Learned A Couple Interesting Things About The Trump Tax Fraud Allegations This Afternoon

  
By:  John Russell  •  2 weeks ago  •  135 comments


Learned A Couple Interesting Things About The Trump Tax Fraud Allegations This Afternoon
 

Leave a comment to auto-join group NEWSMucks

NEWSMucks



I'll make this short but sweet and see what comments come. 

Donald Trump took the 5th amendment hundreds of times when he gave a deposition related to THIS investigation. For example, he was asked if he represented the size of his Trump Tower apartment as 30,000 square feet (which would make it the most valuable apartment property in the history of New York City  and inflate Trump's worth for the purpose of getting loans and good interest rates) when the actual size is 11,000 square ft. When asked that exact question at the deposition (and other questions directly related) Trump took 5th amendment( (in other words said he would not answer on the grounds that it might incriminate him).  Trump took the fifth time after time in response to SPECIFIC questions about this tax fraud. 

Still think he's "innocent" ? 

I also saw today that Trump and his lawyers tried to settle this case with the NY AG's office , but the AG Letitia James rejected the settlement offer. 

The AG made a good decision making this a civil case. The government will now be allowed to tell the jury that Trump took the 5th amendment 440 times when asked specific questions about tax fraud. 


Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1  author  JohnRussell    2 weeks ago
The basic scheme alleged in the complaint is straightforward. Trump would use different valuations for properties depending on what he needed: When he wanted to lower his taxes, he’d claim a low valuation; if he wanted to obtain loans on more favorable terms, he would inflate the valuation. His overarching his goal was to inflate his claimed personal net worth year over year, which in turn allowed him to obtain better loans by personally guaranteeing them—all built on bogus claims about his assets.

“Claiming you have money you do not have does not amount to the art of the deal,” James said at a press conference. “It’s the art of the steal.”

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
1.1  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @1    one week ago

I realize this is unglamorous.

I have been saying... for years... that this is the winnable legal case against Trump.

You were never going to impeach him over a vaguely dodgy phone call.  You are never going to prove incitement or sedition when he said "peaceful" and all the rioters left on their own.

99% of the stuff people rant about over Trump is just a giant stupid emotional tantrum that will never amount to anything. 

This is different.

Financial misconduct is provable.  Usually fairly easily provable.  Intentional misrepresentation of financial data is fraud.

The major question remaining is whether a person who thinks the phrase "art of the steal" is clever is actually smart enough to win what should be a fairly easy case.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.1  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1    one week ago
You are never going to prove incitement or sedition when he said "peaceful" and all the rioters left on their own.

You left out all sorts of details.  One of many examples:  Trump knew for hours that his people broke and entered the capitol and refused the pleas of his advisors, family and 'friends' to intercede.  It took three hours before he interceded and even then he excused the rioters.   The action he did take within those three hours was to tweet that Pence had let them down.   Right in the middle of a known insurrection, Trump fans the flames and against his own V.P. who was still in the building and able to be harmed.

This is far more involved than simply "I used the word 'peaceful' so there is no case against me".

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
1.1.2  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.1    one week ago
You left out all sorts of details.

And you're about to.

Nobody claims this is a comprehensive review of a potential sedition charge against Trump.  

I know you believe a sedition charge against Trump is viable.

You know I believe a sedition charge against Trump is laughable.

We've had that discussion, and this is not the time or place to replay it.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.3  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.2    one week ago
And you're about to.

I am about to leave out all sorts of details?

I know you believe a sedition charge against Trump is viable.   You know I believe a sedition charge against Trump is laughable.

Sedition is my approximation.   The actual charges would be a legal / constitutional determination.   What I believe is that Trump engaged in acts that violated his oath of office and that he acted against the best interests of the nation and its government.    And many of his actions involved feeding his supporters lies about the nation and its government and working them up emotionally on the false belief that they were in effect disenfranchised and that the USA presidential election was a fraud.

This is not laughable to me.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
1.1.4  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.3    one week ago
I am about to leave out all sorts of details?

Yes.  And you did.  As is appropriate for this discussion in this seed.

This is not laughable to me.

Which is why I said I find it laughable.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.5  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.4    one week ago
And you did. 

So you were simply stating the obvious.   Yes, I stated that I intentionally gave but one example.  

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
1.1.6  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.5    one week ago
Yes, I stated that I intentionally gave but one example.

And I presumed people reading my comment would be perceptive enough to understand ... without needing specific explanation ... that I was giving one example.

To reiterate the point that seems to be dissolving in unrelated minutia...  Based on evidence currently available to the public, the odds of convicting Trump on anything related to Jan 6 are so ridiculously small as to be laughable.  

The odds of winning in court over financial misconduct appear much, much higher.

If you're going to get him, this is where it's most likely to happen.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.7  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.6    one week ago
Based on evidence currently available to the public, the odds of convicting Trump on anything related to Jan 6 are so ridiculously small as to be laughable.  

We are seeing two very different realities.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
2  Dismayed Patriot    2 weeks ago
Still think he's "innocent" ?

Apparently Donald Trump thinks he's guilty since he's pleading the 5th hundreds of times...

"The mob takes the Fifth. If you're innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?" - DJT

“If you’re not guilty of a crime, what do you need immunity for?” - DJT

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
2.1  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2    2 weeks ago
Apparently Donald Trump thinks he's guilty since he's pleading the 5th hundreds of times...

You should know that it doesn’t matter what Trump thinks, it matters what can be proved.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.1    2 weeks ago

In a civil case the jury will be told that Trump pleaded the 5th hundreds of times in response to specific allegations in this case. It's hard to see how that will help his case. 

 
 
 
George
Freshman Silent
2.1.2  George  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.1    2 weeks ago

I keep hearing innocent and guilty. Even from condescending know it alls.

I weep for our republic.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.1.3  Drakkonis  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.1    2 weeks ago
In a civil case the jury will be told that Trump pleaded the 5th hundreds of times in response to specific allegations in this case. It's hard to see how that will help his case.

It seems fairly strange that whether or not a jury can use such information depends on whether it is a criminal or civil trial. Why would it be okay in one but not the other? This question has no connection to Trump, since it isn't dependent upon who is being tried but, rather, where: civil or criminal court. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.4  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.3    2 weeks ago

Great question.   We would need an attorney to answer the legal philosophy behind allowing pleading the 5th to be viewed as an inferred liability in civil cases but not even allowing the pleas to be known in a criminal case.   I suppose the main reason is the difference in severity between criminal and civil.   But that is not a very satisfying answer.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.5  TᵢG  replied to  George @2.1.2    2 weeks ago

People are often imprecise in their language ... especially in forums.

I am sure everyone is impressed that you realize civil cases find for the defendant or plaintiff and establish liability rather than guilt.   Your choice to repeat this on multiple articles is a bit pedantic — especially when it is presented in a demeaning fashion (and you complain about others being condescending).

An alternate method would be to simply explain the difference.   Something like:

Civil trials establish liability (or not).   

Criminal trials establish guilt (or not).

It does not make sense (in legal terms) to speak of guilt (and certainly not innocence) in a civil trial.

Probably more effective than calling people morons, fools, etc.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.1.6  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.4    2 weeks ago
But that is not a very satisfying answer.

No, not really, which isn't a fault on your part. Along the same lines, when someone is acquitted in criminal court but is then allowed to be tried in civil court for the same thing seems to me double jeopardy. I don't understand it. How can you be innocent in one way and guilty in another, as if there are two standards? It seems more like vindictiveness. 

 That was a question divorced from Trump. What I say now is simply an observation, or perhaps an opinion, concerning Trump. As I understand it, Trump is being tried in a civil court by the New York AG. Why civil court? That isn't a question I'm asking you but, rather, myself. What it feels like is that they know they can't win a criminal case so they are trying him in a civil court which, to my mind, feels more like a court of opinion than law. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.7  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.6    2 weeks ago
I don't understand it. How can you be innocent in one way and guilty in another, as if there are two standards? It seems more like vindictiveness. 

Well that is the nuance.   Guilt vs. liability.   One can be found liable for an act but not found guilty of breaking the law (criminal).   So OJ was not found guilty of killing Nicole and Ronald (but clearly he was).    He was, however, found liable for a wrongful death of the two.

