Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The court may adjust the fine, disagreeing with the lower courts interpretation of the law. And they may give trump more time to transfer the management of his New York businesses or they may even alter the ruling on monitoring but overturn the case, no. The evidence supported by 19 testimonies clearly showed that Trump did violate the law in many loan application between 2011 and 2021.that corrupt ruling will never stand, it will be overturned on appeal.
To claim Trump is not liable because everyone is violating the law is neither true nor a good argument. A banker testifying in the trial addressed this point; no everybody is not grossly overstating the value of their assets.Nobody cared because these “illegal” acts were no different than what virtually every large company operating in NY was/is doing. They only started caring when Trump became President. Had Trump not run for President in 2016, absolutely none of this would be on the table.
I don't know the rules but I would think he could sell his business interest in New York. I think New York would be happy to get rid of him. They're going to be collecting property taxes and income taxes on whoever owns the properties. Having to deal with someone who doesn't pride themselves on their dishonesty and illegal acts would certainly be welcome.He cannot. He cannot even buy toilet paper for the 12th floor bathroom without the court monitor approving it. They are certainly not going to approve a move for him to hide his assets or operate the corporation, even indirectly.
Sure, after paying his fine.I don't know the rules but I would think he could sell his business interest in New York.
All True.You just quoted verbatim two of Trump's own fake news talking points.
#1. Read the statute.
According to the language "harm"
as in someone complaining of
being "ripped off" is not
necessary for enforcement of
this law. It is all about the state
of New York's responsibility
to regulate certain business
practices.
#2. This investigation was launched
years ago. This particular
snowflake whining point has
even less merit than #1.
Old news.We shall see who the idiot is. But, in the meantime, try to digest this:
Why Trump may soon rake in a $4 billion payday despite his legal problems
Donald Trump has been masterful in converting his numerous legal problems into opportunities for campaigning and fundraising.news.yahoo.com
Is there a difference?not reeducate, fill with bullshit.
Sure, that is fraud and the person who was supposed to be getting the money got shorted. The punishment for such actions is a returned check fee. At my bank It doesn’t matter if I wrote a check for $10,000, the return check fee is $10. In Trump’s case, NOBODY was harmed and no the bank would not have raised his interest rate had he lowered the evaluation for his properties. No evidence in this case suggests that and the bank in question didn’t suggest that. That was pure speculation by the prosecutor which was accepted by a very biased judge.
Why did they give him the loans? Every bank in the nation knows that people tend to inflate their net worth when applying for loans. Do you think a bank would give you $100k loan based solely on your claimed net worth? The answer is that they wouldn’t unless, as is the case with Trump, they were aware through other means that you owned property that far exceeds $100k. What if the bank knew for a fact that you owned a home worth at least $2mm, that you evaluated at $4mm. Would they care or would they give you your $100k loan? These are small numbers in comparison to Trump, but you get the idea. Banks would have even more reason to loan to Trump O. because they would stand to make a lot of money on the transaction and also potentially be the bank of choice for future large transactions. The bottom line is that virtually any bank that had the funds would have given him this loan because it was a huge win/win. Property evaluations are guesses and are all over the map. I sold a piece of property 5 years ago for 5 times the appraisal value that was done a few months before. No bank would rely solely on a loanees personal opinions of their property values. That is pure bunk. The judge knows it, the prosecutor knows it, everybody with a shred of common sense knows it.
The bank in question didn’t claim fraud. They didn’t feel like they were victims. They were not harmed, in fact, they had huge gains. It is as simple as that. I don’t think you want to go down the path of punishing everyone who has knowingly misrepresented facts to achieve a gain. This case and the judgement is selective justice based purely on politics.
I can’t and don’t read the NYT. This is behind a paywall. It is a ridiculously biased source as well.
Regardless, I was not aware that Cohen led to this. Thank you for that. Why do you think they started investigating Cohen in the first place? Mueller ring any bells? Hillary ring a bells? Fake dossier ring any bells? Yes, Democrats suddenly became very interested in all things Trump in 2016. I can’t imagine why. They spent 10s of millions of our dollars investigating him and virtually everyone around him. Bringing up that this lawsuit was ultimately born from the investigation that started in 2016 doesn’t help your case with regards to this being politically motivated.
