Trump gets a $350 million fine. Arrested multiple times. Faces umpteen dozen years in jail. Not one Epstein client or participant arrested.
- Thread starter i am herdman
- Start date
Cause and effect... Let me dumb it down for you.
It's egregious because it is too high.
It is too high for a variety of reasons including:
It is a Republican.
It is a liberal judge.
It is in New York.
It plays well in today's political environment.
It plays well in today's media environment.
The NY AG is trying to make a name for herself.
And last but not least - TDS is real...
Whose job is it to verify collateral? There's your criminal. Obviously the bank didn't care, right? It was all a fulfillment of a promise to "get Trump"....That's just shit you bleaters don't care about, because you all are on board with your party. Get Trump at all cost, because we don't want him to run.
One would think you dumbasses would have learned from the fraudulent Russia Collusion Hoax. Of course, bleaters don't know any better.
Or the creditor doing its job, if it really cared. It didn't, of course. Witch hunt. Plain and simple.
I would avoid what you tried to claim too. "Shareholders defrauded"...LOL. Hilarious.
Last edited:
It is not that simple, Jethro.
Did the DA underestimate the value of his Florida property? Yes. So did the DA commit fraud?
Did the bank give him the loan? Yes.
Did the bank bring suit? NO.
Did the bank do its due diligence and internal studies doing the loan? that was up to them and they gave him the loan and he paid it. The bank never claimed fraud.
Has New York ever done this before? My understanding is NO.
If I were business I would pull out of New York. They are setting a precedent of suing people when the lender is not even saying there was fraud.
None of this matters in my opinion of the amount of the fine.
Are their things I believe a company should be fined out of business for? You bet! This isn't one of them.
If you aunt had balls she'd be your uncle.
All of this matters in the amount of the fine.
You've said some stupid things over the years but this is a new high (or is it a new low???).
If the name wasn't Trump and there wasn't President in front of it this wouldn't have even been investigated much less a fine of this magnitude.
What about attorney-client privilege? How much of this is because Cohen tried to save his own skin?
you seem to have a real problem with anybody that tells a lie . . .
well, except . . .
i know, i know . . .
BUUUUUUUT TRUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUMP!!!!
Did your orange jesus claim on a financial statement that his penthouse is almost 3x it's actual size??
It's a yes or no question.
Did your orange jesus claim on a financial statement that his penthouse is almost 3x it's actual size??
It's a yes or no question.
Did your orange jesus claim on a financial statement that his penthouse is almost 3x it's actual size??
It's a yes or no question.
Yes. It's not a crime either. If you owned a financial institution and someone wanted a loan, based on a 10,000 acre farm for collateral, would you loan the person the money, without verification?
That's a yes or no question.
Did your orange jesus claim on a financial statement that his penthouse is almost 3x it's actual size??
It's a yes or no question.
If a person possesses a forged instrument, knows that it is forged, and has the intent to deceive, defraud, or injure another person, then a crime of fraud is constituted.
I will answer no more of your questions. I answered yours and you refuse to answer mine.
There's no such thing as a victimless crime.
You're just a hating, dumbass.
Did your orange jesus claim on a financial statement that his penthouse is almost 3x it's actual size??
It's a yes or no question.
If a person possesses a forged instrument, knows that it is forged, and has the intent to deceive, defraud, or injure another person, then a crime of fraud is constituted.
If you see things through a partisan lense, sure.
I'd say the same no matter who or what company it is. It simply doesn't fit the crime, even if by statute it is allowed.
Privilege goes out the window when the attorney and client conspire to commit a crime....you know this, come on.
Like the judge???
I previously posted if you can find a precedent for this type of fine in NY then your argument has a level of validity. Until then it wreaks of being politicized.
The political aspect of this is the investigation into Cohen began with a "Russian Collusion" raid. Trump ain't no angel but this is pure BS through and through...
Exactly. The judge openly hates Trump. So does the prosecution. No jury? 🤔
Amen. Bernie-boy doesn't care. As long as they "get Trump," he couln't care less how corrupt they are. This case won't hold water on appeal.
Absofreakinglutley. Even a bleater knows this, they just won't admit it.
Did the judge follow the law?
Perhaps the wrong law was used to go after Trump. I understand this is some super-duper NY law for REALLY putting the screws to a company. I'd give you that part may be political.
The again, the best defense against politically motivated over-prosecution would be: don't commit crimes. Or don't run for the goddamn White House if you are crooked....shit, maybe we actually should make this kind of prosecution normal 🤔
This has zero to do with the crime-fraud exception of privilege.