To wit, he was found to be responsible (liable) for their deaths but was not found to be guilty of the crime of murder.

As I understand it, Trump is being tried in a civil court by the New York AG. Why civil court? That isn't a question I'm asking you but, rather, myself.

It might be both as the AG is referring this to the DoJ (and the IRS).   But one reason the AG might go civil is because Trump took the 5th so many times and in a civil trial the jury can be made aware of this and consider it to be inferred liability.   It is a way to better increase the odds of a win.   Given Trump has a good record for prevailing in court —and is in a substantially better position now that he is a former PotUS— I suspect the AG is focused first on just winning and second on winning properly.

What it feels like is that they know they can't win a criminal case so they are trying him in a civil court which, to my mind, feels more like a court of opinion than law. 

I concur but I do not think they have presumed they would lose in a criminal case but rather that they are almost certain to win in a civil case.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
2.1.8  Gsquared  replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.6    2 weeks ago
when someone is acquitted in criminal court but is then allowed to be tried in civil court for the same thing seems to me to be double jeopardy... How can you be innocent in one and guilty in another, as if there are two standards?

It's not double jeopardy because one trial is about guilt for a crime  which can result in punishment by the government, while the other is about liability (fault) for damages, which can result in a monetary award to the aggrieved party.  And, there are, in fact, two standards.  The government's burden of proof in a criminal prosecution is to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  The burden of proof in a civil action is a preponderance of the evidence, or, as is sometimes said "more likely than not".  The burden of proof in a civil case is a lesser burden than the government's burden of proof in a criminal case.

As to the question of why the New York is bringing a civil action instead of a criminal case, it's my understanding that in these circumstances, the New York Attorney General does not have the power to prosecute a criminal case.  I don't know enough about New York law to provide any further information on that question.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
2.1.9  Gsquared  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.4    2 weeks ago

Under California law, it is not permissible for attorneys to argue that there is an inference of guilt based on a defendant pleading the 5th Amendment.  The attorneys are not allowed to comment on it or raise it as an issue at trial.

The refusal to provide evidence based on the 5th Amendment can, in some instances, result in issue exclusion, or the exclusion of certain evidence at trial, but that is a complicated subject.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
2.1.10  Gsquared  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.7    2 weeks ago

See my Comment 2.1.8.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.1.11  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.7    one week ago
Well that is the nuance.   Guilt vs. liability.   One can be found liable for an act but not found guilty of breaking the law (criminal).

Not a bad observation.

It is a way to better increase the odds of a win.   Given Trump has a good record for prevailing in court, and now that he is a former PotUS, I suspect the AG is focused first on just winning and second on winning properly.

Agreed. However, I feel that Trump is simply an icon being made to represent the entirety of one side of a larger battle in the same manner Biden is being put forth as an icon of the opposing side. In reality, each is just a fallible man, yet each side acts as if the larger issues are dependent on them. In other words, forget about what we stand for, look at how we portray what we claim we oppose!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.12  Tessylo  replied to  George @2.1.2    one week ago

So you include yourself as one of those 'condescending know it alls' there George?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.13  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.5    one week ago

I have to hand it to you, again, TiG for your mastery in dealing with trollish behavior.  It's much appreciated by all.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.14  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @2.1.11    one week ago
However, I feel that Trump is simply an icon being made to represent the entirety of one side of a larger battle in the same manner Biden is being put forth as an icon of the opposing side.

On this, I think one must go beyond the symbolic aspect and recognize that Trump has done wrong.   He clearly has done wrong in his Big Lie campaign and in holding classified TS/SCI documents in his home.   Given his past, it is more likely than not that he inflated / deflated assets to his benefit in securing loans, paying taxes, etc.   

In short, while one can make a sound symbolic argument, one can also make a sound wrongdoing (if not criminal wrongdoing) argument for Trump.   That is a major difference between the two symbols.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.15  TᵢG  replied to  Gsquared @2.1.9    one week ago
Under California law, it is not permissible for attorneys to argue that there is an inference of guilt based on a defendant pleading the 5th Amendment. 

I believe they can under New York law.   There seems to be a little counter-precedence but predominantly (overwhelmingly it seems) it is allowed to consider the 5th plea when deciding liability.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
2.1.16  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.1    one week ago
In a civil case the jury will be told that Trump pleaded the 5th hundreds of times in response to specific allegations in this case. It's hard to see how that will help his case. 

If the number of times he took the 5th is important in any way to their case, they've already lost.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.17  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.16    one week ago

If, and I believe this is true in New York, his 440 taking of the 5th allows judge and jury to draw an adverse inference in support of liability.   That would be supportive of the case.    The judge and jury are human beings and this would obviously influence their judgment against Trump (to what degree is hard to measure).

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.18  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.16    one week ago

I'm guessing that most cases of tax fraud dont have defendants that take the 5th 440 times. If it is a civil case I would assume such 'evidence' definitely effects the jury. Why wouldn't it? 

If Trump could have answered the questions without incriminating himself a braggart like him would have done so willingly. 

I think when the jury is told took the 5th on very specific questions about his misrepresentation of his assets it will work considerably against him. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.1.19  Trout Giggles  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.4    one week ago

Don't quote me but I think the burden of proof in a civil case is not as stringent as in a criminal case which is why the court can allow the jury to hear that he pleaded the 5th numerous times

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
2.1.20  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.18    one week ago
I'm guessing that most cases of tax fraud dont have defendants that take the 5th 440 times.

Why would you guess that?  Even if it's true that can easily be turned to Trump's advantage.  

Why would you ever want to hand Trump's lawyers the opportunity to create chaos and confusion?  It's a potential golden parachute.

His legal team will almost surely press the idea that this is an unfounded witch hunt brought by an ambitious politician who has already benefitted from singling out Trump for prosecution before she even held office.  

They will have little difficulty finding certain specific questions he refused to answer and making the case that they were a form of persecution rather than prosecution.  If it actually is a fact that no other defendant has been questioned so aggressively, that will only add to their argument.

At the very least, it gives the Trump legal team an open invitation to mire the proceedings in extraneous details. That's surely going to be an ongoing strategy anyway, so making that easier for them is absolutely a terrible idea.  It opens up all sorts of great opportunities for Trump and the potential gain for the state is microscopic.

Again, financial misconduct is almost always pretty easy to prove.  There is always a paper trail.  It's concrete. It's empirical.  It's cold, hard, numerical facts.  It requires no speculation as to why somebody did or didn't answer a question.  This should be an easy case to win if they don't screw it up by giving ammunition to the enemy.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.21  TᵢG  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.1.19    one week ago

I agree that the burden of proof is lower in a civil case.   I can certainly believe that contributes to allowing the taking of the 5th to be considered.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
2.1.22  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.17    one week ago
That would be supportive of the case.

Assuming there is no counter argument made.  Which of course there will be.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.23  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.22    one week ago

Do you mean a counter-argument that persuasively explains why Trump refused to answer probative questions 440 times during his deposition?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.1.24  Trout Giggles  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.22    one week ago
Assuming there is no counter argument made.

I can't wait to hear the counter argument

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
2.1.25  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.23    one week ago
Do you mean a counter-argument that persuasively explains why Trump refused to answer probative questions 440 times during his deposition?

I mean an argument that not only provides a plausible explanation but uses that explanation to create substantial doubt as to whether or not this is a witch hunt specifically designed to advance the AG's political career.

It's not even that difficult.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.26  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.25    one week ago

If the evidence and argument in this case is sound then I think the AG will be given the benefit of the doubt.   Trump's taking the 5th will thus be harmful to his case.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
2.1.27  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.26    one week ago
If the evidence and argument in this case is sound then I think the AG will be given the benefit of the doubt.   Trump's taking the 5th will thus be harmful to his case.

If the evidence in the case is sound, it would be foolish to create a scenario where there is a doubt of which one would need the benefit.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.28  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.20    one week ago

You have a lot of faith in the ability of a jury to ignore the fact that he took the fifth 440 times, mostly in response to precise questions.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
2.1.29  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.28    one week ago

Guess he could have said "I don't recall" like another pol did...........................

