulnerable to being labeled 'political'.
But, as I noted, it can only be partially political.
Side issues. This thief signed documents that contain fraudulent information. He is in court for having done so. Focus! The judge has rendered a decision already.
Trump frauded the state of New York and Others with interest in this case.
Deal with this that is in front of the court!
There is no excuse for lying on contracts. Why? Because Donald Trump is nothing if he is not a man who has signed a few contracts in his life. Properly or improperly. This is his company's doing and Trump's signature or ascribed signing/s.
-----
Why are you defending a thief, Child of God? What does your bible say about calling evil good? What does your bible say about the appearance of evil? What does your bible say about a liar?
People have been making excuses for this guy for 8 years, and truthfully even longer than that. Its time to bring this garbage to an end.
The Judge has stated that the AG's motivation is not under scrutiny here. As well it should not be. Donald J. Trump signed these documents and a judge ruled that indeed a crime of fraud has occurred. MAGA must deal with the facts and not the spin sooner or later. This is a court of law after all! Built to try adults, not child's play!
Is there something in my comments that suggest I am not in favor of holding Trump accountable to New York law?
No not at all. I can interact with you. This comment is in addition to your comment on the subject. That other one just fails at discussion with me, so using an 'economy scale' I just address others present. Otherwise I would be 'speaking to the room-at-large.'
None of you who responded to me understand the point (This isn't addressed solely to you, TiG). This is not a fraud case. It is about harming Trump in some way. If it really were about fraud, the banks would be getting sued or a fine or whatever for either knowingly accepting a fraudulent document or at least not doing their required due diligence. I am certain that federal regulations have something to say about conditions for loans, especially after the housing fiasco in 08. That's what the regulators are for. To try and make sure it doesn't happen again.
So. This is not a pursuit of justice. This is a political hit, brought about by political motives according to a political agenda. The power players making this happen don't give a damned about the fraud, probably because half of them have done the same thing themselves in one way or another. If Trump has committed fraud, it pales in comparison to the fraud that is politics and our government.
That's what pisses me off most about all of this. The people guilty of a much worse fraud concerning public trust virtuously defend the attack on Trump or attack those who are attacking Trump (yes, I'm speaking of all of them on both sides).
I haven't said one thing in defense of Trump. Not that will matter to you. You seem to take whatever I say, even if I were to post a recipe for shrimp fried rice, and turn it into whatever you want it to say. That's why I seldom respond to you.
Supposition nonsense. Stand for what is right! Keep your. . .feelings out of it. Watching the written "mulligans" handed out to the insincere, braggarts, who flaunt the laws of this country is nauseating and then there is the Christian 'angle' that flies out the window for all to see.
No wonder people think Christians are full of it! Many are full of it, and the above is evidence of it.
Trump has been charged up the wazoo by good people, good cases, and so forth and yet those who defend the corrupt won't cease advocating just one more time for Trump.
When does this BS 'pact' with Trump get its proper comeuppance? How many more good people must be thwarted and ruined so this wretched human being can have his indulgences and inflicting of terror on the citizenry?
Where is the sense of shame?
Where is the love of God in all of this?
God cannot be pleased with this kind of political 'hanky-panky' coming from the institution of the Church!
That's untrue. And worse you know it is untrue. You don't respond to me because, well let me let John/Jesus tell you:
The self-righteous think that they do God a favor by imposing themselves and their wishes upon other people in this world. But, God is not a lie. The world turns because God set it on its course. Our 'role' in this world is to serve the good, not to EXPEDITE a stupid, evil man who seemingly lies to get his next breath issued to him! Hyperbole, yes, but its clarifying all the same.
By the way, it is implied assent to Trump when you demonize, second-guess, and opine on the motivations of sitting professionals doing their jobs as you claim you would like to see it done, but do not find any thing worthy of speaking up against from a liar, cheater, thief who has lied about his property holding in court documents!
Trump has many times demonstrated he is as stupid as he is evil. I did nothing to put him in this 'state. I did nothing to lessen or empower his rise or his fall. I simply call him out for being a major BS'er.
MAGA should forsake this foolish man and fail him once and for all. Fail him.
As for you, you enable Trump with these alternatives to the truth that not even Trump or his lawyers dare to dream up, because they can sense the hollowness and desperation in such 'deliveries.'
I would 'bless' Trump tomorrow were he to be a straight-up man and professional forthcoming with the truth.
I will not applaud his lies, and neither will I 'break bread' with a liar's enablers!
Stand up for the truth. Lies can not set one free and that is why Trump will never get off the hook he is on. He won't stand for the truth!
I understood your point. In fact, I even directly acknowledged your point and agreed with it (albeit not as strongly as you). How did you miss that? (JR sure did not miss it.)
I am highly confident that you are not an attorney and you certainly are not a sitting New York judge. So I do not see why I should take your legal opinion over that of the actual New York judge who has put his reputation on the line by ruling in an extremely high-profile case.
The judge has ruled (read the summary judgment) that according to New York state law, the transaction-seeking presentation to an entity of a legal document that contains relevant false information is fraud. It does not matter if the entity was harmed or if the entity declined the transaction entirely. The presentation is the fraud.
Do you have a legal argument that shows the judge is wrong?
If not, then I will repeat that while I understand that an AG campaigning on getting Trump will call partisanship into question on anything she does related to Trump, she cannot just 'get Trump'. She must put forth a case that will survive legal scrutiny. Apparently (thus far) she has done so.
So regardless of the AG's motives, the evidence is so overwhelming in the view of this New York judge that it meets the bar required to issue a summary judgment. That is a very strong set of evidence. Unless you want to argue that this judge is incompetent, corrupt, etc., the most logical assessment at this point, IMO, is that Trump did indeed engage in fraud as defined by the State of New York.
That's a nice opinion, I guess. Now can you prove it? (HINT: Courts are not know for their 'body' of politics.) Go ahead, make a case for a lack of justice in this case occurring.
I understand fully the point. There are several, actually. One is political, of course, if only because prosecutors and politicians are elected officials. There is no escape from it. But another point is that when a legal document is submitted it should contain factual information.
If Trump didn't want to be in this position, all that he had to do is tell the truth. But according to the judge, he did not and he did so blatantly and egregiously. Not just a little, but a lot. What is more is he made money by lying. Not just a little, but a lot. That is fraud, plain and simple. If the banks knew then they should be tried also.
You are pissed at government corruption? Join the crowd. Now how do we address that issue?
So you say, don't prosecute Trump because there are other people who do it worse? Worse than the fraud he committed on Americans and America when he lied about the election over and over and over? He is still perpetrating the lie to this day, and otherwise decent folk whom one would think aren't somnambulistic believe this lie to their core. And you think that he shouldn't be prosecuted? Is that really what you are saying?
I say he is a liar and a cheat. Above all else and any way shape or form that we have at our disposal to keep this traitorous, lying deceiver out of office we should use and not be shy about it. There are no exculpatory factors that make him in any way fit to hold any elected office.
This may well be it's strongest chance for a win.
I do not consider this case to be very important in the big picture. The cases that are (and have been all along) important to me are those that hold Trump accountable for his actions as PotUS. I know I was not clear, but my point was to pursue the strongest of those cases first and not risk diluting those cases if this private sector case finds (when all is done) Trump not liable.
I don't think you do, or you wouldn't keep going back to Trump.
If you stuck with this, you'd be a lot closer to understanding.
Nope. Nowhere have I said Trump should not be prosecuted. although this particular case is a waste of time, in my opinion and I think it's going to bite the Dems in the rear. Nor have I stated that others have done worse. What I said was, what Trump did is likely a pretty common practice. And that should not be read as "Whether it's illegal or not, since it is common practice, we shouldn't prosecute Trump for it". How it should be read is "If overstating the value of your properties is wrong in every circumstance and should be prosecuted, it is an even worse wrong to only prosecute such individuals because they are the political enemies of those with power."
Again, you show you don't understand my point. Most of what goes on in government right now is as big or bigger fraud than anything Trump ever did at any time in his life. A short list:
That's hardly scratching the surface.
So, again, no. That isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying that it isn't justice when those who are as big a problem and, largely, just as corrupt as Trump, go after Trump for political reasons. That isn't justice. That's politics and does not one damn thing to stop the problem, if there actually is one. Like I said, I feel pretty confident that what Trump has done to which this case addresses is pretty common.
I generally agree with you, although I doubt we'd agree in everything.
And that's my problem with your side of this issue. You're willing to do anything to take him down because you believe the end justifies the means. If Trump actually committed real fraud and not simply stretching the term to make it fit then he should be punished for this, as long as he is not the only one. Government regulators have the power to examine banks and the loans they make. They should be looking for others who do the same thing and prosecute them as well. That goes for the banks who make the loans, as well, since they have a responsibility in this as well. If not, this is exactly what it seems. A political hit job.
I don't think Trump is fit to be president either but not because of this case. If it had been Biden that had done this, I'd feel the same way. In my opinion, if there is a guilty party here in this case, it would be the banks. To say, hey, this is what the application said his property is worth has as much credence as Trump putting a disclaimer on his application.
Meh.
Nonsense.
I am saying that he is a threat to our nation. He showed us just what he was willing to do. He is a traitor to the CotUS and to the presidency.
You say in effect to go after the bigger injustice. I say first things first and let's remove the Traitor before he has the chance to once again besmirch the country with his pall.
I do get that you want to cleanse the metaphorical temple, but I see most of the points #1, 2, 3 and 4 as a result of the two party system and allowing those two parties to control the selection of candidates. You are disillusioned that the government, which seemed so promising and elegant in grade school can, later in life, look tarnished and tawdry.
If you think that is my reasoning you are mistaken. This case is a means to a end. Or rather, this case is one of many means to a single end: Get the traitor Trump and prevent him from attaining any political office ever again. Why? Not just because he lies, but the caliber of his lies and the cache that they carry. He is not above giving veiled threats that his following may get mad. He is counting on the people and politicians of the country to handle him as if he were special. We all should handle him as if he were especially bad. Don't pussy foot around. He doesn't respect that and he will play the ones who do.
Nail his metaphorical ass to the wall with everything that we have within our legal capabilities, meaning the letter of the law..
He knows all this because it has been posted here "infinitely" and Trump's acts, actions, and antics are well-known (and approved) by republicans, conservatives, MAGA, and the Christian Right! We, liberals, are serenaded by MAGA BS on a daily basis. That is, these folks have no intention of letting us WIN/END the day (even when we do, they don't intend to let us enjoy it.
Not much, since they are all long dead.
This article is the essence of gaslighting.
Donald Trump vastly overstated the size of his Trump Tower apartment, in order to , wait for it, inflate its actual value on various financial documents. His problem is that the size of his apartment is a known quantity. It is not a matter of opinion.
It is astonishing that anyone could think his Truth Social posts on these topics were "every word true".
This level of dishonesty may work with MAGA numbskulls, but doesnt fly with everyone else.
Did you see the turd's defense? Some nonsense about how the documents shouldn't be trusted.
'disclaimer clause telling all not to rely on these financial statements'
what the huh?
Too bad Timothy L Obien isn't a member here. I'd have to demolish him.
Do you have any clue how cowardly that sounds?
That'd be the day.
The last one who said that is out trimming hedges.
Do you have a clue how often you've tried to skirt the code today?
Timothy O'Brien was sued by Trump for defamation concerning a book O'Brien wrote about Trumps business dealings. Guess which one of them won the case?
BTW that was the case where Trump lied 31 times during a deposition.
I heard about it. That was because of the Sullivan decision which needs to be overturned.
Btw Trump is also suing Christopher Steele.
BTW that was the case where Trump lied 31 times during a deposition.
Then he is catching up to Biden and the NYTimes?
I strive for infinity as soon as I log on.
Running joke: So, I go to the bank and I tell the financier I have documents for them to approve in my favor but don't take my word for it that everything I wrote and listed is what I believe it to be. . . . Oh, but I so much do want the heftiest loan I can get because my imagination is nothing if not worth "billions"!
That's it. It's a running joke!
Here is another running joke:
The bank knows the lender always repays the loan on time, so the lender is asked if he qualifies. The bank always gets the desired answer and a nice return on investment.
MAGA obviously sees Trump's lies as food substance (edibles) that makes for a healthy political life! They wonder why we don't want any of it for our diet.
If you've ever actually bought real estate, you understand that the lender doesn't take your word for anything. They send their own person to appraise the value of the property. They review your tax returns, your bank statements, your investment accounts, credit rating and anything else they can think of.
They pretend like they know you're lying to them and they're just trying to figure out how.
Of course and I do understand appraisal processes, but. . . does that explain how the hell this occurred with Trump landing in court over being a prolific Cheat?
Running joke: The court is in-session today because of a crime of fraud has occurred, and the lenders, insurers, and all affiliated parties now like never before can feel the true loss on their contracts (up to 250 Millions), and a judge is right in stating (Trump's) the check is not in the mail!
Well that's the interesting thing. And none of us know all the details, so definitive statements about Trump's guilt or innocence from anyone here are a bit silly.
Simply arguing one value before the tax commission and a different value to the lender is not fraud. If it is, 98% of American homeowners are in deep shit.
But there is a point at which the stated value of a property differs from the generally accepted or appraised value of the property by enough that a "reasonable person" should know better. Now, Trump has never been a "reasonable person" but that's not a defense.
So a lot of questions start to arise here, including but not limited to:
I'm the first to admit I don't have the answers to any of those.
But the prosecutor is an elected Democrat who won the office on the promise that she would "get Donald Trump", and this may well be the way she does it. The judge is also an elected Democrat who presumably will want to be re-elected, and "get Donald Trump" appears to be a pretty good campaign strategy. So there is certainly an environment that would be unusually favorable for politically based rulings and therefore all the more cause to ask those questions.
Personally, Mar a Lago being worth $1.8 billion seems ridiculous. But $18 million seems just as ridiculous.
Here is what $18 million buys you in Palm Beach (it's not on the beach):
$21 million will get you a condo across the street from the beach:
So Mar-a-Lago is obviously worth waaaay more than either of those places, which gets us into this really difficult area about "what is one of a kind former presidential real estate actually worth"? And the truth is it's very difficult to say.
Are there a few oil sheiks or oligarchs or tech billionaires who would jump at the chance to own Mar-a-Lago at $100m? Probably. Who knows? $400m? Maybe. We're talking about people who spend $700m on yachts and buy private islands. There's only one Mar a Lago in the world, after all, and who knows when it will be for sale again... so who can really say how much some billionaire would pay?
It's not as simple as people want it to be, but then real estate never is.
STOP! The judge ended the proceeding with a summary ruling already: Trump is guilty of fraud. Then, immediately moved to the penalty phase.
What reason/s do you have to present that deny the judge's decision? Please proceed. . . .