Like Jimmy Carter? That worked out real well didn't it?
It had everything to with the politization of the case. The origins of the case were political in nature - the "Russian Collusion" excuse to get that information and lean on Cohen. Was Cohen ever an employee or outside counsel?
Have you ever listened to the NY AG? Everything is political to her.
You mean we should never elect a good person, because one good person didn't go a good job? That's an odd way of looking at things.
Well then don't quote my words about privilege and say that. Because bottom line, not only does privilege not apply, but Cohen had an ethical responsibility to not only tell Trump to not commit a crime, but to stop working for him when he insisted on committing a crime.
You should know betrer than most about looking at things in an odd way...
Why didn't he stop working for him then?
You are debating technicalities while ignoring the origins, processes and results of the matter. It was politically driven and the government gained access to Cohen under false pretenses - the "Russian Collusion". But yeah, you're ok with that because orange man bad.
All you have to do to prove your point that it wasn't politically driven (especially the excessive fine) is to show a precedent that a similar case was heard in NY with a similar result.
That's the challenge. I triple-dog dare you to take it.
“I don’t know and can’t be arsed to do a simple google that would take me less time than making this post, about a news story from less than a week ago that would be easily found, but I’m going to spout off anyway”
Greed and hubris. A story as old as time.
You know, I read a law blog post that mentioned other 63(12) cases James has prosecuted, but it never occurred to me to look at what the fines were. Why? Because I already thought the Trump fine was too high, I didn't need to prove anything to myself that it is.
And of course, I read the blog on the incognito tab, because I try to keep my history clear of random shit and to minimize cookies, and I don't recall which blog it was lol. This may take some digging...and the weather here is really fvcking nice for the next week, so you might have to wait until
I really would like to see those as a reference point. Thanks.
That's still illegal. He was a Senator where took them not even a POTUS. He had no authority to declassify as Senator.
Joe Biden was smart enough to give them back. Your orange jesus...not so much.
Good article on the estimated FMV of Mar-a-Lago. Again the British press doing the work the US press won't...
www.dailymail.co.uk
'That Mar a Lago would be worth $18 million is so absurd. It's beyond comprehension. How they can say that's realistic. It's just laughable,' said Rob Thomson, a prominent Palm Beach realtor whose total sales volume exceeds $3.5 billion.
Thompson said it would fetch 'hundreds of millions of dollars'.
How judge's 'absurd' $18M Mar-a-Lago pricetag compares to recent sales
A judge has said Donald Trump's 58-bedroom Mar-a-Lago estate is worth around $18 million. Earlier this year, a five-bedroom property less than a mile away sold for $63,431,750.
'That Mar a Lago would be worth $18 million is so absurd. It's beyond comprehension. How they can say that's realistic. It's just laughable,' said Rob Thomson, a prominent Palm Beach realtor whose total sales volume exceeds $3.5 billion.
Thompson said it would fetch 'hundreds of millions of dollars'.
I trust Forbes more than a partisan NY judge...
From Forbes in 2018:
www.forbes.com
Today Forbes values Mar-a-Lago—admittedly one of the most difficult assets in the Trump portfolio to price—at $160 million, or 16 times what Trump paid for it. It’s unclear how much money the president has invested in, or taken out of, the property over the years.
The club’s revenues reached an estimated $29 million in 2016, up 25% from the year prior. And despite dozens of organizations pulling events from Mar-a-Lago, Forbes estimates the place is worth $10 million more than it was before Trump was elected.
From Forbes in 2018:
Donald Trump Has Gained More Than $100 Million On Mar-a-Lago
Mar-a-Lago has become the president’s favorite weekend getaway. It’s also one of the best investments he’s ever made.
www.forbes.com
Today Forbes values Mar-a-Lago—admittedly one of the most difficult assets in the Trump portfolio to price—at $160 million, or 16 times what Trump paid for it. It’s unclear how much money the president has invested in, or taken out of, the property over the years.
The club’s revenues reached an estimated $29 million in 2016, up 25% from the year prior. And despite dozens of organizations pulling events from Mar-a-Lago, Forbes estimates the place is worth $10 million more than it was before Trump was elected.
Interesting take. RBG inadvertently helping Trump again...
"Ginsburg delivered the high court's opinion in Timbs v. Indiana on Feb. 20, 2019, in which she laid out how the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on excessive fines applies to the states as well as the federal government."
Loading…
www.newsmax.com
"Ginsburg delivered the high court's opinion in Timbs v. Indiana on Feb. 20, 2019, in which she laid out how the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on excessive fines applies to the states as well as the federal government."