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
2.1.30  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.28    one week ago
You have a lot of faith in the ability of a jury to ignore the fact that he took the fifth 440 times, mostly in response to precise questions.

You're not following.   It won't be a question of ignoring anything.  

This data point gives the Trump team a chance to make the whole suit about James instead of Trump.  If she gives them that chance, they're not going to pass it up.  They are already going to be looking for ways to paint him as the victim in the room.  This puts them 50% of the way there.

There are over 400 of these questions.  It's going to be very easy for them to find a dozen or so that sound overly combative or invasive or off-topic or personal or have some other verbiage that they can easily represent as out of bounds and/or harassment. 

At that point, a very simple case becomes a very complex one.  Complexity, confusion and chaos have always been domains where Trump thrives.  If they give him the home-field advantage, he'll win.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.31  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.27    one week ago
If the evidence in the case is sound, it would be foolish to create a scenario where there is a doubt of which one would need the benefit.  

If the evidence shows Trump to be liable, his taking of the 5th will serve to solidify that;  to bring further confidence to the jury.   If the evidence is weak, then his taking the 5th would likely have no effect.   

I do not expect the evidence in this case to be weak; it makes no sense to pursue a civil case against a former PotUS unless the case is very strong.   It is public knowledge that he took the 5th 440 times.   The end result of this is, IMO, Trump's taking the 5th 440 times will hurt him.   Thing is, in the end, Trump taking the 5th probably is net good for him.   If he had answered the questions honestly, he likely would have self-incriminated and that is all bad for Trump.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
2.1.32  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.31    one week ago
If the evidence shows Trump to be liable, his taking of the 5th will serve to solidify that;  to bring further confidence to the jury.   If the evidence is weak, then his taking the 5th would likely have no effect.   

If the evidence shows Trump to be liable (and I suspect it probably will), anything that can be used to distract from that benefits Trump.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.33  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.30    one week ago

As I understand it, there are about 100 different instances that the AG is alleging where Trump lied about his financial holdings. I dont know the specific number , but there is a specific number. The 440 questions to which he took the fifth were related to those specific instances and as I understand it the questions to Trump were about specific dishonest statements he had made. 

The prosecutor can tell the jury what each of those hundred questions was, and that Trump refused to answer all of them because , according to the usage of the fifth amendment, he didnt want to incriminate himself. 

I think that sort of recitation will be very damaging to Trump. 

I have seen tv attorneys say that the Trump lawyers will be defenseless to the 5th amendment material, but maybe you are a better lawyer than these attorneys who give their analysis on television are. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.34  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.30    one week ago
There are over 400 of these questions.  It's going to be very easy for them to find a dozen or so that sound overly combative or invasive or off-topic or personal or have some other verbiage that they can easily represent as out of bounds and/or harassment. 

That would be an argument for how to design the questions in the deposition.   That ship has sailed.   We are dealing with the fact that Trump refused to answer every question in the deposition except for his name.  

Your argument suggests that they should not have even deposed Trump because any complexity (i.e. any question) provides an opportunity for Trump's attorneys to introduce confusion.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.35  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.32    one week ago
If the evidence shows Trump to be liable (and I suspect it probably will), anything that can be used to distract from that benefits Trump.  

I disagree that his taking the 5th 440 times will enable a net legal distraction.  The evidence and argument will set the trend.  If strong, the taking of the 5th will simply amplify the confidence of the jury.

We are now repeating ourselves.   

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
2.1.36  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.33    one week ago
As I understand it, there are about 100 different instances that the AG is alleging where Trump lied about his financial holdings.

If she has that evidence, she would be a complete idiot to deviate from that.  How many times he took the 5th is just a stupid distraction.

I think that sort of recitation will be very damaging to Trump. 

It would be "damaging", in the same way as hitting him with a pool noodle instead of the brass knuckles she's wearing.

Do you remember the 1985 Bears?  If she really has the type of evidence you describe (and I don't doubt it), it's like the 85 Bears with the ball, 1st and goal from the Lions 1 ft line.

Now...she can either choose to do the simple thing... give Walter Payton the ball behind Refrigerator Perry blocking... or she can call a double reverse behind the back flea flicker Statue of Liberty flanker pass to the third-string tight end. 

The first option is almost guaranteed to put the ball in the end zone.  The second option creates about 85 needless chances for something to go stupidly wrong.  

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
2.1.37  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.34    one week ago
That would be an argument for how to design the questions in the deposition.

Not anymore.

   We are dealing with the fact that Trump refused to answer every question in the deposition except for his name.  

No.  You're dealing with the perception surrounding that, and how that perception can be manipulated.

Your argument suggests that they should not have even deposed Trump because any complexity (i.e. any question) provides an opportunity for Trump's attorneys to introduce confusion.

That's moronic. Really.  Completely moronic.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.38  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.37    one week ago
No.  You're dealing with the perception surrounding that, and how that perception can be manipulated.

'No' is incorrect.  Yes we are absolutely dealing with the fact that Trump refused to answer 440 questions.   But of course we are talking about the perception of that fact.  

That's moronic. Really.  Completely moronic.

Not the best way to keep a discussion civil.

You argued @2.1.30:

There are over 400 of these questions.  It's going to be very easy for them to find a dozen or so that sound overly combative or invasive or off-topic or personal or have some other verbiage that they can easily represent as out of bounds and/or harassment At that point, a very simple case becomes a very complex one.  Complexity, confusion and chaos have always been domains where Trump thrives.  If they give him the home-field advantage, he'll win.

You deem it 'moronic' for me to state, for the above, the following:

Your argument suggests that they should not have even deposed Trump because any complexity (i.e. any question) provides an opportunity for Trump's attorneys to introduce confusion.

You suggest that Trump's attorneys can find a dozen or so questions that sound overly combative and invasive or off-topic or personal, etc. that they can spin into unfair treatment / harassment of Trump.    So if asking Trump questions in a deposition opens up the possibility for Trump's attorneys to introduce confusion then logically they should ask fewer questions.   Indeed, why ask even a single question per your reasoning;  no questions = no risk?

An alternate way of operating is to simply put forth the best questions you can and seek probative value.   If the deponent takes the 5th then you deal with it.   In this case, the deponent refused to answer 440 questions ... every question other than his name.   If the argument and evidence goes against Trump,  the fact (and the perception of the fact) that Trump refused to answer on the grounds he might self-incriminate will not work in Trump's favor.

I do not see the plaintiff discussing individual questions into this trial.    Thus the defendant would bring in these questions for individual discussion.  So, logically, if you were advising the plaintiff would you suggest they NOT depose Trump and thus avoid producing questions (albeit no answers) that could then be used by the defendant to confuse?   If not, what specifically would you advise the plaintiff to do with regards to the deposition?   How many questions would you advise the plaintiff to ask to mitigate the defendant from finding fodder for confusion?

Yeah, in short, I am not buying your argument.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
2.1.39  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.38    one week ago
'No' is incorrect.  Yes we are absolutely dealing with the fact that Trump refused to answer 440 questions.   But of course we are talking about the perception of that fact.  

You pretend that anything other than the perception matters.

Not the best way to keep a discussion civil.

Neither is misrepresenting what other people say and claiming they hold moronic views.

So if asking Trump questions in a deposition opens up the possibility for Trump's attorneys to introduce confusion then logically they should ask fewer questions.

Not what I said, though.  Is it?

If the argument and evidence goes against Trump,  the fact (and the perception of the fact) that Trump refused to answer on the grounds he might self-incriminate will not work in Trump's favor.

If the evidence goes against Trump, anything else is a distraction. 

So, logically, if you were advising the plaintiff would you suggest they NOT depose Trump and thus avoid producing questions (albeit no answers) that could then be used by the defendant to confuse?

Still moronic.  Although the introduction of the word "logically" does provide some ironic comedy.

Yeah, in short, I am not buying your argument.

By which you mean you're not buying the argument you think I made because you didn't follow the conversation correctly.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
2.1.40  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.39    one week ago
'No' is incorrect.  Yes we are absolutely dealing with the fact that Trump refused to answer 440 questions.   But of course we are talking about the perception of that fact.  
You pretend that anything other than the perception matters.