Well, let 'consider' what you suppose. . . now that we are done considering. . .let's move back into the realm of legality and court proceedings:
1. SUPPOSING is not a legal argument.
2. All elected officials inherently are elected by constituents and can be said to wish to serve those constituents in any number of ways (and means).
3. It is a lie to try to "divine" what an elected official is doing to a CRIMINAL/FRAUDSTER simply because s/he is doing his job properly.
4. Donald Trump has been summarily judged to have committed FRAUD!
5. Donald Trump in order to be properly judged to have committed FRAUD would have to have done so or the judge's decision will not hold.
Jack_TX, go on the record and state that you believe the Judge is not properly following the law! Moreover, that you believe you have better FACTS than the AG/The State of New York/The Judge to back up your counternarrative!
Otherwise, you are arguing futilely and passionately for a man who lies everyday in every way simply because each day is a brand new day!
It seems very likely to be appealed. We'll see.
I don't know whether he has applied the law correctly or not.
I've just said we (the public) don't have all the details.
Ah. So.... in your mind... "asking questions" is the same as "arguing passionately for Trump". Are you listening to yourself?
*sigh* I don't know why I bother sometimes.
Highly likely. And, it is Trump's "due" if he takes it. And as you well know nothing about an appeal lends itself to the Court or Trump in the meantime. It's the judges' prerogative to guide this case as he as the representative of the law sees fit! Coincidentally, it would be the 'dumbest' of judges to not have the insight to know who this man is and what he is capable of saying and doing in regards to looking for a way to get 'relief' from the case. I take for granted this judge will be meticulous as best he can to get this case right, as all eyes are on this court-politically, socially, legally, and media-wise.
Therefore, with this above understanding of what's fair, I would kindly suggest we color within the lines' outlined in the present proceedings and not 'work' to imagine what other lines might 'break out' on the page!
Look. . ."Jack" . . . it is not hard in any way to determine from what you write where your "vibes" are. Who cares that you don't explicitly own the vibes you transmit?
In my case, you and others determine that I hate Trump and would never wish him well. Those are my "vibes." And to a point it's true. To a point. I just need that liar, cheat, and thief of the rights of his fellow citizens to have progress work for their circumstances in life - to stand down from being an all around jerk to me, people like me, women, and liberals!
All of us have been home-trained by our parents and communities as to what is right and wrong; I don't choose to forget my manners because Donald Trump wants to be a DICK, BASTARD, STUPIDLY EVIL, AND VICIOUS who expects others to hand over their rights to conservatives and him in some perversion of a TRANSACTION!
Trump is wrong to abuse the systems of society and government by white collar crime as the 'underworld' is for its improper activities.
The fact is it is the duties and responsibilities for AGs' to prosecute offenses where/when/how they find them. It is a judge's duties and responsibility (bench hearing) to decide innocence or guilt.
What is not the case is for a defendant to declare himself 'free and clear.' Why? Because nearly ALL defendants plead their innocence - and hope to. . .whatever that the facts don't find them out in a court of law!
Dig?
As to what you know about the AG of New York and the Judge of New York. . . let's just read where you give either of these professionals the benefit of the doubt! That's on you to do and you haven't done so that I can read!
Be a stand up guy and speak truth to power.
And hey you won't have to make 'clarifying remarks' if you are open and honest-do so and we will get your point 99.99 percent of the time!
How very trusting of you. I'm more skeptical.
That's absolutely hilarious given your long history of utterly refusing to do this on any topic whatsoever.
Ah yes. Once again "CB" cannot accept even the most basic, straightforward statements without projecting some hidden meaning.
You've been doing this for years, you have a 100% failure rate, and yet you are not dissuaded.
I'd like a link to the actual order granting partial summary judgment. I can't find it anywhere. I don't know that I have any desire to read the motion and response, or to view the evidence that is in the record, but this is interesting.
The real estate value is at issue. One side claims the other inflated the value. Both sides have appraisers that have given an OPINION as to value. How can the judge decide the issue? That is the function of the trier of fact, which the judge, in ruling on a motion for summary judgment, is not. I find it hard to believe that there are no genuine issues of material fact, and that one side is entitled to judgment, as a matter of law, in this situation.
I'd like to see the entire 35 page order, and any appellate decision that follows.
Just don't ask too many questions. Especially rational ones.
Prove it. Take your time and do so, alrighty?
I call it as I see it. Don't like the way you lay it down - change for the better. Don't blame me that you want everybody to live the life of conservatism in this country and God knows it ain't going to happen. Conservatives had it good for a while, but then reality SOCKED this country and its 'bible belts' between their eyes. The liberals here are done with letting conservatives tell us who we are and whom we can be as people . . .we don't want and we certainly don't crave conservative validation.
If that means this country continues sliding into its national downfall. . . so be it. Slide the "f" away!
Thanks.
Unfortunately, I don't have time to read all of it, including references, at the moment.
Summary Judgment-Haven't gotten through the entire thing, but the court gives short shrift to the Trump team motion, by stating what the law is,
Nothing after that.
With regard to OAGs motion:
I have a problem with that. 1st sentence? That's the judge saying that it is not the court's province to weigh evidence on a motion for summary judgment...which is correct. 2nd sentence? That's the court justifying the weighing of evidence on a motion for summary judgment.
Initial take: With regard to Trump's motion, the court makes no attempt to discuss the facts submitted, but simply kicks the motion to the curb on the stated basis that facts have been submitted in opposition to the motion. When it comes to OAGs motion, the court weighs the evidence. That said, and without the benefit of reading everything in evidence, I can't say that I'm impressed with the apparent arguments made by Trump's team.
Don't need much time at all...
We're talking about a fraud case and you're talking about him saying mean things about liberals.
So much for "color inside the lines".
What were you saying about inside the lines?
You do have a wild imagination.
Image: Page 29 of 35.
It's all good to read above, but you can start at Paragraph 4 for an answer as to why the Judge is not wasting time going back over appraisals: "Bartov is incorrect. . . . ." In the Judge's opinion/decision.
I can write about anything and mention all the characteristics of this 'charming' individual whom you SAY you don't have any special interest in but still you keep finding opportunities to carry his ridiculous arguments around. I wonder when will MAGA get combat fatigue from all the effort!
Well Jack, if you don't want everybody to live a conservative life . . . you should be more plain about it and write so more often. That way you might not get lumped in with the rest of MAGA! Just sayin'.
I read it. Bartov is incorrect. Here, you have a judge telling an appraiser what the best method of determining the "estimated current value" is...in deciding a motion for summary judgment.
Don't get me twisted, at the end of the day, the judge may well be correct in his evaluation. However, that evaluation is not one that should be taking place during review of a motion for summary judgment. Again, note the different treatment of the respective motions. Trumps? Judge said the other side put on evidence, and that it should be tried. OAGs? The judge is weighing the evidence. That's my issue.
As an aside, I agree with the court's handling of Trumps motion for summary judgment. Don't lose sight of the fact that the court is considering competing motions for summary judgment here. Regardless, on Trump's motion, the court, rightly I believe, refuses to weigh the evidence, and disposes of it with a simple recitation of the law, "evidentiary facts derived from documents submitted [in opposition to summary judgment motion] are sufficient to present a triable issue of fact."
On the OAGs motion, the court kicks what it said, a mere few pages before, straight to the curb, and weighs the evidence. Bartov is incorrect? Not the judge's call on hearing a motion for summary judgment, which the court acknowledges in response to Trump's motion.
But you're going to tell other people to "color within the lines". Got it.
Will that make you feel better?
I'm fascinated by how far out in looney lefty land somebody has to be to consider a Biden voter part of the MAGA tribe. If anybody is that big an idiot, I'm just not concerned with what they might think.
This is Trump we are talking about, right? The 'lines' are broad. But, you can continue to argue (for the "big guy's" right to have special pleading). To be frank with you, I am not even focused on what you are. . .sharing right about now. . . because I have moved on and largely tuned out whatever it is you are posting right now. I simply am not moved by your personal rant at me and somehow I don't see anything related to the article in that.
Is that what you got from Page 29? Can you affirm what is stated on page 29 which leads you to the assertion above. Please proceed. . . .
I write about what I conclude. An easy solution to this problem if you find one: Be explicit in what/where one stands.
I know. You just never conclude correctly.
Not sure what part of "Biden voter" is still unclear.
Not sure what part of "Trump being wrong doesn't make stupid leftist nonsense correct" is still unclear.
Deal with it. Bye.
It is, CB. There are questions of fact the judge is making determinations on. Was Trump able to use a fixed asset approach, as argued? Is Bartov incorrect in asserting that it is false to claim that the fixed asset approach ignores market conditions, or the behavior of informed buyers and sellers?
How about this statement from the court:
While I might agree with the statement, generally, it does not hold true for every instance, and the communications and negotiations between Trump's team and the lenders, leading to the submissions that are being called into question, should be informative here. Note the above. Trump's team argued they were able to used a fixed asset approach. Were they? We don't know. The judge is tossing evidence aside, and substituting his own belief of how the forms should have been completed. Not his job.
Consider the court's reference to the evidence submitted by the State, and Trump's response thereto: "In an attempt to rebut this strong showing of fraud..." Funny. When Trump's team tried that, the court didn't wade through the evidentiary materials submitted in opposition, it simply said that evidentiary material had been submitted, thus creating a triable issue. Again, the issue is not whether the judge is correct in his weighing of the evidence. The issue is that the judge should not be weighing the evidence on a motion for summary judgment. Clearly, he did.
If the judge gratuitously ignored or downplayed evidence, etc. then his ruling would be legally faulty. If so, there is a decent chance that it will be overturned on appeal.
Since none of us have access to the evidence and the legal arguments, we can only speculate as to what foul play (if any) took place.
I think it unlikely that a judge in such a high profile case is going to make gross, blatant denials of evidence and legal arguments or that the judge does not understand New York law. Similarly, (and this is almost humorous), I find it very easy to believe that Trump created false legal documents with the intent to fraudulently secure favorable transactions. Trump's own excuse where he notes his disclaimer that nobody should just believe his claims and to do their own due diligence is almost comical.
It is possible that this judge is corrupt / incompetent / irresponsibly biased / .... But we will not know unless we see a legal ruling on this by an appeals court.
If he's wrong it will be overturned on the appeal filed last week. I don't have your confidence it will be overturned.
You'd think, or like to believe that to be the case. This is the same guy, who advised his audience that he could overturn a jury decision based on his emotion. The tool he described is a real thing, basing the use thereof on his emotion? He is a jurist, and knows better. To freely speak those words, without correcting himself, is telling.
Frankly, I don't care what the outcome of the case is. I've already stated that I'm not a fan of the Trump Team's apparent argument. I'll say it again though. Trump argued, on his motion, that the other side had to show a prima facie case in opposition to his motion. The judge, sticking with the law, rightly denied the motion, noting that the submission of evidence in opposition was cause for a trial of the issue. On the State's motion, however, the judge says of Trump's evidence, "In an attempt to rebut this strong showing of fraud..." and proceeds to parse through the evidence submitted in opposition to the State's "strong showing." Clearly weighing the evidence on motion for summary judgment, and placing the burden on Trump to make a prima facie showing. The very thing the judge states is not required to survive a motion for summary judgment, in response to Trump's motion.
Would anyone be surprised if the numbers were, indeed, fudged on the forms? No. That's the heart of the issue, but unless Trump simply did not put evidence in the record in opposition to the State's motion, the law affords him a trial on the merits, not a trial by brief.
Yeah, that exchange certainly looks bad. I'll note this though. At the end, he does say that he believed the valuations were good faith valuations.
As an aside, if they really wanted to get the don, they'd let it all go to trial, and get him on the stand for two days. Can you imagine the testimony he'd give?
One word. Maybe a bad word choice. I commented on that article and noted that if he had used the word 'judgment' instead, the entire comment he made would make perfect sense. Might have been poor word choice — he was speaking on the fly rather than writing. I really doubt a senior judge actually believes it proper to adjudicate based literally on emotions.
Of course not. The judge did find the evidence to be so overwhelming that a jury trial was not necessary. That is the high bar required for a summary judgment. So the judge either is mistaken (and will then be publicly embarrassed as this high-profile judgment is overturned) or the evidence really is overwhelming.
Not sure we need to imagine. I think he has been providing previews for weeks now.
Bad word choice doesn't begin to describe it. Discretion and emotion are vastly different, and he knows it. Even then, a judge's discretion is limited to situations where no reasonable jury could have arrived at its verdict.
That is the whole idea behind bad worse choice. It makes little sense that a senior judge would actually believe it valid to use one's emotions. It therefore is reasonable that when speaking, he made a poor real-time choice with a single word. Use discretion or judgment instead of emotions and everything he said makes sense.
Yes, I have been stating that repeatedly. A summary judgment comes with a high bar.
Ah, but that's the rub isn't it? If the judge found it to be overwhelming, or a "strong showing", as he put it, then he is weighing it. I think he'd have done himself some favors by not parsing through the evidence. And, the following statement isn't a good look either.
Yeah, he's totally comparing appraisals here, and taking the matter out of the hands of the trier of fact.
I like your approach TiG. I tend to be more cynical, though, and believe that a judge would immediately recognize the misstatement and correct, in real time. I watched the video, and he actually backs up in a couple of spots...but not on that one. The last thing any jurist would want to be accused of would be of letting emotion dictate their rulings.
I think that I would have caught myself and made the correction. But we are all different. He might have been processing his argument when he uttered emotion. Dunno. We cannot know.
That is how I see things too.
Having been around quite a few lawyers in my day, the idea of a judge using emotions runs counter to the very nature of jurisprudence. Emotions are trained out of lawyers (intent) and critical thinking fills the void. I would expect this applies even stronger with judges.
Thank you! I have been away all day and just read this tonight. I will go with your answer as well.
We're going to need more facts from the case. At least, I will. Because I am having difficulty following your. . . question, or is it a concern. Maybe you can restate in a different way what you are writing about here. Because, maybe I am on a whole other way of looking at this than you. Restate it or we can wait for more information to come out. Thanks for putting forth the effort. Sorry, I have gotten lost in it (for the time being).
One more thing. I want Trump to get a fair civil trial. Despite him being a big "Jerk" - Jerks need decent trials just like decent people!
It's a legal document, that's why it is in civil court. Please quantify 'fudging on the Trump forms. Based on the court filing: What amount of numbers are you personally considering "fudgeable"?
It also speaks to the mealy-mouth verbiage that Trump is "famous" for now. He never shuts up and ultimately tries to 'hit' all areas of "me-good-legit" because _________ ad nauseam. Trump loads the front and the back of his sentences and paragraphs. It's a bizarre way of speaking and yet people let him get away with it too often.