By stating " But of course we are talking about the perception of the fact."  

That to you, states TiG is "pretending" ??

Cause what exactly are you pretending he is saying when he just stated what he is saying in black and white and you block quote him ?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.41  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.39    one week ago
You pretend that anything other than the perception matters.

Really?  I that what I am pretending?  Consider that it is much easier to shape perception towards what is established by the facts than it is to shape perception in contrast to the facts.    As an example, refusing to answer every question other than his name by taking the 5th translates into Trump holding that all 440 questions he did not answer would serve to incriminate him.   That is legally what is required to be able to take the 5th.    One cannot simply refuse to answer questions.   It does not work that way.    Thus the judge and jury will know that Trump believed he would self-incriminate if he answered any of those 440 questions.

The facts of a) how the 5th is defined and used in legal proceedings and b) Trump's use of it 440 times (every question other than his name) leads rather directly to the perception that Trump is liable;  this is the 'adverse inference' of law.   It is much easier to shape a perception of liability than it is to shape a perception of non-liability.

Not sure about you, but I would much prefer to be a defendant whose behavior during my deposition enables an adverse inference to be taken by the judge and jury.

Neither is misrepresenting what other people say and claiming they hold moronic views.

Jack, do you not realize that you are the one who called my views moronic?   I have made no such comment about yours.  In fact the first mention of the word 'moronic' in this entire seed came from you.   Read what you wrote @2.1.37:

Jack @2.1.37That's moronic. Really.  Completely moronic.

Given you are Jack and I am TiG, shouldn't I be the one complaining about you deeming my views moronic?

Not what I said, though.  Is it?

I quoted you carefully and yet you still play this game of 'not what I said'.   Fine, you refuse to acknowledge the logical implication of what you wrote.

By which you mean you're not buying the argument you think I made because you didn't follow the conversation correctly

Are you illustrating here how attorney's might confuse the audience to muddy the waters in their favor?

This discussion has devolved and is now clearly a waste of time.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
2.1.42  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.41    one week ago
Consider that it is much easier to shape perception towards what is established by the facts than it is to shape perception in contrast to the facts.

Which of course has nothing to do with the point you're ignoring.

As an example, refusing to answer every question other than his name by taking the 5th translates into Trump holding that all 440 questions he did not answer would serve to incriminate him.

That is how you perceive it.  Let's remember that you are not impartial.  You have stated repeatedly you think Trump has committed crimes. 

It is much easier to shape a perception of liability than it is to shape a perception of non-liability.

The question will be "whose liability".  Trump's legal team already has ample evidence to make the accusation that this entire case is a political hatchet job to benefit the AG. 

Jack, do you not realize that you are the one who called my views moronic?   I have made no such comment about yours. 

No, you said "your argument suggests", and then followed it with a completely moronic statement.  It's like me saying "well TiG, your argument suggests that Joe Biden is actually a Martian who has been employed by the Kremlin to steal Kamala Harris' underwear".  No it fucking doesn't, and only a moron would suggest that.  

I quoted you carefully and yet you still play this game of 'not what I said'.   Fine, you refuse to acknowledge the logical implication of what you wrote.

Except you didn't quote me.  And there is absolutely nothing logical about your misinterpretation.

I absolutely never said or implied that he should not have been deposed.  I said... so you didn't need to infer..which didn't stop you from doing it incorrectly...  that the AG should not make a point of the number of questions he refused to answer.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
2.1.43  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.42    one week ago
I absolutely never said or implied that he should not have been deposed.  I said... so you didn't need to infer..which didn't stop you from doing it incorrectly...  that the AG should not make a point of the number of questions he refused to answer.

Well, that would make TWO individuals that saw your "inferred" meanings meaning  (Virtually) absolutely you stating that it was worthless to attempt to catch the Teflon Donald Trump because of the slime that surrounds his exterior portrayed persona that he actually cannot control, per his big mouth and Tweets/"Truth" Social disease gone and got him into another completely avoidabull shit scenario, wear as under, the radar is where dirty Ttrump could have remained in the Mar A Largo mess, not so in this NY mess, unless he hadn't of entered Politix me off though, how people refuse to accept him guilty of about anything. Trump is NOT above another in this country, yet his appointyed judge states otherwise, and now the 11th has brough back legal sanity, for how can that judge put Trump above oiur Nations Security, is beyond me, but you have to admit and state you see, unless you don't. Trump is about the dirtiest playing political Pol that ever swung with Russian Swingers in our FRKN White Power  House of ill repute, and not up for debate or refute. 

Trump puts his diapers on just like any other BABY every morning. There is basic black and white evidence with colorful commentary to describe, and these charges appear apparently to be not intact and wet, more like cut and dry. Where as Trump and his family LIED about specific numbers. Not just LIED, but so extremely exaggerated square footage numbers and prices varying from (11,000 to 30,000,  ,75 Million compared to $739 Million or so) on the actual value of Mar a Largo in down is where i see the orange clown , face in some very basic charges that even Trump supporters, defenders, or just plain GHOP that refuses to condemn or speak out about he, could possibly even understand. This Number, is different, than THIS NUMBER, so, someone LIED. Really don't feel there are too many ways to F that up, but hey, it is a possibility, but gonna have to doubt that possibility gets to reach fruition, in addition, perhaps you could make your points a tad more precise for if both TiG and I saw your inference the same, would it be you, or would it be us to blame...?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.44  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.42    one week ago
That is how you perceive it. 

Yeah, I do indeed perceive that refusing to answer every question other than his name by taking the 5th translates into Trump holding that all 440 questions he did not answer would serve to incriminate him.   I think that would be true of most people objectively reviewing what has taken place.

And my conclusion about Trump's guilt on Jan 6th does not mean I am biased against Trump.   It is a poor argument to claim that drawing a conclusion against an individual means that one is biased against the individual and would be incapable of objective review.    

The question will be "whose liability".  Trump's legal team already has ample evidence to make the accusation that this entire case is a political hatchet job to benefit the AG. 

It does not matter the degree to which this is politically motivated.   The facts of the case are what will (at least should) determine the outcome.

No, you said "your argument suggests", and then followed it with a completely moronic statement.  

I offered the logical implication of what you wrote.   I did not claim your argument was moronic.   You, however, deemed the logical inference I noted to be moronic.    Note that when one draws a logical implication of one's argument it is often to illustrate the flaw in the argument.   Instead of providing a thoughtful rebuttal, you simply deemed my words moronic.   When I see that kind of behavior (and other) that simply shows the quality of the discussion is soon to go south.

Except you didn't quote me.

What do you call this @2.1.38?:

You argued @2.1.30:
There are over 400 of these questions.  It's going to be very easy for them to find a dozen or so that sound overly combative or invasive or off-topic or personal or have some other verbiage that they can easily represent as out of bounds and/or harassment.  At that point, a very simple case becomes a very complex one.  Complexity, confusion and chaos have always been domains where Trump thrives.  If they give him the home-field advantage, he'll win.

You deem it 'moronic' for me to state, for the above, the following:

Your argument suggests that they should not have even deposed Trump because any complexity (i.e. any question) provides an opportunity for Trump's attorneys to introduce confusion.

This game of "I did not say that" is almost always deflection.   You have suggested that Trump's attorneys could use some of the unanswered questions in the deposition and spin that into an allegation that Trump was being harassed, etc.   So questions in a deposition —even if ignored by taking the 5th— are, per you, a material liability for the plaintiff.    So what would you have advised the plaintiff to do in the deposition ... not ask any questions?   That would certainly cut the potential for spinning them down to 0%.   If not zero, how many questions do you think the plaintiff should ask before they hit a point where they compromise their argument by enabling the defense to spin their questions into harassment, etc.?   You find 440 questions to be too much, so where do you draw the line?   And does it matter how the questions are asked?   After all, one could ask five truly aggressive questions and achieve the result you predict. 

Yeah, I am not impressed with your argument.   I doubt I would ever be impressed with an argument that having hundreds of questions asked by the plaintiff in a deposition go unanswered by the defendant who took the 5th (which means he is stating that by answering he could incriminate himself) is more of a liability for the plaintiff then it is the defendant.

I absolutely never said or implied that he should not have been deposed. 

I absolutely never said that you said that either.   I stated that would, per your logic, be a way to shut down the liability for the plaintiff that you identified.   Questions are a liability for the plaintiff so logically reducing the number of questions reduces the liability.   I even asked you how many questions you think would be appropriate.   You ignore all of that and simply deflect into this meta nonsense.

I said... so you didn't need to infer..which didn't stop you from doing it incorrectly...  that the AG should not make a point of the number of questions he refused to answer.

Yeah and then when challenged on that you claimed that the defense could, in response, gather maybe a dozen or more questions and spin them into an allegation that Trump was harassed.   My rebuttal focused on that ... obviously!

And again, the defendant is free to do the dozens of questions game right now even if the plaintiff did not raise the 440 questions.   And further, there is not even a need to raise the questions since this is already public knowledge and, as I noted, the jury will obviously already know that Trump took the 5th on 440 questions and answered only the question about his name.


Clearly this is circling around pointless meta and I no longer hold this to be a serious discussion.

Bottom line, I think that Trump taking the 5th 440 times (which means he stipulated that each question could not be answered without incriminating himself) goes against him.   Any jury picked will know that he answered one question (his name) and took the 5th on every other question so it is definitely going to be a fact that they will consider.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
2.1.45  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.1    one week ago
It's hard to see how that will help his case. 

Answering the questions might have been worse,  He will say that he took the 5th since the suit is politically based.  

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
2.1.46  Jack_TX  replied to  igknorantzrulz @2.1.43    one week ago

In a thousand words of blind emotional tirade, you finally managed to say something that made sense.

This Number, is different, than THIS NUMBER, so, someone LIED.

That's how you win fraud cases.  Yoi show the number the fraudster reported is wildly different from the actual number, and any reasonable person would have known it was wrong.

You don't talk about how everyone "feels" about him exercising his constitutional rights and  have them speculate about why he did so.

Really don't feel there are too many ways to F that up

There shouldn't have been any way to fuck up the OJ prosecution, but they did.

OJs lawyers made the case about the ineptitude and bias of law enforcement.  They created a storm of confusion and doubt that eventually won the case.

If you don't think Trumps lawyers will do the same, you're incredibly naive.

I realize you have a deep, visceral, emotional hatred of Trump.  The jurors as a group will not.

The financial facts of the case will almost surely favor the state very strongly.  Speculation of any kind will erode that.  Introducing evidence that requires jurors to speculate helps the defense.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
2.1.47  Jack_TX  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.1.45    one week ago
He will say that he took the 5th since the suit is politically based.  

Yes.

And once his refusal to answer the questions is in evidence, the questions themselves are evidence, and Trumps lawyers will have a field day.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.48  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.47    one week ago

If Trump's attorneys think they can advantageously spin harassment, entrapment, mistreatment, aggression, ... whatever ... based on the questions asked during his deposition, they can on their own put the questions into evidence and do their thing.   This, IMO, would be a Hail Mary defense;  if they go this route then they are desperate.

And the jury already knows that Trump took the 5th on all 440 questions and only answered the question of his name.

I suspect the defense will pursue a strategy of complexity rather than victimhood.   

They will introduce financial concepts of depreciation, good will, appraisal methods, features, location, name-brand, leveraging of assets, deferring taxes, cash flow, etc. and supply plenty of data and witnesses to attest to the subjective nature of valuing assets and running a complex enterprise in general.   They will present the Trump practices as aggressive but normal and cite comparable practices.   They will illustrate to the jury how complex and nuanced the Trump business is and argue that the plaintiff is over simplifying in a single dimension to cast the Trump business in the worst possible and false light.   

They will, in effect, seek to introduce doubt in the minds of the jurors that this case is as clear cut as presented by the plaintiff.

I do not expect this will work, but I do suspect this is how they will play this game.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
2.1.49  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.48    one week ago
If Trump's attorneys think they can advantageously spin harassment, entrapment, mistreatment, aggression, ... whatever ... based on the questions asked during his deposition, they can on their own put the questions into evidence and do their thing.   This, IMO, would be a Hail Mary defense;  if they go this route then they are desperate.

Excellent.  The penny may be dropping.

Indeed if Trump's team raises the subject it would appear desperate and would give the state an opening to paint Trump as a desperate fraudster attempting to distract from the clear and obvious evidence of his wrongdoing.  So they probably won't.

If the state raises the subject it would appear that their actual financial evidence is too weak to stand on its own and lend credence to the claims that this is all a political witch hunt with the primary purpose of advancing Smith's career.  It will hand Trump's team a weapon that they will not hesitate to use.

I suspect the defense will pursue a strategy of complexity rather than victimhood. 

Why would those two be mutually exclusive?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.50  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.49    one week ago
Indeed if Trump's team raises the subject it would appear desperate and would give the state an opening to paint Trump as a desperate fraudster attempting to distract from the clear and obvious evidence of his wrongdoing.  So they probably won't.

The defense attorney's raising this seems desperate.   The plaintiff would not likely get into specific questions in the deposition since none were answered.   They at most would simply remind the jury that Trump took the 5th and implicitly admitted that these questions could incriminate him.   And, as I noted, this is already known to the jury.

If the state raises the subject it would appear that their actual financial evidence is too weak to stand on its own and lend credence to the claims that this is all a political witch hunt with the primary purpose of advancing Smith's career.  It will hand Trump's team a weapon that they will not hesitate to use.

If the plaintiff raises this is would be to solidify Trump's intent.   If they find that to be an important part of their case then it makes perfect sense to do this. 

Why would those two be mutually exclusive?

I do not think they are mutually exclusive; I was referring to the nature of the strategy.   If they pursued both I would expect complexity as the strategy with victimhood as a secondary argument.   I think it would be a mistake to lead with victimhood; to have a strategy of victimhood.

Thus: "I suspect the defense will pursue a strategy of complexity rather than victimhood."

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
2.1.51  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.50    one week ago
If they find that to be an important part of their case then it makes perfect sense to do this. 

If they find this an important part of their case, they're screwed.  It's lost.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.52  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.51    one week ago

Well let’s now just wait and see what happens.

 
 
 
George
Freshman Silent
3  George    2 weeks ago

Not sure why any republican would plead the 5th with a scumbag like James running the investigation.

Maybe he remembers how they treated General Flynn?

fuck James! Get some evidence or go away!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  George @3    2 weeks ago

After you took the fifth 440 times in response to questions about you committing tax fraud, what do you think people would think of you? 

 
 
 
George
Freshman Silent
3.1.1  George  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1    2 weeks ago

Why would I care? The idiots who love trump will never change and TDS is incurable. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.2  author  JohnRussell  replied to  George @3.1.1    2 weeks ago

Oh. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  George @3.1.1    one week ago

Sounds like you love whatshisname

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  George @3    one week ago
Get some evidence or go away!

That's why they are having a fit over pleading the 5th.  The evidence isn't there.  I guess exercising a constitutional right isn't what the left wants to hear.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.1  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.2    one week ago
That's why they are having a fit over pleading the 5th.  The evidence isn't there. 

Why would you presume that the AG of New York would make such a public claim if she did not have sufficient evidence?   Career suicide?   Common sense suggests that at least she and her staff believe they have sufficient evidence to prevail in court.

I guess exercising a constitutional right isn't what the left wants to hear.

Defending Trump no matter what.   Just amazing.   The guy takes the 5 th 440 times and you dismiss that as nothing.   Taking the 5 th means that the individual believes (based on legal criteria) that answering the question asked could incriminate him.   You understand that, right?   It is not a constitutional right to refuse to answer any question, it is the right to not self-incriminate: 

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees that an individual cannot be compelled by the government to provide incriminating information about herself – the so-called “right to remain silent.”  When an individual “takes the Fifth,” she invokes that right and refuses to answer questions or provide information that might incriminate her.

The Fifth Amendment can be invoked only in certain situations.