TR, for the record, you are correct in pointing out that the judge is a "jurist" personality. However, it is equally important to point out that this judge is an active New York Supreme Court Justice too.
CB,
There is no other way to state it. The court cannot weigh evidence in deciding a motion for summary judgment. Period. The court's response to the states motion should have been the same as the response to Trump's motion. Clearly it wasn't.
Read the Summary Judgment section, bottom of Page 11 and continuing on page 12. That's the law on motions for summary judgment. (with exception to the rule that the evidence is to be considered in the light most favorable to the non-moving party) Moving party has to make a prima facie showing, meaning it has to address each and every element of the claim, and support each with admissible evidence. If the moving party makes the required showing, the burden shifts to the non-moving party. But, unlike the moving party's burden of making out the entire case, the non-moving party simply has to offer evidence to rebut the claim, raising a dispute concerning all or a single element of the claim.
2nd full paragraph, page 12. From what I have seen, that should have been the response to both motions. It wasn't. The court, instead, is arguing with the evidence submitted by Trump.
That sounds like grandstanding to me. No reason to put that in the order. The judge is also ignoring the first sentence, and has taken the matter out of the hands of the trier of fact, and declared that the evidence submitted by Trump is not evidence.
The thing missing from the court's order is the rule that all evidence submitted is to be considered in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. The court, instead, starts from a standpoint that the State proved liability, and argues with the evidence submitted by Trump. The court dismisses expert opinions, as to values asserted years ago, claiming them to be conclusory. That's not considering the evidence in a light most favorable to the non-moving party. Bottom line, Trump submitted evidence. As the court noted several times, it is not tasked with determining which side should prevail on the evidence submitted...but proceeds to do just that.
I'm not a fan of the condescending tone. Frankly, most in DC think themselves above everyone else. I'd agree that Trump is a little more grating.
The quote at the beginning of that article was not uttered by the judge. The quote accompanies a social media post by someone claiming he said those words. He did not, at least in the video that the seeder gave me. However, he does make reference to several situations where he has had to make decisions that he found distasteful, but he made them all the same, emotions notwithstanding. And, he makes the point earlier in the video that jury findings of fact are much stronger and actually states(at 10:35 in the video ):
This is a post from another article where I addressed the issue of the judge's use of the word 'emotion':
The judge used the word emotions instead of the word judgment . I disagree with a judge taking action based on their emotions , but am not against a judge having the right to take actions based on their judgment . No way to ask the judge if he meant judgment / legal-opinion rather than emotions but we do have more than that one word to consider. Given he is a judge and recognizes the importance of being an " impartial referee ", it seems likely that he does not believe that judges should operate (literally) on emotion .
Here is the relevant portion of the transcript of the seed video:
Here is the legal tool the judge was referring to:
This judge went on to say that he overruled a jury on two occasions. In one of those cases he was overrruled.
According to the obvious plan, guilty verdicts will be delivered before the election and overturned after the election.
Do you find this to be remarkable??
Ahh ... here we go with the conspiracy crap.
I think if Tail gunner Joe were alive today watching all of these trials, he'd be wondering where he went wrong.
That he was wrong 50% of the time when he overruled a jury?
I find it troubling.
Okay now this is just a perfect display of intellectual dishonesty.
In his career, you stated that he overruled two juries and in one of those cases his ruling was overturned on appeal.
Yet you spin this into the judge being wrong 50% of the time as if this is a statistically relevant quantification. As if we are talking about numbers like 50 out of 100 or 500 out of 1000.
That is like someone telling you that Trump is a loser simply because 50% of the time he has run for PotUS, he has lost.
Ridiculous misrepresentation, right?
I was aware of that post. That is why I looked at the source of the quote and found its proximity to the judges picture disturbing. Thank you for posting it here as well.
Some people cannot admit they are wrong to the point of twisting themselves into positions which a contortionist would be amazed at.
See comment 3 above. "The bank(s) did not rely on financial statements that MS. James believes are a work of fiction. So, how could he be guilty of providing false documents.
Is that supposed to be a serious question?
Trump has essentially confessed to inflating the value of his properties in order to get better financing. He admits he is a liar in this regard and all MAGA can do is stand by his side.
I guess they love liars.
Is it his fault they didn't want/need/use financial records? Seems they didn't care...............
Once again, it is the filing of the documents that the organization knew to be false that is the crime. It doesn't matter one bit if any person or business can show harm from the same.
Think of Hunter Biden and his handgun related application. If he is guilty of lying (fraud) then one must also see how the Trump organization is also guilty.
Do I expect anyone to accept this sound logic? No. I expect the people on NT who are obviously partisan to keep their fingers in their ears screaming" I can't hear you ".
If it is a crime, just about everyone to ever apply for a loan is guilty. NYC is one of the few places where such BS charges could even be filed.
If it is a crime, just about everyone to ever apply for a loan is guilty.
Wtf are you rambling about?! The lengths that [Deleted] Trump supporters will go to to defend and [Deleted him is nauseating.]
Do they do it as a matter of course? That is systemically and with repetition, over and over? I don't think so. But, if that is the case, why is Hunter Biden being prosecuted on the handgun application?
Why would anyone for that matter tell the truth on any document?
You do know that when one signs and dates a document one is affirming that information to be as correct as possible, "to the best of one's knowledge"?
Trump has been playing this game for 20 or 30 years
It's not a criminal case.
Quite possibly much longer than that.
we all doubt it.
Few places have such laws especially when it comes to property assessments, which are more an art than a science.
But, if that is the case, why is Hunter Biden being prosecuted on the handgun application?
Evidently it is the only crime he committed that doesn't involve his father.
Why would anyone for that matter tell the truth on any document?
People tend to be truthful when they know their statements are checked for accuracy. Seldom when a bank when a bank deems people qualified for a loan and asks questions that benefit consummating the loan.
You do know that when one signs and dates a document one is affirming that information to be as correct as possible, "to the best of one's knowledge"?
And that is very easy to do when assessing property values.
BFD.
What do you want to call it? Fraud is Fraud.
In this case it is lying on an official document, in effect making a proclamation of truth in order to obtain something. The very fact that it is signed is significant. Probably many of these documents required notarization. The reason that we go through all of this rigamarole is to make sure that the information contained within the documents is as accurate as possible.
Trump believes he can bully his way through: "My valuations vary with my eyeshadow " Bullshit.
You will have to do better than that, [Deleted]
By whom?
You get the same question Thomas got:
how many people in NYC have been charged with fraud for inflating their income/value on a loan application?
Every word was true. The fact that Letitia James won an election as an AG in NYC goes directly to the devolution of a once great city and what now lives there. If Malcome X were alive today, he most likely would have run for mayor and most likely would have won.
Keep MAGA racism out of this.
[removed]
Keep progressive racism out of this.
[Deleted]
You know you are never going to get an answer to this.
As soon as I read Post # 5.2.7 I knew the crew here couldn't find any precedent for it.
Nope, there will not be an answer.
5.2.7 is just another "they don't matter, but Trruuummmmppppp" answer.
If a law enforcement person or prosecutor of color makes a case against Trump he knee jerk says it is racism. Sadly, his MAGA cult eats that disgusting nonsense up.
She is a racist and I'm sure many of the people who voted for her and Chicago's last 2 mayors are racists.
What did we learn from the O J Simpson verdict? Remember John?
So, New York Democrats are worried that helpless banks and insurance companies could, possibly, have been cheated (but weren't). And Democrats are going to do everything to protect banks and insurance companies. Yeah, we know Democrats are money grubbing grifters afraid they'll miss out on a skim.
Read the court finding.
The court finding doesn't indicate Trump attempted to defraud the government or the public. Trump wasn't selling Obamacare or electric vehicles to get his hands on public money. Trump wasn't inflating housing prices for illegal immigrants, either.
How could Trump commit fraud while the banks and insurance companies did not? The banks and insurance companies pleading gullible ignorance won't pass the smell test. But the courts, DAs, and prosecutors going after banks and insurance companies would hit their own stock portfolios. Nothing like a little Menendez payola as a side hustle to ensure justice is blind and the out of court settlements are not too large.
That is today's A+ response.
Where did you all get your law degrees? trumpu?
I was born with common sense.
Intent will be determined during the trial.
So, in other words, whatever I write on a loan application is accepted without the lender ever investigating?
That's the basis of Letitia James civil suit against Trump. In fact, the banks and insurance companies are so helpless that the state of New York must litigate on their behalf.
Everyone is conveniently ignoring that this is not a criminal case. Trump has not been indicted for committing a crime. Letitia James is not prosecuting Trump. Letitia James is representing a plaintiff and not a victim.
Fraud. Repeated Fraud. Fraud. For many years. That is the crime. No one is ignoring anything except you and the defenders of the indefensible.
We know it's not a criminal case. It's a civil case.
What is a crime?
So? Trump and his businesses were involved in over 4,000 legal cases in state and Federal courts before he was elected President. None of these cases disqualified Trump from running for President.
Democrats are only exploiting sensational headlines to influence public opinion and rig another election. Democrats are employing the dirtiest of dirty politics.
Sheer projection.
lol and there it is
Is it your opinion that Trump has not engaged in fraud?
Trump was (is) a New York real estate developer. So, the answer to your question is 'duh'.
Is it your opinion that big banks and insurance companies are not complicit in this type of fraud?
Too bad Trump chose a profession that requires fraud. Trump could has engaged in the honest business of venture capital like Paul Pelosi. Venture capitalists may scam, skim, swindle, bamboozle, and flimflam but they don't defraud.
Then you should not be surprised that Trump has been found liable for fraud based on overwhelming evidence.
Liable to who? New York is going to squeeze money out of Trump. And New York will use that settlement to pay inflated prices to house illegal immigrants. The citizens of New York will not benefit from this settlement. And nothing about the civil fraud case against Trump will change the business practices of banks and insurance companies.
Democrats get a headline. And that's about all. This won't change public opinion about Trump because the public already knew about Trump. And Trump is still a better choice than Biden.
Logically, they committed fraud on each instance where they submitted false legal documents in an attempt to get a favorable transaction.
Of course they will. The Trump organization will no longer be able to engage in fraud in New York.
That was not the intent.
Much of the public is living in a delusion about Trump.
Case in point.
But that doesn't tell us who was defrauded. And it doesn't explain the harm done to the public. Trump inflating values to obtain lower interest rates only works if the loan amount is small compared to the bank's assessed value. And inflating values for insurance purposes typically increases the cost of the premiums; Trump had to pay extra for the inflated value.
Maybe the banks and insurance companies haven't complained because they weren't actually defrauded.
The banks and insurance companies will be allowed to continue the same practices. The banks and insurance companies seemed happy with their arrangement with Trump. If they weren't happy with the arrangement then the banks and insurance companies would be the plaintiffs in this civil suit.
Well, the delusion isn't any different than that of the 'burn it down' left. The left has based their political planning and strategies on resistance to their 'burn it down' politics. That's what makes the culture wars effective political weapons. But now the right is demanding to 'burn it down', too. And the status quo politics of Reagan/Clinton cannot hold the center any longer. There isn't a middle to resist 'burn it down' politics any longer.
The global world order of Reagan/Thatcher/Clinton is under attack within western democracies. This isn't a phenomena limited to the United States. The left has demanded to 'burn it down' and now everyone has matches. The delusion is to think there is some way to turn back the clock.
Per the judge, fraud is committed by presenting a false legal document to secure a favorable transaction.
If the judge is correct on the law and the long record of evidence is indeed as stated, then Trump is liable for fraud (large scale even).
You can complain all you wish, but that will not change reality.
Per the judge, Trump's exaggerated financial statement was used to obtain lower interest rates on loans and lower premium rates on insurance. So, the judge is claiming Trump defrauded the banks and insurance companies out of excess profits.
The state of New York is defending and protecting the banks' and insurance companies' practice of overcharging to get excess profits. Judge Engoron is upset because the banks and insurance companies did not cheat Trump.
BTW, interest rates and insurance premiums (along with any other financial fees, charges, or costs) are negotiable; they're not set by law. The exaggerated financial statements may or may not have been a factor.
And Judge Engoron has unilaterally declared Trump liable (on behalf of banks and insurance companies) without allowing a defense. There was never a trial so Trump was not allowed to defend himself.
The case provides proof that the system is rigged.
So, Mar-a-Lago is worth between 900 Million and 1.8 Billion dollars??? From what I’ve read, probably not quite that much. But not 18 million, either. Perhaps something like $300-$500 million.
What does Judge Engoron base his "assessment" on?
Remember Tacos, this is the same judge that so far has forced Trump to sit for a deposition, held him in contempt of court and fined him more than $100,000.
How does Trump draw these judges (this one in particular?)
Usually, somebody submits a report to the judge. In this case, I have no idea. I’m not invested enough to research it.
One of the properties in the ruling is Seven Springs Estate and given non-party as-is appraisals from Royal Bank of Pennsylvania of $25M, $30M and $700K. The Seven Springs Estates LLC self appraised at $261M and $291M. You can read this all in the ruling yourself. The judge is quite thorough.
Lol. The word isn't thorough.
And it's my job to plow through 35 pages to find an assessment on one of the properties?
I'll say it again. A property assessment is more an art than a science. The bank offering the loan should have assessed it. Why didn't they?
There is another usually coming in this case. It's called proving INTENT to defraud.
The answer to your question is found there. IF you don't really want answers why ask the questions?
Being artfully 200 to 400 percent is also fraud.
Again read the ruling - it tells you why it's irrelevant - stating the law and legal precedent.
If you don't think the judge is correct you are free to quote us an actual legal rebuttal other than, "no it's not".
That is ok. I did want to know if there was a legit basis for his assessment.
Being artfully 200 to 400 percent is also fraud.
I sold a house for $215,000 in 1994. Five years later it was valued at $750,000. RE values are very fluid these days.
Trying to prosecute someone and only a certain someone for an assessment on a loan application is purely political.
stating the law and legal precedent.
A legal precedent for prosecuting someone for a property assessment? Is that like all the precedent in Roe V Wade?
This law in NYC is bad law and it gets used here. Kind of like The Espionage Act that basically only got used on Woodrow Wilson's opponents.
Interesting take. We'll see how that holds up on appeal. Considering the last appeal on narrowing the scope of the current trial was denied by a 5 judge panel last Thursday, I'd not want to put bets on either side.
You didn't read the ruling did you? The summary was ruled under Executive Law § 63(12) and The People vs Apple Health & Sports Club LTD., Inc. All that IS pertinent was the amount an extreme dishonesty in Trump's company business. For fuck's sake he claimed his apartment was 300% larger than it is. That's not artful that's flat out fraud.
Smart move.
Oh I have to come right back at you.
I just went through all 35 pages and there is no mention of a Mar-A-Lago assessment.