  • An individual can only invoke the Fifth Amendment in response to a communication that is   compelled , such as through a subpoena or other legal process.
  • The communication must also be   testimonial   in nature. In other words, it must relate to either express or implied assertions of fact or belief.  For example, a nod would be considered a testimonial communication for purposes of the Fifth Amendment.  So would the act of producing documents or any other piece of evidence; the act of production communicates an implied assertion that the individual possessed the evidence.
  • Finally, the testimony must be self-incriminating, such that the information would provide a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute the individual for a crime. Thus, the information itself need not be incriminating; it suffices that the information would lead to the discovery of incriminating evidence.

Because the communication must be self-incriminating , an individual who has received immunity cannot invoke the Fifth Amendment as a basis for refusing to answer questions; any statements would not be incriminating because the immunity prevents the government from using those statements (or any evidence derived from them) in a criminal prosecution against the individual.  Likewise, an individual who has received a pardon may not have any basis for invoking the Fifth Amendment.  Finally, an individual who has been convicted of a crime and sentenced cannot invoke the Fifth Amendment.

When an individual takes the Fifth, her silence or refusal to answer questions cannot be used against her in a criminal case.  A prosecutor cannot argue to the jury that the defendant’s silence implies guilt.  And prosecutors typically cannot even call a witness before the  grand jury   if the prosecutor knows the witness will invoke the Fifth Amendment. 

But taking the Fifth can have severe consequences nonetheless.  In a   civil case or a civil enforcement action , the judge or jury can draw an adverse inference to support liability when the defendant invokes the Fifth Amendment.  And an employee who invokes the Fifth Amendment in response to questions from federal agents who are investigating corporate wrongdoing might be fired as a result.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.2.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.1    one week ago
Why would you presume that the AG of New York would make such a public claim if she did not have sufficient evidence?   

Lack of action.  

Career suicide? 

Political stunt.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.3  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.2.2    one week ago

So you think the most likely reality is that the AG made her public claim because of a "lack of action"?   Is that supposed to be coherent?

And you think that she has put her career on the line merely to engage in a political stunt?   Do you realize that bringing charges and failing works in Trump's favor?   It would be insane to make a big deal about wrongdoing if the end result is that Trump is seen by the public to be a victim.   

You are not thinking this through.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.2.4  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.3    one week ago

Your question was:

Why would you presume that the AG of New York would make such a public claim if she did not have sufficient evidence?   

And my answer was:

Lack of action.  

Did I use too many big words?

Is that supposed to be coherent?

It was basic English.  Do you need a translator?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.5  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.3    one week ago

IF she is successful, she will be a shining star for Democrats. Perhaps she is gearing up for a run at governor or Senator?

I am sure she has weighed the pros and cons of 'going after Trump' and decided that going after him plays well in NY.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Masters Guide
3.2.6  Snuffy  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.3    one week ago

How many times over the past 6 years have we seen people make such public claims only to see them fall flat?  How many charges have been leveled only to fall apart later?  Her central promise during her election campaign seemed to be that she would be out to get Trump.  Hard to not see this as a political stunt.  If she wins she's a hero, if she loses she's no worse off then all the others who made public claims.  Possibly better off as her constituents are in New York State which are predominantly Democrat and if you listen to main-stream media mostly hate Trump anyway.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.7  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.5    one week ago
IF she is successful, she will be a shining star for Democrats.

Yes, Texan, she has much to gain by taking down Trump.   But that misses the point.   If she is simply going after Trump and does not have a solid case, she would accomplish the exact opposite (improve Trump's position) while ruining her career.

Therefore, it is logical to assume that at least she is convinced that she has the goods to find Trump liable.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.8  TᵢG  replied to  Snuffy @3.2.6    one week ago

see @3.2.7

If she wins she's a hero, if she loses she's no worse off then all the others who made public claims. 

If she loses she shot herself in the foot (career-wise).   Obviously she would not bring such public charges if she was just engaging in a political stunt.   Losing helps Trump; clearly that is not what she seeks.  Clearly she believes she has the means to find Trump liable.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.9  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.2.4    one week ago

QUESTION (TiG@3.2.1):   Why would you presume that the AG of New York would make such a public claim if she did not have sufficient evidence? 

ANSWER (Jeremy@3.2.2):  Lack of action.  

You presume that the AG would make such a public claim without sufficient evidence because "lack of action".

This makes sense to you?   

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.10  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.7    one week ago
Yes, Texan, she has much to gain by taking down Trump.   But that misses the point.

No it doesn't.

The point is this is a politically motivated case, as she made clear while campaigning for the job of "getting Trump". She stands to gain much from winning against Trump and the downside is she will be reelected to her present position because it is NY if she fails. Her career will not be ruined, Democrats will see to that. 

Hell, she will probably be looked upon as some kind of left-wing hero for suing Trump.  She campaigned on getting him, and by God, she is trying her best!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.11  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.10    one week ago

My point was that she would not bring these public charges unless she believed she would prevail.

It would be stupid to bring such charges and fail since that just turns into a benefit for Trump.   So if this is entirely politically motivated (and the case is bullshit) her actions go against her cause (even as you describe her cause).

You see that, right?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.12  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.11    one week ago
My point was that she would not bring these public charges unless she believed she would prevail.

God, PLEASE stop repeating your point, I fucking got it the FIRST time, stop acting like people are unable to understand English.

I see no benefit from having to defend yourself in a civil suit, but apparently you do.  Lots of money on lawyers, time wasted, etc. 

Denying it is politically motivated when THE WOMAN CAMPAIGNED ON GETTING TRUMP is denial on a galactic scale.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.13  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.12    one week ago
I fucking got it the FIRST time ...

You engage in your stupid tactic of ignoring my point and then whine when I put it back in your face.   Too bad.

I see no benefit from having to defend yourself in a civil suit, but apparently you do. 

Really?  LOL   You see no benefit in trying to defend oneself in a court of law?   So if you are sued by your neighbor because his kid broke his neck on your trampoline you see no benefit in trying to defend yourself?    

Denying it is politically motivated when THE WOMAN CAMPAIGNED ON GETTING TRUMP is denial on a galactic scale.

Where do you see me denying this?   See, you do not read (or do not comprehend) and when I then respond accordingly you whine.     


It would be stupid to bring such charges and fail since that just turns into a benefit for Trump.   So if this is entirely politically motivated (and the case is bullshit) her actions go against her cause (even as you describe her cause).

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.14  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.13    one week ago
You engage in your stupid tactic of ignoring my point and then whine when I put it back in your face.   Too bad.

Sorry I didn't fawn all over your OBVIOUSLY IMPORTANT COMMENT THAT MAKES A POINT NO ONE GIVES A FUCK ABOUT. Your sickening condescension was my real point, but you overlooked that,

Really?  LOL   You see no benefit in trying to defend oneself in a court of law?   So if you are sued by your neighbor because his kid broke his neck on your trampoline you see no benefit in trying to defend yourself?    

Be obtuse on your own time, not mine. Trump does not benefit from having to defend himself in a civil case no matter how you spin it. 

Where do you see me denying this?   See, you do not read (or do not comprehend) and when I then respond you whine that I am repeating.     

And with that, fuck off.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.15  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.14    one week ago
Trump does not benefit from having to defend himself in a civil case no matter how you spin it. 

How on Earth do you hold that putting forth a defense in a civil case has no benefit?    Trump has attorneys.   His attorneys likely advised him to take the 5th during the deposition.   During the civil trial they will indeed attempt to defend him (and Trump is paying for this).

Clearly Trump sees benefit in defending himself in a civil case.   Taking the 5th was part of his defense strategy.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.2.16  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Snuffy @3.2.6    one week ago

Donald Trump has committed tax fraud for most if not all of his adult life. People who say otherwise are deluding themselves. 

This is kind of the same level of people who still maintain that Trump was joking when he asked Russia if they could find Hillary's emails. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.17  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.15    one week ago

If she never filed, Trump wouldn't have to defend himself at great expense. Some might consider that to be a benefit. Some folks can see having to shell out big bucks in a civil suit is not a benefit.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.18  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.17    one week ago

You think that the AG would put her career on the line with a weak or frivolous case just to cause Trump to pay a little more in legal fees only to end with a victory for Trump??

You need to rethink your hypothesis. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.2.19  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.9    one week ago

What is so hard for you to grasp?  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.2.20  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.12    one week ago
stop acting like people are unable to understand English.

I don't think it's an act.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.21  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.18    one week ago
You think that the AG would put her career on the line with a weak or frivolous case just to cause Trump to pay a little more in legal fees only to end with a victory for Trump??

There is no downside for her. If she wins the case, she becomes a Democratic goddess. If she loses, she spins it and still has the exact same job she has now. Her career is in no way on the line.

You need to rethink your hypothesis.

Just so I can fall in line? No thanks.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.22  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.21    one week ago
There is no downside for her.

You argue that an AG:

  • publicly going after a former PotUS with a highly publicized case and then losing same would not harm the AG's career (and the career of others).
  • would bring forth a weak or frivolous case only to lose and give public advantage to the person she was politically motivated to harm.

jrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.23  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.22    one week ago
You argue that an AG:
  • publicly going after a former PotUS with a highly publicized case and then losing same would not harm the AG's career (and the career of others).

Very, very good, TiG! You managed to glean one part correctly.  Her career won't be harmed because she is a Democrat in a very blue state. Must this be explained yet once again to you?

  • would bring forth a weak or frivolous case only to lose and give public advantage to the person she was politically motivated to harm

Please don't lie about what I argue. If you aren't comprehending ask for help. Creating MY arguments and attempting to argue those invented things is intellectually dishonest and very lazy.

jrSmiley_90_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.24  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.23    one week ago

Do you believe that the AG would put forth a weak or frivolous case simply for a political show and to cause Trump to have to pay for a defense?

Do you hold that the AG losing this case would benefit Trump?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.25  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.24    one week ago
Do you believe that the AG would put forth a weak or frivolous case simply for a political show and to cause Trump to have to pay for a defense?

I think she thinks she has a case, but I'll wait for a jury decision.

It IS a political show, or have you been absent for the last 6 years?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.26  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.24    one week ago
Do you hold that the AG losing this case would benefit Trump?

Anyone prosecuted or sued would like to be on the winning side, that is just common sense. Whether it benefits Trump in some other way than not having to pay some money, only time can tell.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.27  Texan1211  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.2.20    one week ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.28  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.25    one week ago
I think she thinks she has a case, but I'll wait for a jury decision.

Well, good.   A little progress.

It IS a political show, or have you been absent for the last 6 years?

Where do you find me suggesting that the AG is NOT out to get Trump politically?    What I have been arguing is that if she did not have a case and this was purely political motivation then she would be shooting her own foot.   If she does not have a case she will wind up giving Trump a great political advantage.

You see that, right?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.2.29  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.27    one week ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.30  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.26    one week ago
Anyone prosecuted or sued would like to be on the winning side, that is just common sense. Whether it benefits Trump in some other way than not having to pay some money, only time can tell.

You do not comprehend how Trump prevailing in this case would benefit him politically???

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.31  Texan1211  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.2.29    one week ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.2.32  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.31    one week ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
3.2.33  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.12    one week ago
My point was that she would not bring these public charges unless she believed she would prevail.
God, PLEASE stop repeating your point, I fucking got it the FIRST time, stop acting like people are unable to understand English.

 Well then, start acting, like you DO UNDERSTAND ENGLISH !  

Your beat around and around the points attempting to insert your own meanings into TiGs' words, is backwords, cause in order to ,move forewords, you need to put in points that drive your point instead of purposely misinterpreting TiGs' cause, as it is obvious to most, that you're/your thinking you have intellectual superiority over ones here is a hollow boast, as in a hollow log that carry's not weight, just air, and evidence of one stumped, and graveling for attention. For as your decomposing defense of the former potUS with troubles immense, is more and more looking like a desperate attempt to make your own sense to justify the positions you have consistently provided, and not a valid position of defense as you can't deny it, for the denial about the incessant accusations that you continue to question, would or could, never be taken as a serious defense of the maniacal mental midget that mesmerized the feeble minded, for when morals and ethics can't be found, it doesn't entitle Trump to another reach around, and or beyond the truth, all because a scumbag party had put an actual scumbag ABOVE OUR DAMN COUNTRY and our countries best interests! 

But you go Tex, cause like you, others also enjoy train wrecks, digging deeper, and drowning in denial, while, all the while i thought about tossing you a Life Saver, but i just knew you would complain that i offered you a Certs, with retsin 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.34  Texan1211  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.2.33    one week ago

Wow.

Looks like the peanut gallery has expanded into a large-scale salad bar.

Look, you got a customer! jrSmiley_116_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.2.35  Trout Giggles  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.2.33    one week ago

You. Are. Awesome.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
3.2.36  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.34    one week ago
Looks like the peanut gallery has expanded into a large-scale salad bar

Sorry, not interested in your penis gallery, but some other dicks likely are calling you king Richard bout now, so hale Caeser salad a cab, and toss em' some rubber tongs to help remove the lubed thongs, while whistling Dick See past said salad barr nun, flying in the face of reason is what is best done by sum, obviously seeking that ever elusive happy ending to that triple XXX Fairy Tail pulled out by a whole lot of , underhanded dealings, handled by tiny hands down heavy pants when engaging playgirls and XXX porn stars while fleecing his duped following into submission positions taken to achieve satisfactory emotional fulfilment, from one completely empty soul, so pull in, and yell

Phil, her UP !

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
3.2.37  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.3    one week ago
And you think that she has put her career on the line merely to engage in a political stunt?

It's certainly possible.  How probable would be a matter of viewpoint.  But elected officials pursue lost causes for political gain all the time.  Bernie Sanders has made a career of it.

   Do you realize that bringing charges and failing works in Trump's favor?

Working in Trump's favor and working in the AG's favor are not mutually exclusive.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.38  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @3.2.37    one week ago
Working in Trump's favor and working in the AG's favor are not mutually exclusive.  

If the AG brings charges and then fails to secure a finding of liability against Trump, do you see that as benefitting or harming Trump politically?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
3.2.39  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.38    one week ago
If the AG brings charges and then fails to secure a finding of liability against Trump, do you see that as benefitting or harming Trump politically?

Oh it certainly benefits Trump.

It could also easily benefit James.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.40  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @3.2.39    one week ago
Oh it certainly benefits Trump.

Clearly.

It could also easily benefit James.  

How does losing a high profile case benefit James?    If this case, for example, is brought for political reasons then those involved clearly do not want Trump to benefit.   And if this case is predominantly brought based on the pursuit of justice, then losing the case does not benefit James.

So how does James benefit by bringing up a high profile case and losing?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
3.2.41  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.40    one week ago
How does losing a high profile case benefit James?    If this case, for example, is brought for political reasons then those involved clearly do not want Trump to benefit.   And if this case is predominantly brought based on the pursuit of justice, then losing the case does not benefit James. So how does James benefit by bringing up a high profile case and losing?

Win or lose, James will make a name for herself as a person willing to prosecute Trump.  

If she wins, she's a hero of the left, who view Trump as a combination of Darth Vader, Sauron and Lord Voldemort.  

If she loses, she will claim her efforts were undermined by some nefarious element beyond her control, and that she is the only one who has the strength and determination to fight the Dark Side/Dark One/Dark Lord. 

Either way, she will make significant strides toward a future Democratic nomination for Governor of NY.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.42  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @3.2.41    one week ago
Win or lose, James will make a name for herself as a person willing to prosecute Trump.  

That has already been long established.   That was established before she became AG.

If she wins, she's a hero of the left, who view Trump as a combination of Darth Vader, Sauron and Lord Voldemort.  

Yes, of course.

If she loses, she will claim her efforts were undermined by some nefarious element beyond her control, and that she is the only one who has the strength and determination to fight the Dark Side/Dark One/Dark Lord. 

Losing does indeed enable the opportunity to make excuses.   I do not find the opportunity to make excuses to be a net advantage.

Either way, she will make significant strides toward a future Democratic nomination for Governor of NY.