IF you don't really want answers why ask the questions?
When I ask a question, I want an HONEST answer. You tried to get one by me.
I never forget.
Why would you think Mar-A-Lago has anything to do with NY businesses when it's a FL business? This is a NY State civil court case. Why do you keep bringing in things that have no bearing as if you've found some gotcha idea?
To say it is a business is debatable.
First of all, it is a national historic landmark.
It was built by what some might consider the shrewdest businesswoman that ever lived, Marjorie Merriwether Post (her father created Post Cereal). It has sometimes been used as a residence (by Post and Trump.) The name itself is Spanish for "Sea to Lake," because it is a very unique waterfront property, extending from the Atlantic Ocean to the Intracoastal waterway.
Do you still think that many people would value the property the way this judge did?
People pay to stay at Maralago.
Yes John, that is also part of what Mar-A-Lago has become.
Do you still think the judge's estimate is correct?
OMG...He is teaching law?
There is always a difference between the market value of a piece of real estate and the tax appraisal. Almost always, the tax appraisal value is lower. The most elementary level explanation of this idea would be individual homeowners. Almost no homeowner would agree to sell you their house for the value on the tax rolls. It's generally worth significantly more.
The taxing authorities don't really care what you say your property is worth. They assess it based on their own formulas. If you think they are too high, there is an entire industry of people called "property tax consultants" who make their living appearing before tax boards and arguing that buildings are worth less than the taxing authority says they are.
All of that is a normal part of real estate and not fraudulent in any way.
The question here is the degree of difference.
If the tax rolls say my home is worth $600k, but I wouldn't sell it for less than $800k, I'm perfectly within legal rights to say to my bank that my home is worth $800k. I'm also perfectly within my legal rights to argue to the tax board that it's only worth $400k. Neither of them is going to take my word for it anyway. It's all part of the negotiations.
All of that is also a normal part of real estate, and not fraudulent in any way.
If I try to say it's worth $800m, then we have a different issue. Again, nobody is going to take my word for it, so it's very difficult to defraud anybody, but I would certainly be making a dishonest representation.
Trump's real estate holdings differ dramatically from normal properties because they are so high profile, and because they belong to a former US president. That's to be expected. Barack Obama's house is going to cost you a lot more than it would if it were owned by some nameless investment banker, for the same reasons.
In the case of Mar-a-Lago, it's a truly unique property. It's undoubtedly worth way more than $18m, but it's probably not worth anything close to "50 or 100 times that".
Kavika, $18 million to $28 million jumping to 1.8 billion in an attested document is a wild exaggeration. The judge called it out as fraud. The reason/s for the fraud may be pointed out in the appeals process when the time comes and such reasoning could win the day, but it is safe to say for now its decided to be legal FRAUD up the wazoo!
(This is why those individuals who are as stupid as they are evil should take care when signing contracts- lawyers write contracts and they are trained to think about many things when they do!)
Oh, that's where he got it.
Tell him for me that the true worth of any property is what a buyer is willing to pay.
Trump's own company agreed with the valuation so it's best that you try to explain that to yourself.
Notice I didn't mention Trump's company. My statement stands by itself.
Why do you think Trump is using the NY trials? They are obviously political. His support is not just growing with Republicans. He is also now beating Biden in open polls.
I noticed that probably because the company agreed with the valuation, kind of difficult to duck that.
In your opinion.
Pretty sad that Trump is the horse that your backing.
Cheers.
The company once agreed with $27 million, not $18 million. The bank accepted Trump's evaluation. End of story.
In your opinion.
In the opinion of normal adults.
Pretty sad that Trump is the horse that your backing.
I'm a proud American. I'm proud of everything he has done.
Cheers.
Keep googling.
John Kelly was Trump's longest serving chief of staff. Yesterday he confirmed stories previous reporting that on numerous occasions Trump derided American servicemen and women, including that Trump refused to visit a World War I American military cemetery in France .
Proud of that?
Actually, it doesn't. At best it is one man's word vs another's and, in this case, there are many others who say Trump never spoke that way.
"Former national security adviser John Bolton disputed the main thesis of The Atlantic's recent report alleging that President Trump disparaged fallen American soldiers in France, calling the claim "simply false" in an appearance on "The Story" Monday.
"According to what that article said, the president made disparaging remarks about soldiers and people buried in the cemetery in connection with the decision for him not to go to the ceremony that was planned that afternoon, and that was simply false," Bolton said."
John Bolton denies claim Trump disparaged fallen American soldiers in France: 'Simply false' | Fox News
At least we now know that there was a source to the slander.
John Kelly, you are a scum bag.
As usual, you didn't read the link the property was valued at $18 to $28 million depending on the year. The bank and Trump's company accepted the appraiser's value.
Another unsupported opinion.
Sadly, I'm sure you are.
You should try it sometime, it would help with your unsupported responses.
John Bolton was also on the CNN show yesterday where Kelly's statements were discussed. Suffice it say that Bolton had nothing good to say about Trump. He also said he believes John Kelly over Trump, and said he didnt personally hear Trump talk like that in France but Kelly was with Trump in France more than he was.
To you VIc, everyone who says something negative about Trump is lying scum. Meanwhile Trump is suggesting patriotic US generals be executed, and justice system officials are racists and radicals (because they indict him). Your tunnel vision about Trump is amazing.
Bolton is not the only one to say he never heard Trump make such statements.
You are far too wrapped up in what Trump says & tweets. I'm concerned with performance.
One more thing: I never seen such hatred and manipulation of the law as I have seen over one man as I am witnessing with Trump. We the people are going to defeat the radical left. Believe me on that.
You are proud that Trump is the only sitting PotUS in US history who has tried to steal a presidential election through conspiracy, fraud, over-the-top ridiculous lying, coercion and inciting supporters??
Do you believe Trump is innocent on all counts in all indictments?
He did a great job as President despite being under a cloud of suspicion/investigations which were in reality a coup attempt by the top echelon of the FBI.
[Deleted]
I believe all of this has been carefully coordinated to prevent Donald Trump from being re-elected.
The two New York cases in particular are purely political.
Let me ask you a question: What do you think would happen if Trump won the Presidency in 2024 AND democrats retook the House? Don't you think there would immediately be a third impeachment?
You need to look at what has been done to Trump.
You are dodging the question. I know you like his policies. You said you were proud of everything Trump did. In addition to his actions on policies, he engaged in behavior unfitting a PotUS.
So are you proud that Trump is the only sitting PotUS in US history who has tried to steal a presidential election through conspiracy, fraud, over-the-top ridiculous lying, coercion and inciting supporters??
John, I could call you an extremist as well, but it really doesn't get us anywhere.
Again you dodge. I asked if Trump was innocent. Are all the charges brought against him without merit?
Do you believe Trump was innocent in both cases?
Of course there will be an impeachment attempt. And in this case I would support it if they can produce constitutional merits because Trump has proven that he should never be allowed access to the power of the presidency.
You need to open your eyes and recognize that Trump is a dangerous demagogue who is bad for this nation and truly horrible for the GOP.
Hopefully millions and millions of Americans would take to the streets and demand his immediate resignation. There is no way in hell Trump will be allowed to have a "peaceful" second presidency. He is a traitor, and before "moderate" Republicans vote for him they damn well better think about what his election would do to this country. You think we have chaos now?
I'm not dodging anything. The lengths that the Trump haters have gone to are incredible. You have been blind to all of it.
You are dodging every question I ask you.
Are you proud that Trump is the only sitting PotUS in US history who has tried to steal a presidential election through conspiracy, fraud, over-the-top ridiculous lying, coercion and inciting supporters??
Are all the charges brought against him in all contemporary cases without merit?
You mean an insurrection?
There is no way in hell Trump will be allowed to have a "peaceful" second presidency.
Perhaps not. He wasn't allowed a peaceful first term.
He is a traitor, and before "moderate" Republicans vote for him they damn well better think about what his election would do to this country. You think we have chaos now?
I'm ready for it John. We must go one way or the other.
Take your blinders off TiG. Trump is being politically persecuted.
It is election interference.
If Trump is put back in office we should have a national strike. If they can do mass citizen action in Israel and Iran and other places, we can do it here.
They're okay with that..................
Are you proud that Trump is the only sitting PotUS in US history who has tried to steal a presidential election through conspiracy, fraud, over-the-top ridiculous lying, coercion and inciting supporters??
Are all the charges brought against him in all contemporary cases without merit?
Clearly you are NOT going to answer my questions. It is obvious why. I posted them one last time for the record.
Wrong. At least for me. There is always an element of politics. It is inevitable. I do NOT approve of partisan-based aggression.
In Trump's case, what he has done is worse than any other PotUS in US history. You can ignore the merits of his indictments and claim they are all bullshit and merely political, but that would be true partisan blindness.
See how some are confusing the fuck out of this and bringing Mar-A-Lardo into this when it's in response to HIS FRAUD CASE IN NY
So why does it matter what a judge in Palm Beach says about the former 'president turd's fraud in NY?
The revenge and retribution tour.
This is surreal.
It means that MAGA does not care what Trump does as long as he takes the country away from the libs and 'restore' the entirety of the "American Dream" to conservative control. MAGA has been pining away about the loss of the country since liberals and secularists (we're joined at the hip in the political sphere) began to acquire CONTROL over their lives. (It really has not been that long, and conservatives are 'whining and bitchin' to high heaven.)
It is sad to think that anybody who loves freedom can hate their fellow citizens as much as MAGA does. And did you catch it? @9.1.29? MAGA wants this chaos to taek control and certain individuals won't do or say a thing to stop chaos from coming upon the American citizenry (you and me).
It's Bull Shit and it will only get more votes for Trump.
The Courts try legal matters. Voting inherently is not a legal matter. So, what is your point for repeating polls, voting power, and campaigns? Please explain it!
BTW, everybody eligible votes! Or we should want everybody eligible to vote. So what is the conservative fascination or delusion that because a person is a liberal or votes for democrats that the simply act of voting alone disqualifies him/her from prosecuting conservatives in a court of law? PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS ONE AS CLEARLY AS YOU CAN.
Do you really want to imply that liberals should try only liberals and conservatives should only try conservatives?
What country are we in again? Where do you think we are? Who do you think we are as a country?
I'm glad you asked.
democrat voters, in general terms, fall into three categories:
A) Those who get something from government (sucking off the government tit so to speak) such as: Federal employees, public sector unions, welfare or snap beneficiaries, students looking for loan debt forgiveness and illegal migrants holding drivers' licenses in places like California.
B) Groups who are in various ways, beneficiaries of progressive legislation such as: The pro-abortion mob, the LGBQ mob, the "climate" fanatics and the Teacher's unions.
C) The indoctrinated such as: Minorities how are constantly being told that they are victims, certain College educated people who were dumbed down in college to believe in a Marxist type philosophy, and feeble-minded people who believe the 24/7 spin of the msm.
Republican voters, in general terms, fall into two categories:
A) Conservatives who want to preserve a civilization. (You find many of them in the military.)
B) America First Republicans who are looking for a kind of a Pax Romana for the United States. (You find many at Trump rallies)
What country are we in again? Where do you think we are? Who do you think we are as a country?
Right now, we are living under a Totalitarian Regime.
Quiz tomorrow.
Code language for white Christian nationalists.
People whom you don't seem to like.
That is the most insulting, inaccurate, intellectually dishonest, laughably stupid mischaracterization I’ve seen in a long time. [removed]
When "white" and "Christian" are the descriptors of nationalism, yes.
Did you attend a college and earn a degree?
I have a master of science degree. I have quite a bit of experience with universities. The word 'Marxist' never appeared in any of my courses or texts. Not once was there a suggestion of replacing capitalism with anti-capitalism (Marxism).
There are liberal professors in our universities, no doubt about it. But you seem to have the idea that higher education is necessarily an indoctrination in some wild-assed philosophy (which you wrongly label Marxist).
People like that need new reading and viewing material.
Agreed!
That comment shows "perpetual" partisan nonsense, and I did not ask you about why you demonize your fellow Americans (without whom this country could not lead the world (we're in this together as "parties"). Again, here are the relevant questions asked:
1. [Regarding courts] What is your point for repeating polls, voting power, and campaigns? Please explain it!
2. What is the conservative fascination or delusion that because a person is a liberal or votes for democrats that the simple act of voting alone disqualifies him/her from prosecuting conservatives in a court of law?
Please answer if you will without the emotional overflow.
MAGA conservatives are telling 'us' that (as it was in the 20th century) any attitude or behavior or policy proposal or policy making which decreases the conservative nature of national politics is Marxism or Socialism (of some kind). Immediately, it is hurled to make people afraid, very fearful, of change—any change not supportive by conservatives no matter what it is. BTW, civil rights is called socialism, the social gospel is called socialism, secularism is called socialism. Care about people over ideology- THAT'S SOCIALISM in the conservative/MAGA vocabulary.
Any attitude or behavior which favors caring about people over in quotes 'emotional-less' TRANSACTING with people we live with all our lives decade after decades is, yep - socialism!
Kind of like the default labeling of conservative efforts as racist programs.
The only crime here is malicious prosecution.
"I don't want to know what the law is, I want to know who the judge is."
And the judge in this case said: he had once participated in “huge, sometimes boisterous, Vietnam War protests.” He has described himself as a free-speech absolutist and a member of the American Civil Liberties Union since 1994.
Who is Arthur Engoron, the New York judge taking on Donald Trump? (msn.com)
All Trumps judges are either commies or racists. Since this judge does not appear to be black or brown, he is obviously a commie.
When you use the word "commies" you are intentionally downplaying real concerns about Marxism. We do have Marxists in our society. The founders of BLM proudly proclaimed that they were MARXISTS. Many teaching in the university have done the same. Remember the Red Scare. There was a reason for that. The secrets of the Atomic Bomb were stolen or given away. The old people I know that use the word "commies" are progressives trying to downplay a valid point.
As for racist, people on the left have called just about EVERYBODY that. So, none of you can really point fingers.
James did get elected by promising to "get Trump."
NOBODY CAN DENY IT.
It is undeniable that Trump attacks every single judge in all his various cases as a defendant. Usually he says they are racist or a "radical leftist".
Leaving aside the absurdity of this - oh wait a minute we cant leave aside the absurdity of this.
You express so much devotion to Trump he should give you a position in his imaginary next administration.
I want the position in his next administration of draining the swamp.
I'll clean out the DOJ on day 1.
LOL
And I'd seek to prosecute Merrick Garland.
Same answer.
Same shit?
We've come to expect it.
The revenge & retribution tour . . .
I believe I have posted 'LOL' twice in my 2 years here ... I guess that is the "same shit"! Can't wait to see your response when I post my first emoji ... (never going to happen).
It's only been two years?
All of 750 +/- Tuesdays.
Use this day to familiarize yourself with what a show trial looks like:
Something is really wrong with MAGA, I mean a brief relaxation of court rules to allow for A camera in the court room and a judge removes his READING GLASS causes MAGA to remark on a 'GOTCHA" - damn MAGA that's petty!
How petty does MAGA have to be to expect people not to remove their READING GLASSES in a photo? I mean, it happens every day somewhere on the planet that people in the news do NOT get photographed in relatively cheat READING glasses. Besides that, reading glasses are for READING-not for focusing on distant objects like cameras in the court room or people holding them!
I don't see Jim Jordan.
Had I became a lawyer and defended the likes of Fat Tony, Galante and Galotti, I would have said the same thing.
Don't forget he put the Rosenbergs in the electric chair as a prosecutor. Those were his early days. Joe McCarthy wanted democrat Bobby Kennedy as lead Counsel and Roy wanted that job. He asked Joe how it would look if two Irishmen went after a bunch of Communist Jews. He told Joe that only a Jew could pull it off. And within no time Roy had the job.
You made him look so much better ... /s
Cohn was a real scumbag, no wonder he and the former 'president' were such good friends.
Oh my, the spin machine has engaged on behalf of Trump. Trump can't get proper justice and its stunted his growth and development in this country. Trump is like a tired, old, kid who never grew up to understand what other people go through because he had other grown folks standing in for him.
Just look at this 'spin machine' Go!
Is it like pulling a fire alarm?
Trump is now blasting him & James again.
This judge is a disgrace.
This JUDGE is a disgrace ? LOL. In five minutes I could compile a hundred disgraceful things about Trump but we should focus on the judge in his cases? This is unintentional comedy.
So is the AG and many others who were elected to important positions.
TV says Trump's lawyers used arguments today that the judge has already thrown out.
That seems to have changed. Read post 15
During lunch break today Trump once again told reporters that the AG is a "racist".
Why in hell don't one of these "reporters" ask him just exactly what he means by that? But they dont. Pitiful.
UPDATE:
Donald Trump is leaving the courthouse and he said the Judge indicated that the statue of limitations has run out on most of this case.
Oh, man this is going to piss off some of the leftists on here.
They believe that statute of limitations are only allowed to go out on their own...especially if the name is Biden.
Isn't it the truth!
Well, at least they'll be trying to find out what the judge said tonight.
The judge can relax a bit. Trump said he's not so rotten after all.
and you believed it?
Can you tell us what the Judge said?
Can you?
The only one talking now is the turd former 'president', not the judge
Now, now! I asked you first.
not the judge
You don't know what the judge said.
He's ranting on and on about something from Palm Beach. Three hours ago.
I thought he just left a NYC courthouse.
Maybe he is omnificent!
Neither do you obviously.
Maybe that was his 8 minute delusional rant at lunch. He's always got diarrhea of the mouth of how he is the victiim.
The rant is something the turd said was coming from Palm Beach, not the judge presiding over this case.
You obviously never knew either - has the judge agreed with the former 'president turd' statements? What did the judge say?
It is easy to find. Here:
The Manhattan judge deciding the $250 million civil fraud case against Donald Trump on Tuesday clarified comments he made about the statute of limitations that the former president had hailed as a win.
Trump, appearing jovial as he left Manhattan Supreme Court on Monday afternoon, proclaimed that Justice Arthur Engoron had agreed that “80 percent” of New York Attorney General Letitia James’ lawsuit was thrown out due to the statute of limitations.
“The last five minutes was outstanding because the judge essentially conceded that the statute of limitations, that we won at the court of appeals, is in effect,” Trump, 77, said to reporters as he left court on the first day of trial. “Therefore about 80% of the case is over.”
Engoron had suggested the day prior that testimony from Donald Bender, Trump’s former accountant, about the ex-president’s 2011 financial statements might be time-barred — meaning having taken place before the time period where claims could be brought.
Judge pushes back on Trump's 'statute of limitations' claim at $250M civil fraud trial (nypost.com)
MAGA can't be trusted to give proper context in 'reporting' - Watch out! Here is what. . . "MAGA" left out of the NYPost.com article (deliberately):
MAGA can't be trusted in any shape, form, or fashion. Don't trust a damn thing any of them say! Read for yourselves!!!!!!!!!!!
None of that is true - the judge said he rules on evidence, not claims - so the former 'president' lied as usual, about everything - you left out the part that I included, how convenient!
That's perfect thanks CB! I didn't have a chance to look it up but you provided it - I got it backwards in my comment.
Someone from Palm Beach said that - not the judge.
and you believe him ?
An appeals court ruled that the statute of limitations have run out on all the charges before 2014.
Evidently the Judge agreed. However, the judge is going to explain it in the morning.
So, when will we hear what the judge had to say, regarding agreeing with the turd? You've never said?
" Trump’s legal spokesperson stated, “Based on the judge’s comments at the end of the trial today, it would appear that he is agreeing that all the transactions that closed prior to 2014 are now out of the case.”
Trump's legal spokesperson wasn't entirely truthful in their assessment -
You and vic are both wrong, as usual, see CB's comment at 15.2.10 for the COMPLETE and TRUTHFUL AND IN CONTEXT remarks that the judge made.
[removed]
You are wrong. No one said the evidence couldn't be used. The evidence may be used but the charges cannot live and will be dropped. And 15.2.10 is Vic's comment. Suggest you slow down when attempting to post a gotcha so you don't make mistakes. I know how you hate being wrong.
A judge in Palm Beach which has nothing to do with this judge in NY or the fraud in NY
I am sure he/she is privy to the dates of said crimes. That being said, what has Mar-A Lago have to do with the fraud in NY? Ask the judge in NY who is using it as part of his rationale..........or lack thereof.
See 15.2.10
[removed]
[Deleted]
Here is how we got here:
New York Executive Law § 63(12) , sometimes called simply " 63 12 ", [2] is a New York law that gives the Attorney General of New York broad powers [3] to investigate and prosecute cases of civil fraud. [2] [4] Due to its broad definitions, [5] section 63(12) provides the AG with far-reaching powers to issue subpoenas, as well as low legal hurdles to do so. [6] The law was passed in 1956, while Jacob Javits was attorney general. [7] [1]
New York Executive Law § 63(12) - Wikipedia
The key words are "broad powers," as in the ability to destroy anybody the AG wants.
And yet Ms. James is the one with duties and responsibilities to the office and the electorate.
Time to own it, Vic: Why do you think Trump did not overinflate his properties in this case? In your opinion, is Donald Trump innocent of the issues in this civil case?
Well, I kind of see it as the former President does.
And he sees it as a rare persecution that few have endured:
Jesus looks pissed that he is sitting next to Trump.
You are comparing Trump with Jesus?
Comparing Trump's legal problems with Jesus' proverbial crucifixion?
Trump defense is breaking new levels of absurdity in political discourse.
We got it going.
Unbelievable. Blasphemous. Brain dead.
Can you believe that??????????????????????????????????????????????????
Watch out Jesus, he'll steal your wallet.
Actually, Trump compared his persecution with that of Jesus.
I assume you are aware of that.
And you posted it.
Did you post it because you agree with it or post it because you disagree with it?
Neither. I presented it as a particular view. A view that Trump and others hold.
The point:
It is part of the problem created by running around during election season and charging Trump with everything under the sun. It is self-defeating. People see through it, and you build up Trump's support. Right now, he is polling not only well above all his GOP challengers but Joe Biden as well. Remember, I told you that I preferred DeSantis. I think he is the right man, but like Brutus in the Shakespeare play: "I love Caesar, but I love Rome more." You leave me no choice.
You posted Trump compared to Jesus yet you do not agree or disagree with what you posted. Fascinating.
It is the GOP (which includes you) that left you with no choice. You, et. al., should have been disassociating the GOP from Trump instead of defending him at every turn. GOP voters in polls should claim "never Trump" instead of "I will vote for Trump if he is the nominee". This is a grand failure of the GOP as a whole and everyone who did not do their part to disassociate Trump from the party.
I have been calling for this since the Big Lie.
Trump could have waited to announce his candidacy until after his legal problems were resolved. But he wanted to use his candidacy as a shield against indictment. I am surprised you dont see or understand that.
What is fascinating is that I went to all the trouble of spelling out what my point was and you still didn't get it.
And yet is still beating Biden in the polls......
Democrats made him a martyr. Now I'm counting the days until the deadlines for filing a presidential campaign pass (starting this month.) You will soon be stuck with Biden.
What?
That doesn't even make a lick of sense. In no way has Trump been protected from indictment.
I think the multiple indictments currently against him illustrate how wrong your thinking on that is.
I understood your point. You will vote for whoever is the R because you will never vote for a D.
The problem is that you, et. al., did not take care of business at home (the GOP). And now you are stuck with Trump as your most likely nominee.
The no choice of Trump is the fault of the GOP (all members who supported / defended Trump instead of working to detach from him).
As are we, unfortunately--or fortunately considering the VP.
Democrats have no one else, really, pretty weak field currently, but that could change, just not in time for next election.
Most of the younger Dems are too far left for current times.
Democrats shouldn't have tried prosecuting a candidate during an election. Within a few weeks the dems will be stuck with Biden.
It is amazing how things turned out.
Time is now on somebody else's side.
He understands. Any MAGA person that can find his or her way to this forum on the web understands what Trump was hoping to accomplish by announcing his candidacy. It is the same 'play' that causes a bastard like Trump to stand before a N.Y. court Monday and Tuesday proclaiming how democrats and politics have forced him off the campaign trail. .. when we all know that freak of nature did not have to attend either day of hearings.
They know. They just argue pointless-ness.
Trump should be held accountable. Fuck partisan politics.
And you do not get to blame the Ds for the failure of the Rs. It is the responsibility of each party to put forth good nominees. The Ds have failed with Biden and the Rs have failed in a spectacularly bad fashion with Trump.
Own your failures.
No doubt......
Are you aware that no businessman has ever been prosecuted under that NY law?
No, I am not aware of that.
But it does not really matter. The judge in this case has made a ruling. If the ruling stands then Trump is liable for fraud. If Trump is the first then they started with very likely one of their biggest offenders.
This case, by the way, is a private sector issue. In the grand scheme I find this (and the other civil cases) to be of lesser concern than those dealing with the actions Trump took as PotUS. Those are the cases that matter the most because they set a horrible precedent for presidential behavior. Trump needs to be help accountable to mitigate this damaging precedent.
Then let us also consider those who seem to stay silent about the terrible damage to our institutions and country the opponents of Trump have done.
How about just focusing on the problem that the GOP could control. Your most likely nominee is Trump. Don't support that — fight it.
It is much too late.
I believe you are correct on this point.
a seditious white collar criminal as the GOP presidential candidate is the ultimate conclusion of the party.
And thus Biden will win a deserved second term. There is no way the man who whooped Trump so badly in 2020 will not run again and win again against Trump in 2024. Along with all of that, Democrats will regain the House and retain the Senate!
Sure he will if Americans suddenly don't vote their pocketbooks.
republicans said they would fix the price of gas and groceries over a year ago... wtf?
Your hero Joe has been promoting Bidenomics and now you want to call Joe a liar?
About time you finally got it!
I hope so. Because all of these internecine political wars are draining the strength of the Republic. And internationally people are becoming aroused and worried about the unhealthy 'news' coming out of the U.S.
Far too many Americans worry more about what others think than they do taking care of our own folks.
So we have accusations that Trump routinely deceived banks, insurers and others by exaggerating the value of assets on paperwork used in making deals and securing loans. There are some questions are raised:
1. How far back does this supposedly happen?
2. Did the lending agencies verify the value of the assets at the time of application? If not, why?
4. Were appraisals done in a timely manner (during the application process)?
5. Were there discrepancies with the declared value and appraiser's decision? If so, were they not discussed during the application process?
6. Who approved the loans? This could make the lending agencies just as culpable.
Y'know I asked some questions.
People just lost their shit.
Because they went against their narrative. It happens all the time. They lose their shit and can't answer a single question. Then they start with the insults and everything they can to disctact from the question.
With you, its never Trumps fault or his misdeeds, its always people "losing their shit"
With you, it's always Trump's fault and the shit is lost... well....
I've never blamed Trump for anything he isnt guilty of.
That should read thusly:
I haven't blamed anything on Trump which I don't think he is guilty of.
And you think (based on your posts), he is guilty of myriad crimes but you manage to stall out when asked for any convictions in any criminal proceeding..
IS there anything you don't think he's guilty of?
“IS there anything you don't think he's guilty of?”
Humility. Respecting the Constitution. Honoring veterans. Compassion. Literacy. Telling the truth.
Sounds like a lot of many politicians I know. Most prolific being Biden and Hillary. But they get “Democrat” free pass from their useful idiots.
And I’m sure they really appreciate that.
Not clear from the summary judgment.
Irrelevant. Per the judge, New York law states that the presentation of false information in a legal document intended to get a more favorable transaction is fraud. The receiving entity's action is irrelevant.
Irrelevant in this case. See above.
Irrelevant in this case. See above.
Irrelevant in this case. See above.
Bullshit. Unless someone's or some heads roll over this within the lending institution, they have due diligence and their interests to protect. I bought a house a few years back and prior to the paperwork being done, a thorough valuation was done. It's what responsible institutions demand........or should to protect their "investments". So it isn't irrelevant and yes, they were just as culpable as Trump was.
So what you think is irrelevant, should have been quite relevant and the judge and state and federal parties responsible for oversight should have jacked someone up.
Of course banks and insurers engage in due diligence. I never suggested otherwise.
Did you read my comment?
I am talking about what constitutes fraud per the judge per New York law. In this case, even if a bank turned down the application, the presentation of false information in a legal document intended to get a more favorable transaction is fraud. The receiving entity's action is irrelevant.
In short. It does not matter what the receiving entity does. The fraud is the presentation.
Your "bullshit" declaration is wrong.
It's all relevant. Without the appraisals, there is no way to determine if the declarations were correct or not.
It's all relevant. Without the appraisals, there is no way to determine if the declarations were correct or not. If they are outdated, the loans may not have been approved for the requested amounts.
It's all relevant. Without the appraisals, there is no way to determine if the declarations were correct or not. If they weren't discussed the loans may not have been approved for the requested amounts.
It's all relevant. Without the appraisals, there is no way to determine if the declarations were correct or not. If they were incorrect the loans may not have been approved..
You see where I'm going here right. Without the appraisals, without them being done in a timely manner, if discrepancies weren't identified and discussed there is no basis for any of this suit. Culpability falls on the lending agencies.
But then again, we're not unfamiliar with the "Get Trump at all costs" idiocy. We've all witnessed it since 2016.
It does not matter what the receiving entities do. None of that is relevant.