If she wins it helps; if she loses she needs to overcome that.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.43  Texan1211  replied to  igknorantzrulz @3.2.36    one week ago
Sorry, not interested in your penis gallery,

You should be compelled to at least offer up some dressing along with your word salads.

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Participates
3.2.44  Freewill  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.42    one week ago
Losing does indeed enable the opportunity to make excuses.

Indeed, as it did in Trump's case when he lost the 2020 election, and to an extent Hillary did after she lost the 2016 election.  In neither case did making those excuses help either one of them, in fact it made them both look foolish and weaker at least to rational and reasonable people.  And in Trump's case, his making of such excuses was actually dangerous.

I do not find the opportunity to make excuses to be a net advantage.

Agreed, in most cases likely not, at least not when seen as such by rational people.  But if one can somehow convince others that the excuses are true or have merit (even if they aren't or don't), then the excuse maker might see some advantage.  In today's highly partisan atmosphere we unfortunately see this happening more often.  Look at the following Trump still has after two years of his Big Lie excuse for losing in 2020 and people still believe him and still get really riled up over it.  It happens when Democrats lose to Republicans as well as is evidenced by the multiple impeachment attempts and investigations that have gone nowhere when examined by committees and court rulings in previous elections.  Sore losing and weaponizing it have become the nature of our highly partisan political process it would seem.  Everybody is the victim and their opponent is the monster.  The bigger one can make the monster appear, the more people will buy one's excuses for being defeated by the monster. 

Just my two cents worth, probably not worth that much with today's inflation.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.45  TᵢG  replied to  Freewill @3.2.44    one week ago
Just my two cents worth, probably not worth that much with today's inflation.

Yeah we lost the value of the 2¢ before I could respond to your post.  jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.3  Texan1211  replied to  George @3    one week ago
Get some evidence or go away!

There's the thing.

Why not take the 5th and make her make her case based on what she already has?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4  author  JohnRussell    2 weeks ago
David Rothkopf

@djrothkopf

Convicting Trump of sedition may appear more serious than convicting him of election fraud or violating the espionage act or obstruction of justice or rape or tax fraud or bank fraud. Reasonable people can disagree. Anyone guilty of any one of these crimes should be disqualified from holding high (or any) office in the United States (or anywhere). But as the walls close in on Trump and the crimes come more clearly to light, we need to keep in mind two things. One is that one man is accused of all these offenses: Donald Trump.

Trump is dishonest down to his DNA, his character is corrupt. The 45th President of the United States can be (and has often been) credibly accused of being a traitor and a career criminal. None of this is open to dispute.

But the other thing we must keep in mind is that knowing this, seeing the cases against Trump unfold, seeing him attack the country, our values, our laws and our Constitution in real time, one of America's two major political parties continues to anoint him as their leader.

His offenses boggle the mind in their severity and scope. And yet, as of now, as of this moment, virtually every senior official within the MAGA GOP continues to embrace, defend and support Trump. In so doing, they tell us all we need to know about their values or lack thereof.

As such--lending him credibility, providing him with defenses, helping to lift him above the law--they are his accomplices and they too should be disqualified from public office and, as Trump will certainly be, subject to our enduring and profound contempt.
 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @4    one week ago

He's guilty of so much when they raided Mar-A-Lardo - everyone was wondering what for - which criminal act of which there are so so so so so so many but to his enablers/supporters it's just another day defending the monumental turd.  Nothing to see here!

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
4.2  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @4    one week ago
And yet, as of now, as of this moment, virtually every senior official within the MAGA GOP continues to embrace, defend and support Trump.

They are trapped:

  • The MAGA voters are enough to crush non-MAGO repubs in most red districts and most politicians on both sides put their reelection as 1st priority
  • We are in hyper-partisan times and it's Party first regardless
  • Maybe as much as 1/3 of the population desires authoritarian government, it's latent sometimes but in times of change and turmoil it comes to the surface
  • With each previous moral compromise, the next one gets easier
  • The MAGA movement gives some people an identity after they feel they've lost their previous one.  They have a narrative and a cause to fight for.  Perpetual conflict gives them a reason for being.

Repub leaders will only change after MAGA is thoroughly defeated at the polls and enough people understand the dangers of authoritarianism.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
5  Greg Jones    2 weeks ago

None of the allegations has been proven....in a court of law

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1  TᵢG  replied to  Greg Jones @5    2 weeks ago

a3186a4de3a64a8fb801542195875224--intellectual-quotes-big-words.jpg

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
5.1.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  TᵢG @5.1    one week ago

like tots and pears?

 
 
 
squiggy
Sophomore Quiet
5.1.2  squiggy  replied to  TᵢG @5.1    one week ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
squiggy
Sophomore Quiet
5.1.3  squiggy  replied to  squiggy @5.1.2    one week ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Principal
5.1.4  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  squiggy @5.1.3    one week ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
squiggy
Sophomore Quiet
5.1.5  squiggy  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @5.1.4    one week ago

Removed for context

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Principal
5.1.6  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  squiggy @5.1.5    one week ago
Removed for context

You know of (2) Two so far. LOL !

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
5.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Greg Jones @5    one week ago

You know they don't care.  The whole "Innocent until proven guilty" doesn't exist to them. They'll continue to stomp their feet and cry just as they are now.  They will berate you for showing any indication that you aren't in lockstep with their (so far) unfounded claims even if it simply pointing out that their methodology is severely flawed.  

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
6  Hal A. Lujah    one week ago

Trump will soon be amending his comments to Hannity. Now it will be “when you’re the President, or aren’t yet but deserve to the President in the future, you can just think that your property is three times larger than it is and it will be so!”

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
6.1  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @6    one week ago
you can just think that your property is three times larger than it is and it will be so!”

Who knew that becoming President gives superpowers like the ability to telepathically declassify top secret documents and dramatically inflate the value of property and real estate for loan purposes while simultaneously reducing the value of property and real estate when it comes to paying their taxes.

If this were Obama getting caught with hundreds of top secret documents after leaving the Whitehouse and then claiming that he could just "think" about declassifying them and that meant they were declassified, rightwing conservatives would be losing their fucking minds. And if there were the kind of evidence of Obama lying and inflating his assets to get massive bank loans while also claiming they were worth next to nothing to avoid paying taxes Republicans would be demanding justice.

Rightwing conservative hypocrisy truly knows no bounds as they lounge along Donald the Hutt's belly begging for his approval while lashing out at anyone that dare point out his many faults.

star-wars.gif

Trump loyalists continuing to defend and deflect for their slimy crime boss...

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @6.1    one week ago

The reality that they are compelled to twist and distort in order to defend their Jim Jones cult leader is an impressive amount !

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
6.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @6    one week ago
you can just think that your property is three times larger than it is and it will be so!”

I think I'm going to try this. I want to remodel my kitchen

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.2.1  Texan1211  replied to  Trout Giggles @6.2    one week ago
I think I'm going to try this.

Try it!!

Maybe your bank won't bother to check any tax records, appraisals, or your credit scores!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7  Tessylo    one week ago

308473206_1432445513929789_6416641939650938116_n.jpg?_nc_cat=100&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=YmvIP6_2uoAAX-ckgI2&tn=ddyv9WRSVi2y4Anp&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=00_AT-_gYnOxIF6GFjOw-3ygQod5_5PU9Hbvmlgba1nTvP0_g&oe=6331B2E3

 
 
 
Diablo Imperius
Professor Guide
8  Diablo Imperius    one week ago

 I don't know of anyone in the business that doesn't use different valuations for assets depending on their purpose.  It's up to the third parties to decide whether to use them or not.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.1  TᵢG  replied to  Diablo Imperius @8    one week ago

And that is true.   One can easily find an appraiser who will produce different results depending upon whether the property is being appraised for sale or for tax purposes.   This is easily accomplished even for individuals holding a single property and thus even easier for corporations who can guarantee continued use of services.

The practice is normal, the question will be about degree.   Order of magnitude differences in appraised value is NOT going to be seen as normal and accepted.

 
 

Who is online

Sparty On
RavenWing
Revillug
Drinker of the Wry
Kavika
George
Ed-NavDoc
Jasper2529
Snuffy


34 visitors