Fraud, per the judge per New York law, is committed merely by presenting false information in a legal document intended to get a more favorable transaction.
Of course banks and insurers engage in due diligence.
Funny. In 18.2 you stated it was irrelevant. So if it's irrelevant and the lending agencies didn't do their due diligence, how do they know the actual values without proper appraisal?
Good grief man, pay attention.
We are talking about whether of not Trump is liable for fraud.
We are NOT talking about business processes. Yes, lending agencies routinely verify the asset value of collateral, etc. That is not in question.
But it does not matter as to whether or not Trump committed fraud per New York law:
Fraud, per the judge per New York law, is committed merely by presenting false information in a legal document intended to get a more favorable transaction.
How did they fucking know it was fraudulent if no appraisal was done? A judges "guess" at value is just that. A Guess. In addition, the banks and insurance companies had no bone to pick with Trump so that makes the "big brother knows what is right for you and we are going to act on your behalf because you are too stupid to look out for your own good" bullshit same old GovCo song. They are twisting the arm of establishments to come along.
Who said no appraisals were done? I have yet to see details on the mountains of evidence the judge ruled on. Have you?
What makes you think the judge just "guessed"? If you have some facts to share then show them.
Irrelevant on the question of whether or not Trump committed fraud.
Fraud, per the judge per New York law, is committed merely by presenting false information in a legal document intended to get a more favorable transaction.
I am paying attention. you are claiming the lawsuit is good all because "the judge says so". There is nothing to prove the documentation is false. Noting to verify the declared values are false. Just "the judge says so". One would have to be pretty gullible to go with that pathetic excuse.
If he committed fraud they, the banks and insurance companies, should have been on it like stink on shit. As it is, this is all perpetrated by and overzealous James (who won election on the promise of getting Trump) and the judge. It doesn't pass muster.
I am claiming that the judge ruled that Trump committed fraud per New York law.
I have not seen the evidence and have not heard the testimony. I do not know New York law anywhere close to that of the AG and the judge. I am simply stating what the judge stated in his summary judgment.
I am trying to get you to comprehend that this was jurisprudence in action; our legal system executing. This was a response to a lawsuit based on evidence and attorneys arguing their sides. Here, the judge determined that the evidence was so overwhelming that there was no need for a jury trial and issued a 35 page summary judgment explaining why. To do this, the evidence must meet a very high standard. The judge held that this was the case.
You are twisting into a pretzel desperately trying to argue that Trump did not commit fraud. That is what is pathetic.
Do you comprehend that Trump can commit fraud without a lender / insurance company having much damage?
If, for example, Trump secured a loan with false legal documents then the lender (if it had flawed due diligence) took on a greater risk than it had expected. But if Trump paid off the loan with interest, in the end the lender had no net financial damage.
Again, since this is not registering:
Fraud, per the judge per New York law, is committed merely by presenting false information in a legal document intended to get a more favorable transaction.
From what you've provided, what else is there?
Based on YOUR statements, you, admittedly, have not a single bit of evidence as to the fraud charge and want to just blather on and on about "he committed a crime" and expect to be taken at your word?
Apparently you refuse to read what I wrote. I am not the one making the claim of fraud. I am telling you what the judge ruled. Read his summary judgment document.
Here, Jeremy, in case you have missed it:
Fraud, per the judge per New York law, is committed merely by presenting false information in a legal document intended to get a more favorable transaction.
I read what you wrote. Apparently you don't comprehend what you wrote.
Do you understand what that means?
It means that I personally am not qualified to rule on fraud in the Trump case. That is why I have NOT ruled and have instead presented the ruling of the individual who actually is qualified to rule on the case:
Fraud, per the judge per New York law, is committed merely by presenting false information in a legal document intended to get a more favorable transaction.
Do you actually think any reader is buying the theatrical bullshit you are spreading?
Yep and they would have been. Unless of course the tinfoil hats out there think they were all in on the alleged scam as well.
And yet here you are blathering on about "Trump committed a crime". And as I expected, you can't honestly answer a single one of my questions in 8 above. Just wanted to go on a "but Trump" rant.
That would be bank or insurance fraud. The judge ruled on executive fraud. Bank/insurance fraud has an intent portion that has NOT been ruled on.
There is no "but" to it. This is about Trump, and his name is not added in later in order to attack him.
Where did you find that quote from me? Nowhere! You just made it up.
This is a civil case. This is NOT a criminal case. I have spoken of liability, not criminal guilt.
Here is my point. Apparently you missed it:
Fraud, per the judge per New York law, is committed merely by presenting false information in a legal document intended to get a more favorable transaction.
You can't even keep track of your own comments. It's your 1st sentence in 18.2.16. Fuck, you need to keep up with your own comments and learn to read comment headers.
Unless that law is universally applied, it is malpractice.
Which law school did you attend? What type of law do you practice? What experience do you have with adjudicating New York law?
Again, I have consistently reported what the judge has ruled. I do not offer my legal opinion because I am not a New York judge (or attorney).
What I have done, however, is report what the judge stated in his summary judgment. And this is what he concluded:
Fraud, per the judge per New York law, is committed merely by presenting false information in a legal document intended to get a more favorable transaction.
Having laws that are only used on certain people are bogus.
This NY law is one.
FARA is another.
The Espionage Act is another.
Happens all the time, Vic. Most of the time Trump has been able to skirt while the average person without the heavy lawyering often does not.
The Espionage act? You think this has only applied to Trump??
You will not get much agreement, from rational folks, trying to portray Trump as a victim.
It would seem to me that making phone calls to government officials on behalf of foreign interests would be something one would have to register under FARA for. That makes sense, right?
I wonder if Hunter might eventually be told he violated that act since he never registered.
You missed making false statements on the ATF form #4473.
Laws for me and thee but not for Hunter B.
So much for better gun control …..
Different trial. Different venue. I know you would like to have others go on trial, while Trump skips off to play golf or pretend leader of the free world. But, nope it does not work that way. Want others to suffer along with Trump? Beg to have an indictment of the banks, etceteras after Trump's day in court!
Thank you. What was repaid was not decided at the correct rate/s. Moreover, the deliberate presentation of inaccurate documents with a signature/s attesting to accuracy is the fraud.
So we are doing this again. You want to keep talking in circles have at it. You haven 't proven a goddamn thing. Just parroting what somebody else is telling you.
Enjoy the rest of yours.
Making this point ...
Fraud, per the judge per New York law, is committed merely by presenting false information in a legal document intended to get a more favorable transaction.
... is not talking in circles. It is repeating a point that you refuse to acknowledge.
I am not trying to prove anything, I am reporting a key factor in the summary judgment. Read the summary judgment yourself and get educated about what has taken place.
The point you made, is in 18.2.16:
You're admittingly talking for the sake of talking with zero information and hurt feelings.
NEXT!!!
What a slimy and stupid tactic.
That is not my point. That is me stating that I am not ruling because I have not reviewed the evidence, heard the attorney's arguments, and am not an expert on New York law.
I am reporting what the judge ruled because the judge DID review the evidence, hear the arguments, and is a legal professional in the state of New York.
I am not talking for the sake of talking, I am reporting to get people like you to gain some degree of understanding of the summary judgment. And I am also suggesting that you read the summary judgment yourself.
This is the point:
Fraud, per the judge per New York law, is committed merely by presenting false information in a legal document intended to get a more favorable transaction.
I know. How dare I use YOUR words against you. That's just so unfair that I do that and not just capitulate to your blathering about things you admit you have no information on.
All the points against the ruling here are the same one's Trump's lawyers used and were discarded. If people would just read the ruling they would better understand the law used and why the arguments were discarded, but instead they just "believe" the judge was wrong. Now we are also seeing the beginnings of personal attacks on the judge. These people don't use reason nor logic.
The reason your tactic is stupid is because you are not using my words against me.
My words stated exactly what I intended them to state: that I am NOT giving a legal opinion because I have not reviewed the evidence, heard the legal arguments and am not an expert in New York law.
And because of that, all I am doing is reporting what the judge wrote.
Your tactic is slimy because the meaning of my words is obvious. No way you do not comprehend the meaning of my words. Yet you are desperately attempting to divine a contradiction in my argument by blatantly lying about the meaning of my words. That is slimy.
In lieu of an actual rebuttal, you have been posting intellectually dishonest crap.
Rather than acknowledge an uncomfortable reality we have the predictable slimy, intellectually dishonest tactics. As Trump closes in on the nomination, this will get worse.
[deleted]
Wow. That happened. Talk about doing something for the sake of 'talking'! Somebody's unwillingness to admit the NY court has Trump by the short-hairs and will judge how much to shave off!
You did not use TiG's words against him. You used his words without meaning. That, Jeremy, is an indulgence that is not acceptable.
And yet these very people like to mock others about displaying feelings. Clearly, they can shout "Ouch" too when Trump is put in a vise of his own making!
[deleted]
[deleted]
What we have been witnessing is text-book trolling. He was not discussing in any meaningful way the article but was simply repeating himself over and over again after his arguments had been shown to be vacuous and without merit in a futile attempt to provoke you.
[Deleted]
[Deleted]
[Deleted]
[Deleted]
It is a political prosecution, and the "judge" has already made questionable statements on his emotions and how he regards precedent.
Just like your 'model' president, you mock the political system. What comes next 'humor' about old folks and their aging hair? BTW, you put judge in quotes. It is a clear failure on your part to accept that a judge is an officer of the court. That is, a judge is not Trump's friend anymore than Jame's. He, in this case, has a job to do and you will mock him more if he screws it up. . . so he'd better get it as right as he can!
BTW, why do we have judges and justices in the first place?
Because lawyers by designation can't sit/hear/decide a damn thing. That is, Donald Trump "people" can't try themselves! As much as it would be beneficial to MAGA to try and do so.
The cry of "political" took place prior to any judgment. No matter what the case, I fully expect Trump supporters to cry "political".
It is a meaningless accusation.
Argue merits, argue evidence, argue legal logic.
You might be able to argue merits on the others, but the NY cases are clearly bogus. The timing of all of them destroys their credibility.
I just heard Jessica Tarlov say something that in an odd way kind of ties in with these allegations/indictments/trials. Minutes ago on Fox News they were talking about the 2024 election and the terrible polling of Joe Biden. Tarlov said every bit of conventional wisdom would point to Biden losing, but the fact that the opposing candidate is Trump means that no matter how bad Biden is, he will win. I'm paraphrasing what she said, but I think there is an element of truth in that and it goes for this trial farce as well. Legal experts would be condemning the MO of these trials had it been anyone other than Trump.
It's bullying. It's harassment. It's partisan chaos. And it's come to roost here. BTW, this case is proof of something: 'Everybody' MAGA dislikes trying their "great leader" causes them internal grief and so they strike out with and without direction.
Sounds like someone who made up their mind prior to opening arguments.
Of course, while searching for a scapegoat - among scapegoats - latch on to anything. Here take this "kitchen sink" I have laying around. Toss in it too!
By definition, it was political prior to any judgment.
When a prosecutor is elected to office on the campaign promise that she is out to get a single citizen, it's political.
When the "victims" in that case are giant multinational corporations who do not consider themselves victims, it's political.
When she brings a case against a person she called "an illegitimate president", it's very obviously political.
We know the AG has a bias against Trump. That is what we know.
The AG still had to put forth a case with teeth. She cannot simply execute her bias. She must use facts and legal logic.
The judge put forth a summary judgment based on the evidence, legal arguments, law, etc.
What matters is the judgment. If the judgment was political then we should discuss the merits of the case (assuming we gain access to this). In the meantime, all we have in terms of actual details underlying this decision is the judge's 35 page summary judgment.
Clearly you are going to continue to disagree with the legal ruling of the judge (even though you claim you "do not know") and, in so doing, implicitly claim that YOU are correct about New York law and that HE is incorrect:
Fraud, per the judge per New York law, is committed merely by presenting false information in a legal document intended to get a more favorable transaction.
Per the judge, the fraud occurs even if the recipient of the false legal documents denies the requested transaction.
If this is overturned on appeal, I will adjust my position accordingly. But as it stands, we have a legal ruling based on evidence, arguments from the attorneys, and New York law. That is far more credible than amateur opinions.
Right-wing talking point. Likely taking one instance of a remark and blowing it out of proportion. MAGA even tries the tactic on NTers (here). Besides, you can't GET somebody who does not rise to the level (occasion) to be 'got'! A lack of mention on the part of partisan MAGA defenders!
You seem to have confused fact, logic, and reason with talking points.
I'm sure you think so.
After all, the Washington Post is a famously RW publication.
I'm alternating between laughter and eyerolls.
Campaign promises are, by definition, political.
Campaigning on the promise to go after a single citizen is more than just "bias", BTW. If that doesn't raise a million red flags, you're not paying attention.
Imagine Ken Paxton campaigning in Texas on the promise that he's going to go after Sylvester Turner, and then trying to sue him for $20 million over a discrepancy between the value of his house on a financial statement and the value on the tax rolls. There would be riots in the streets.
She is. Are you really suggesting there is not a very long list of fraud cases with actual victims who actually lost money and who need their AG to fight for them? In New York?? But no, rather than take on any of those, she's used the resources of her office to target a political opponent.
She chose this case for political reasons.
Clearly you are going to continue (apparently endlessly) to misrepresent my statements.
I said it was political. Full stop. Ignoring that this is absolutely a politically driven case is utterly moronic.
No. I am suggesting this: TiG@18.2.59 ☞ "The AG still had to put forth a case with teeth. She cannot simply execute her bias. She must use facts and legal logic."
Do you agree with the judge's ruling or disagree? You said that you did not know yet you continue to make arguments questioning the veracity of the case itself. Mixed signals. It is up to you to provide clarity if you want me and others to understand your position.
To wit, I am not trying to misrepresent you, but it seems no matter what I write it is deemed a misrepresentation. So set the record straight.
Yes I know. I have acknowledged the political bias. I have then noted that political bias is not sufficient to hold Trump accountable. That the case must still have teeth. So do you believe the case is without merit (purely political) or do you think the case has merit? The AG's actions can be politically motivated AND be a case with merit or without merit.
Is the case meritless or without merit?
Why this case? Why not any number of hundreds of other cases where actual victims were involved? Why $250million? Where does that number come from?
As we've already discussed, neither of us knows enough of the details. The judge's ruling hinges on the degree of difference between Trump's stated values of his properties and whatever the judge believes are the actual values of Trump's properties. Nobody has any idea how the judge is determining his valuation.
I only said it was political. It is.
Thank you.
It may or may not be.
The "facts" in question are actually opinions on the value of various utterly unique pieces of real estate. These aren't 'regular' properties, where we can just look at sales data on comparable buildings and see what they've been selling for. There is no property on earth comparable to Mar-A-Lago. So any valuation statement is much less empirical and much more professional opinion than an appraisal of your house or mine would be.
Trump's legal team has reportedly submitted valuations from licensed "independent" appraisers to justify his valuation claims. I don't believe for a moment those people are actually 'independent', but they are almost surely licensed.
Similarly, we would assume the state has submitted reports from its own (equally non-independent) appraisers, although we can't confirm that unless I've missed that information somewhere. We would have to assume the judge is not just taking the tax board's valuation as fact. He surely isn't that completely ridiculous. If that is the case, this is the biggest shit show since the OJ trial, so we're going to give him the benefit of at least that much doubt and assume those professional appraisals exist.
So the judge has Trump's set of licensed professionals telling him one thing, and presumably (hopefully) James' set telling him something else.
He has chosen to believe the latter. There is absolutely no way to be sure that is a political decision, but there also is no way to be sure it isn't a political decision.
Exactly. As I have repeatedly noted. So there is a ton of speculation ensuing.
No, political bias is not sufficient to adjudicate a lawsuit. There is a formal process which includes formal evidence, legal arguments and, importantly, the law.
Where now is the notion of "neither of us knows enough of the details"? This is why your words read (at least to me) as though you are arguing that the judge is wrong even though you have stated that you do not know. (I do not know either, by the way, but I hold that a senior judge in a high-profile case who has seen the evidence, heard the attorney's arguments, and understands New York law is NOT likely to claim the evidence passes the high-bar required for summary judgment if it does not clearly do so.)
... I hold that a senior judge in a high-profile case who has seen the evidence, heard the attorney's arguments, and understands New York law is NOT likely to claim the evidence passes the high-bar required for summary judgment if it does not clearly do so.
If this summary judgment is overturned on appeal we can read the appeal decision. There might be information that enables one to make a strong argument that the judge made a political decision. If it is not overturned, I will conclude that this was NOT a political decision and was, rather, proper adjudication.
Right now, all we have for certain is the judge's 35 page summary judgment and public knowledge of Trump.
Jack Phillips might disagree with that statement.
In a perfect world, you would be right. But we don't live in one of those.
It specifically includes judicial interpretation of the law, and in this case interpretation of real estate values.
I certainly believe he could be wrong, and denying that possibility or deeming it trivial seems to ignore at least half the facts. Judges are wrong all the time. Reversal rates can be as high as 30% on appeal.
I'm aware.
Personally, I'm not convinced.
I hold that there are too many unusual elements of this proceeding that generate too much suspicion to simply trust an elected judge who is a member of an opposing political party as he claims no jury is necessary for a $250 million judgment.
A quarter of a billion dollars.... no jury needed... What?? That by itself should raise more red flags than you'd see at a Manchester United home match.
It is difficult to win a case brought by political bias that does not have merit. Even with an imperfect legal system, the formal process of adjudication tends to not yield guilty and liable verdicts / conclusions when the case does not have sufficient merit. Especially on high profile cases.
Yes our legal system requires interpretation of both evidence and the law. That is why the adjudication process is formal and why there are things such as rules of evidence, codes of conduct, ... , all the way back to the underlying training that takes place in law school.
Happily there is an appeal process. Let's see what happens. It would be quite a spectacular failure for a judge to make such a ruling if he thought he is likely to be overturned. With all the red flags you see, you envision a scenario where this judge is way out on a limb. It is possible, but if so the judge likely has cognitive problems. Not likely IMO.
Under NY law civil cases are normally bench trials. Trump's lawyers could have motioned for a jury trial, argued and appealed if they lost, but they didn't do that. That and the $250 million judgement has not been determined. That will done after listening to over 200 witnesses.
It's a helluva lot easier when the prosecutor and judge agree their political opponent isn't entitled to a jury.
I'm happy there IS a process. Not as happy that they've guaranteed its use.
Exactly my point.
Depends on how we're defining failure. Apparently, willingness to go after Trump is something you can campaign on in NY. So even if he's overturned here, he'll be able to say Trump getting away wasn't his fault.
No. No. No. That's not what I said.
There are a number of possibilities here, including but not limited to:
There are dozens of additional possibilities.... at least... none of which would involve "on a limb" or cognitive decline.
Very well read. Bravo for your assessment.
Good grief man.
Which should be the case given he has made a summary judgment in a high profile case. That is the bar for a summary judgment.
Which means the judge has (stupidly) gone way out on a limb to declare a summary judgment rather than have a jury decide.
Which means the judge has gone way out on a limb by wrongly making a summary judgment to harm his own reputation and credibility just to support the political bias of the AG.
Which means the judge has gone way out on a limb in a high profile case with disregard for his own reputation and credibility merely to save time .
Which means the judge has gone way out on a limb to declare a summary judgment rather than have a jury decide. And since you are hypothesizing a complete dereliction of jurisprudence, the judge could just dismiss the case and his front yard would be clear.
Which means the judge has gone way out on a limb and decided to martyr himself.
Your idea of "way out on a limb" and mine seem to be wildly different.
"Way out on a limb" is a saying indicating that a person is taking a large amount of risk. In every scenario I described, the risk for the judge is lessened.
Possibly.
Yes.
I tried, in my comment, to illustrate how each item is a great risk to the judge. The only item that would not be a risk to the judge is your first one.
So this is apparently where we disagree ... I see risk in the other scenarios and you see very little risk. A major theme through most of those scenarios is the professional risk to the judge of putting forth a summary judgment in a high profile case given such a judgment has a high bar of evidence and thus risks being overturned.
In general, it would have been less risky for the judge to let this go to trial with the jury being the deliberative agent.
She should have checked with her 'critics' who jot down everything harmfully or unharmfully stated.
Anyway, just as AG James can't clap with one hand, she can't prosecute Trump if there is nothing there to charge! Also, the indictment of Donald Trump and the ruling by Justice Engaron has moved beyond the point of her campaign remarks.
MAGA can litigate her comments in the courts and Appeals.
It has nothing to do with me.
It would have been nice had she not made the statements, but who knows what the context of the N. Y. State campaign was about? I don't know being on a different coast and not connected to that state politics or who she cleared her comments by before making them part of her campaign.
It is what it is. Donald can make all the noise he wants about it. We will see what the courts do about the statements through the legal system.
As for what we are discussing, AG James has found a weak spot in Trump's business practice. Let's see him deal (get out) of that!
If he does, oh well. Crooked business man succeeds again at thwarting justice on his account. Not my problem.
Watch this space.
Note: Been out all day -so late night writing of this.
I'm sure you find zero things wrong with someone running for an office based on 'getting' one man.
That sounds so swell, huh, maybe we should get someone to "get" Hunter Biden, eh?
I may not be exactly on point here (because I am doing "catch up" in-haste), but it seems some here are considering an appeal and tossing of the case on a/some kind of technicality?
Well, you know. . .I had several "openings" in discussion where I could have "let" Hunter Biden drive an "eighteen-wheeler" through and I used discipline to keep the discussion CENTERED on the topic of discussion.
Comment discipline is good. Whataboutism not so much.
And with that, I will not elaborate farther on Hunter, or his Dad, Joe.
There is always the possibility of appeal. But it would be incorrect for any of us to speak authoritatively on how an appeal might be successful in this case.
If the appeal overturns the summary judgment then the judge will look foolish in a highly visible case.
If the appeal supports the summary judgment then, due to the very high standard of evidence required for a summary judgment, that reaffirms that Trump did indeed commit fraud according to the state of New York.
Does this mean I can look forward to far fewer Trump comments on seeds not about him then?
Great!
The judge is elected. So the only risk is political. We already know that "out to get Trump" is a winning campaign strategy. Anything he does that is seen as an attempt to oppose Trump is another step toward reelection.
It's simple identity politics. He just needs to be on Team Anti-Trump.
Keeping the morons from occupying his yard is just a bonus.
So we're agreeing that it did happen and it's not a "right wing talking point".
Good start.
Now, there are obviously massive problems with an AG deciding who she intends to prosecute before she's even elected. Given the history of the American South, I certainly don't need to explain those dangers to you of all people.
Term expires in 2029
Being overturned in a high visibility case is a risk. This is reportedly the biggest case of his career. It is always a negative for a judge to be overturned. It is never good. Ergo risk.
To be clear, you are speculating, right? You are not speaking factually ... noting that this might just be simple identity politics.
Many AG's got elected by targeting specific suspected criminals including Rudy Giuliani. It's a political gamble to be sure, but defiantly not a new thing.
It is a right-wing talking point all the same. Why wouldn't it be? Even Trump is using it. (That is, her remarks 'pops' into your head because of the Washington Post and Red State and "X" and shall I continue? Otherwise, why would you think it matters here if it did not matter to the courts?)
He is planning the damn conservative game which they play with liberals, independents, and Others. That's all this is. This is somebody who can always SEARCH for 'outs,' exits, and damage control factors for Trump ("he who brings Carnage") while stating he vote for the "other guy." Just reading the comments from that one we can see no good interests or support for the Joe Biden. And that of itself speaks volumes!
You view the WaPost and Red State as equivalent?
Who are the others?
Others = Not MAGA.
Didn’t liberals and independents all ready cover that?
I realize you believe that. That's not how the system works.
Do you imagine that the SCOTUS justices who ruled on Roe v Wade were somehow diminished when it was overturned?
They absolutely were not.
You can pretty much repeat that idea for most cases that make it to the Supreme Court.
The American legal system is one that relies heavily on subjective interpretation of the law, and people are always going to disagree
So that's what we're calling facts now.
Thanks for admitting that.
Nope. Facts are facts. AG James did say it. I've dealt with her remarks 18.2.75. But, two things can occur at the same time: Right-wingers will use her statements as a talking points. (Likely even after "the point" is accepted or rejected by the courts.)
And, you're welcome (I think?).
Bullshit. Judges are typically very careful with their decisions because they know that if they make a mistake they are likely to be overruled. No way on Earth does a typical judge NOT care about being overruled.
The presence of disagreement was not in question.
*eyeroll*
From your link:
The article goes on to state that lower court judges tend to rule in accordance with precedent set by higher courts. Which of course makes complete sense because our legal system works on a reliance on precedent.
Precedent, by definition, is a decision that has come before.
They are not afraid of being overturned. It does not represent some sort of professional disgrace, nor are their reputations damaged. That's just not how this works.
Very often, a judge will grant a motion of one form or another that they absolutely know will kick the case up to a higher court. It's all part of how the system works.
Where, other than your imagination do you get this?
Judges are human being and human beings generally do not want to make decisions that are deemed wrong and overturned. They are thus motivated to get the law right … and following precedent is an aspect of that.
Similarly, do you think professional engineers have no concern if their design decisions are overridden or reflected?
Do you think that a 1st base umpire has no concern if his field call is overturned?
Give me a break. Human beings in professional positions where their professional judgment can be overruled will naturally be careful to ensure they are on solid ground. This judge is likely to be very careful in the highest profile case of his career that his decision is sound.
He could still make a mistake, but it is NOT likely that he is trying to pull judicial shenanigans for political reasons if he knows he is likely to be overruled. An overrule is net bad for him and net good for Trump. Clearly not a good strategy.
Your link, for one.
You are projecting your emotions onto people with whom you have very little in common.
They are human beings who chose a profession where they argue for a living. They are generally high achievers in a profession consisting solely of people with graduate degrees. They work in a profession where the majority of "correct" or "incorrect" is a matter of opinion.
Do not believe for a moment they simply accept they are "wrong", simply because another judge disagrees with them. They didn't become judges by being that meek.
Professional engineers do not operate in an environment ruled by subjective judgment. They are either right or wrong, and the results are empirically proven. That's not how lawyers or judges operate.
Again... the umpire can be proven to be wrong on an empirical basis. Do you imagine the gymnastics judge has no concern if the judge next to her grants a different score? Of course they don't.
Trust me, I am.
Not with the hard left anti-Trump electorate, it isn't. An overturn is much less damaging than Trump winning in his court.
Not any more than a Trump victory in his court.
[deleted]
The average professional does not want their decisions to be overridden. The professional will accept a correction because they recognize that what is important is getting things right in aggregate. But that does not mean that they do not care about being wrong.
A professional will naturally do their best to make the best decision. It is never good for one's career to be wrong. It is worse to be publicly wrong. It is far worse to be wrong on the biggest project (or case) in your career.
This is obvious.
Also there is the case in point.
First let me say that judges like most people have a 'rep' and want to keep it positive. That is, professional and personal pride.
Now back to the case in point:
It is profoundly ridiculous for a judge to not care about a reputation of making lousy judgements - unless s/he does not plan to stay around long on the bench!
I agree. Most professionals care quite a bit about their reputations and their careers and understand that (fair or not) making wrong (or even inferior) decisions is negative for a career. They thus take care to ensure their decisions with stand up to scrutiny.
What is obvious is that you are (still) attempting to project the framework of engineering onto something that is absolutely nothing like engineering.
Wrong. I am giving an example of how professionals operate. In any field, Engineering, Marketing, Science, Military, ..., and in Law.
Professionals typically are forging their careers on every project (in law, every case). They will make decisions and those who predominantly make the right decisions rise through the ranks. And the obvious contra is that those who predominantly make wrong decisions are left behind.
You are attempting to convince me that a typical judge does not attempt to ensure his/her decisions are on solid ground (and thus less likely to be overturned). That because judgments are sometimes overturned on appeal —as part of the normal process of adjudication— this means a typical judge does not make every attempt to ensure they get it right ... to ensure they do not make a mistake in judgment (that would then enable a strong appeal).
Bullshit. That is not reality. That is not human nature. That is not how professionals operate.
If this judge knowingly overstepped his bounds (making a mistake in judgment) then he had a reason that was more important to him than the professional risk. If he acted in a partisan fashion to gratuitously jab Trump, he would also know that his legal risk enabled an overturn on appeal in the biggest, most visible case of his career (reportedly, but believably).
I find that to be unlikely. Not only does that do professional harm in a visible way, but it is entirely counterproductive to the hypothesized partisan drive to harm Trump. If overturned, the judge has helped vindicate Trump legally, and even more importantly, politically. That makes no sense.
Maybe the judge really is a blind partisan who has acted stupidly and in a way that ultimately is counterproductive to his desires. It is possible.
The other, more likely possibility, is that this long-standing, career judge knows the law and made a responsible, professional ruling based on the evidence and the arguments of the attorneys.
Until I see a sound legal argument to the contrary, I am persuaded by what seems most likely.
Professional.
prə-fĕsh′ə-nəl
adjective
Of, relating to, engaged in, or suitable for a profession.
Conforming to the standards of a profession.
Engaging in a given activity as a source of livelihood or as a career
The second meaning is where I wish to come down on this area of discussion.
A member here discounts government officials elected and unelected likely is taking the Reagan-ess stance: "I am from the government and I am here to help." So liberartian, indeed!
However, a professional who acts unprofessionally will fail the standard/s set by their respective industries. In this case, the legal industry.
By definition, the legal industry has policies and rules for its practitioners and that includes judges and justices.
It's a far stretch, and a libertarian view, that 'government' is the main problem with the country, therefore judges and justices constitutionally are proportionally a problem.
Still courts have check and balance systems stacked one atop the other which among their many duties will excoriate deliberate laziness and intentional delay in a proper judicial rendering by 'subordinate' practitioners.
I am sure you think so.
No, you're giving an example of how you want to think they operate, doggedly ignoring the difference between fields where "correct" is empirically irrefutable vs a field where "correct" is a matter of subjective judgment.
Do cite me saying anything like that.
And please tell me we're not going to do this thing where you have made your conclusions and any introduction of alternative possibilities simply overloads your imagination so you have to cope by pretending people have said things they haven't.
You are very clearly struggling to imagine the idea that a judge being overturned does not necessarily mean he's wrong. It simply means he disagrees with another judge.
It is reality, Jack.
A judge overturned does not necessarily mean he is wrong in absolute terms (the overturning authority might be wrong). But being overturned means that in terms of legal precedent, the judge is considered wrong. And since you are focusing on one word and missing the point, I suggest you focus on my emphasis on how this is bad for a career.
A judge being overturned is not good for the judge's career. Just like an Engineer being overridden is not good for their career. Same with umpires, military officers, scientists, politicians, etc. If one's decision if rejected by a higher authority that is a career negative.
Thus professionals normally seek to make sound decisions that are not likely overturned / overridden / rejected / etc. by higher authorities in the profession.
This is basic stuff with myriad commonplace examples.
I'm sure you think so.
I know you think that. You're apparently struggling to come to grips with how voters could elect or reelect a person by choosing political bias over demonstrated competence. I'm not sure how much more data you'll need before you acknowledge that it's a thing.
Are engineers elected? Is the success or failure of an engineering project based on subjective opinion or more measurable things like the bridge not collapsing or the water draining properly?
There is no "just like an engineer" that works here.
I am stating that a judge, as with any other professional, will normally seek to make sound legal decisions and that a judge, in the most visible and important case of his life, is unlikely to make a summary judgment (given the high bar that this requires) if it is likely that this will simply be overturned on merit.
And I am saying (and repeating to a deaf ear it seems) that IF this judge has made a largely political decision that is likely to be overturned, then instead of harming Trump he has helped him. To wit, his political/unprofessional behavior would be counterproductive.
Being overturned is not good under any scenario.
Can we agree that there is nothing normal about this particular case?
I've never stated otherwise. But what actually happens to Trump doesn't matter to Engoron's career. What matters is the perception of his constituents with regard to whether he is soft or hard on Trump. If he is perceived as a Trump antagonist, it helps his chances for reelection. If he is seen as soft on Trump, it hurts them. If his summary judgment is overturned, the anger will be focused on that judge, not Engoron.
Again, it is a helluva lot better than Trump winning the case in his courtroom.
We can agree that this is a unique case given it involves a former PotUS and the likely nominee for the GOP.
Great. Then let's stop this nonsense.
Not a point I have ever made.
This is getting obnoxious, Jack. If the judge is simply pandering then the smart thing to do is take actions that go against Trump and are not likely to be overturned. If the judge takes actions (e.g. making a summary judgment) that are likely to be overturned, his actions blow up in his face. He winds up helping Trump.
That is not the only other option. Again, the judge could have taken a less risky act and allowed this to go to a jury. He could then, under YOUR hypothesis that he will violate his ethics and play politics on the bench, influence the outcome. And if all else fails, he always has judgement notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV). If the judge is fucking around, he has that tool available to him as a last resort.
Seems to me, an unethical / partisan judge would manipulate the situation to achieve the desired result, with minimal chance for overturn, and make it look as unbiased as possible. A summary judgment is a bone-head ploy if that were the case.
It's unusual for more reasons than that, as you well know.
What's that word you've grown fond of.... ah yes... bullshit. You've based your entire argument on the idea that if Trump is exonerated by a higher court then Engoron's career will be damaged.
You crossed that bridge a long time ago.
If they're available, yes. If they're not, you make do with what you can.
His voters will not give a solitary fuck about that. They will view the overturning judge as the enemy. Have you not seen the reactions to any of the controversial SCOTUS decisions?? Nobody cares one iota who the lower court judge was.
The biggest risk he faces is that Trump may win in his courtroom. A summary judgment eliminates that risk.
That is part of it.
My argument is that a professional, such as a judge, is unlikely to make a risky decision (one that is not soundly rooted in law and evidence and in consideration of the presented arguments). It is never good for a judge to be overturned.
A summary judgment offers a high risk for overturn on appeal due to the higher bar required for it to be justified.
A jury trial is more conventional, less risk for the judge, and still provides the judge plenty of tools to control the process. And, in the end, the judge always has judgement notwithstanding the verdict.
Thus, if the judge is NOT operating as a partisan hack, it makes great sense for the judge to be as professional as possible and that means following the law, following precedent and making legally sound judgement calls that are unlikely to be overturned.
And if the judge IS operating as a partisan hack, it makes great sense to ensure Trump is not publicly vindicated by having his summary judgment overturned.
Either way, it is in the best interest of the judge to produce decisions that will survive scrutiny and NOT be overturned.
[deleted]
As I look at pictures of the former President at trial, I wonder to myself, how much longer before we have a real insurrection.
It is wrong and the people know it.
How much longer before the ruling elite are taken down?
This comment is beneath contempt. It is a form of death wishing. I am ashamed it is posted on this forum and I am in its company.
Why does Trump's head in that photo look so much bigger than the two people sitting next to him? Is it photoshopped ?
I don't think it looks that much bigger than the man sitting next to him. Didn't MSNBC or CNN show the film/photos of Trump in the courtroom?
And to think that James and the goofy judge went to so much trouble allowing the camera's in.
You do not recognize Trump as an exemplar ruling elite?
No. I see him as the people's David vs the elite's Goliath.
Donald Trump is a great many things. A proper martyr - Not!
Trump is absolutely NOT doing anything for the people. Trump acts for Trump and Trump alone.
Let's start with that wall that the democrats resisted & prevented from being built.
Wouldn't that have alleviated what is happening now?
If not, why is Mayorkas suddenly calling for it?
Dude.
No.
Seriously.
People like you literally make excuses for every single one of his bad deeds, which are legion at this point.
For decades he has been lying to the tax collectors and to financial institutions about his wealth and the value of his properties. There seems to be a law against doing that. Now he is , al long last , being held to account.
And all you can say is that he is being persecuted and if they keep persecuting him there may well be violence.
And you consider yourself a patriot?
Yes, I do. I'm not up there with our veterans, but I do care about this country.
Donald Trump has failed to pay or filed bankruptcy on legions of small businesses and individuals in New York over the last fifty years. He was a bully and basically a common mobster the way he has abused NY courts to cheat New Yorkers. He has broken and flaunted New York laws and is now finally facing justice. "WHAA!"
Funny how their view of the border changed when they were faced with a small fraction of what border states are dealing with isn't it?
He's calling for it because he's lied to congressional committees about the problem with the border and has been called on it publicly. It wasn't until Governor Abbot and DeSantis started sending illegals to Democrat shitholes that these dimwit Democrats Mayors and Governors started to feel the pain. And in turn they are putting pressure on him.
Mayorkas is trying (and failing miserably) to save his ass.
That reflects more on NY failures than anybody else. I guess it wasn't until he beat the Democrats that it was a problem.
And, again, it wasn't until he beat the Democrats that it was a problem. Next talking point!
I do not see anything in your post that shows Trump cares about the people.
Do you NOT recognize that 'the wall' is (and was) a key point underlying Trump's demagoguery? Every demagogue has key points they use to rally the people around them. The wall is one of them for Trump. "Drain the swamp" is another.
Clearly (and sadly) the methods used by demagogues work.
I for one enjoy calling out people who have never served a second, who try to label others here who have served, unpatriotic.
I generalize but I find those folks to be the real military haters. Some try to disguise it but it comes out sooner or later if one knows what to look for and is paying attention.
We have more than one of those right here on NTers.
Did Trump fail to pay or file bankruptcy on legions of small businesses and individuals in New York over the last fifty years?
The incompetence / tolerance of New York does not turn wrongdoing into right.
Was it wrong for Trump to fail to pay / file bankruptcy to avoid paying what he owed?
Then, I guess you and I just don't see things the same way.
And yet we see NY in the midst of a civil suit that was never used before. Wonder why.
What do you think of this?:
Was it wrong for Trump to fail to pay / file bankruptcy to avoid paying what he owed?
Ya think?
I will confirm this. I see Trump as a pathological lying, narcissistic demagogue. He cares more about his ego than he does the CotUS and this nation ... evidenced quite clearly with his Big Lie actions after losing the 2020 election (and continuing to this day).
Indeed, we do not see things the same way.
And yet we see NY in the midst of a civil suit that was never used before. Wonder why.
To add insult to injury, Trump simultaneously failed to pay his obligations while falsely claiming to be unimaginably wealthy...
Same old game. I ask a direct question and you deflect:
Was it wrong for Trump to fail to pay / file bankruptcy to avoid paying what he owed?
Slightly off topic, but relevant
[Deleted]
It was completely out of line.
What do you think about the many times Biden has lied to and lost the faith with the US military?
Biden lied and 13 Marines died.
[Deleted]
Indeed!
I am always against lying — especially by the PotUS.
No? Let's see..
Someone who hasn't been told no his entire scummy life.
[removed]
And you seen to be bother by 'first' all of a sudden?
Trump is as stupid as he is evil, in my opinion.
I very seriously doubt if Biden EVER had the "faith" of the conservative "branches" of the military to begin with. After all, still talking about Afghanistan. . . maybe we should still be there. Maybe we should just put forces everywhere and let them all there indefinitely. Wait! Then what would conservatives say about. . . COST?!!
I have no idea what you are posting that to convey. Too pithy a comment for any earthly good, maybe?
Your comment shows a very sophomoric understanding of the concepts at play here. Understandable since you never served.
There is no conservative or liberal branch of the military. That ended after slave owner Democrats were defeated by Republicans in our Civil War.
Now there is only one branch. The military branch.
Your remark is sophomoric. As I did serve in the military. I have addressed it with you before, I am pretty sure over the years. So now what?
Besides this is not about me but about military loss of faith in its leader which you hastily put forth without any proof (but lots of hope for fanfare).
Perhaps the military lost faith after the botched withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Ah yes, the PeeWee Herman “I know you are but what am I” gambit.
Classic
So now, I don’t recall that. What branch? What did you do?
You made the comment about the “conservative branch” of the military. Which makes one wonder about your “service” since there is no such thing. At least not when I was in.
I am sure you think so; you think so little of the government except when Donald is at the stern of the ship of state.
Actually, that seems much more like an invention on your part.
Seriously, you don't even think it is possible for anyone in the military to have become disillusioned with the C in C after that disaster?
Well, alrighty then!
It is a writing convention to place a world or phrase in scare quotes when its meaning is not literal. You have been using them to be. . ."smart" in your rhetoric towards me. And still not caught on to the practice?
Anyway, of course there is no LITERAL conservative branch of the military. Never 'thunk' it to be.
What might I have meant with this section of my comment at 20.3.31: "I very seriously doubt if Biden EVER had the "faith" of the conservative "branches" of the military to begin with."
Well, "faith" means I doubt that faith is a thing MAGA puts in the military since MAGA can't control the entirety of the military complex. And, conservative "branches" meaning the services that MAGA consider of any value to its purposes: Conservative servicemembers.
As to my service all that you need to know is that it occurred. Because if you think we need to compare how long, wide, deep, and the thrust of my service-I will just say that it was so long, wide, deep, and thrusting that I did not have to ask if there were conservative or liberal wings.
Anyone in the military is a miniscule quantity of individual, singular. Why would I not think anyone (singular) in the military is disillusioned with the C and C after the relevant incident in Afghanistan? Of course, anyone or several or hundreds or several thousand can be disillusioned about any number of things do with Afghanistan. Anyone individual is not what is meant when a writer tries to make a broad statement such as:
The U.S. Military is a diverse organization composed of many political points of view and can not be limited to conservative servicemembers so it is not helpful to pretend that some conservative COLLECTIVE point or points of view is the be all that ends all for servicemembers. Liberals and Others serve and have worldviews that count in the military stream of consciousness, too.
You brought conservatives in the military up.
Why?
What POINT are you attempting to make?
Or just the usual harangue about some conservatives?
Words have meaning. You should be more careful in how you chose them. Especially when they are 100% wrong.
As for your service. Noted that your comment refuses to share even the most basic of explanations on same. No one is asking for your DD214.
Telling.
“No one is asking for your DD214.
Telling”
Seems someone is.
Exactly, CB should only provide name, rank and serial number although branch of service would be nice as some of us would have more common experiences that we can relate to.
I truly hope you are just being flip.
Name, and Serial number will do. The DD 214 is public record.
Hope is not a method, truly.
Please rephrase that so that I might understand what it is you are actually wanting here.
I have no earthly idea what ...untruth....you have 'discovered', but do enlighten me with some specifics instead of such broad generalities.
There is your. . . . . . untruth. Now will you fix it or let it 'stand'? We shall see what comes next.
Huh?
I don't have to indulge you and vice-versa. Did you ask Trump for any of his documents when you had the chance? Why not?! Incidentally, you seem to yet be going on as if you don't understand the purpose of "scare quotes" - why don't you understand the purpose of scare quotes? This is dragging on for no good purpose other than typing.
Indulge yourself. Go ahead.
Maybe you don't understand, because it truly is an "A" and "B" area of discussion where you should "c" yourself out of it.
What are you giving me permission to indulge myself with?
This is you in 20.3.31.
If you can quote any post starting at 20.3 and ending with yours that mentions conservatives in the military, you will have proven me wrong.
Here is an opportunity to prove me wrong.
Prove yourself wrong. Go for it.
Here is my 20.3.31 in entirety:
Okay, great, we both cut and pasted the same exact thing.
Now, where is the post where someone else brought conservatives in the military up-as asked previously?
Wow. That happened.
Yeah, you’re busted.
Again.
Well there you go: You busted me. I'm a 'bad' boy or is that 'bad girl'? /s
Your reply seems cryptic.
Yes, we have a phrase for that.
It’s called ….. stolen valor.
Just curious...
when and where?
[Deleted]
So those over a thousand thugs arrested for 'protesting' at the former 'president's' incited failed coup/insurrection wasn't real.
FFS