No, I quoted some of the relevant passages when YOU asked me to do so. It's direct testimony from the people involved, his bookkeeping company, the banks, insurance companies etc., etc. Saying the prosecutor asked questions and that's what they said, so the judge accepted it as true, is literally how a trial works.No evidence in this case suggests that and the bank in question didn’t suggest that. That was pure speculation by the prosecutor which was accepted by a very biased judge.
Here again I posted why they did. Directly quoting the questioning of the people who GAVE those loans. Yet you pose this question over and over again like it has not been answered.Why did they give him the loans? Every bank in the nation knows that people tend to inflate their net worth when applying for loans. Do you think a bank would give you $100k loan based solely on your claimed net worth?
And yet they stopped doing business because of the indictments. Here again INTERNAL emails between the Trump org. And Deutsche bank show otherwise. Internal emails Between Mazars and the Trump org show otherwise. Just because you ignore anything that doesn't fit your narrative doesn't mean the facts don't exist.They didn’t feel like they were victims.
Sure all of it rings a bell. So then you're argument becomes. Well, when you run for president your life will be scrutinized, so it's unfair when, when that life involves committing crimes you're more likely to be indicted.Why do you think they started investigating Cohen in the first place? Mueller ring any bells? Hillary ring a bells?
Oh, did the bank complain? I must have missed that…The banks wanted a statement of financial condition before they made a loan.
The idea that Trump can say whatever he wants on that statement defies common sense.
There was no crime here…period.No, I quoted some of the relevant passages when YOU asked me to do so. It's direct testimony from the people involved, his bookkeeping company, the banks, insurance companies etc., etc. Saying the prosecutor asked questions and that's what they said, so the judge accepted it as true, is literally how a trial works.
When I began this thing. I posed one condition. That you would adress what I quoted. Not only aren't you doing that. You're simply ignoring the stuff I did quote in favor of your own narrative.
Here again I posted why they did. Directly quoting the questioning of the people who GAVE those loans. Yet you pose this question over and over again like it has not been answered.
And yet they stopped doing business because of the indictments. Here again INTERNAL emails between the Trump org. And Deutsche bank show otherwise. Internal emails Between Mazars and the Trump org show otherwise. Just because you ignore anything that doesn't fit your narrative doesn't mean the facts don't exist.
Sure all of it rings a bell. So then you're argument becomes. Well, when you run for president your life will be scrutinized, so it's unfair when, when that life involves committing crimes you're more likely to be indicted.
Isn't that true for anyone running for office? Hell, it's even true for anyone who's family of someone who's running for high public office.
As we speak the son of the current President is being indicted. I don't hear you or anyone moaning about that.
You guys are currently trying to figure out a way to impeach Biden up to and including using information provided by a Russian asset to accomplish it. Don't hear anyone complaining.
It took 9 separate investigations of Benghazi before you guys finally found something to beat Hilary over the head with. Resulting in the email thing. The only complaint that was offered by the right about that was that she wasn't charged.
When you run for office you will be scrutinized. If that scrutiny means you get indicted that means a prosecutor feels they can prove a crime in court. I don't care if that's being motivated by the fact the the perpetrator is a political opponent, or just because it's a prosecutors job is to prosecute crimes. In the end that prosecutor needs to prove their case in a legal system that gives defendants the benefit of the doubt.
A judge determined their was... period.There was no crime here…period.
A clearly biased judge, that was overturned by the appellate 4 times during the sham trial…A judge determined their was... period.
Stomp your feet. Cry. Tear your hair out. The judgement is out. The facts of the case have been established by the judger of facts, (the judge.) And somewhere in the future Trump will likely have to pay something like 600 million dollars.
At the moment nobody even knows he'll be able to come up with the cash to even get to appeal. But let's suppose he does. I've read the judgement. Something I'm sure you haven't.A clearly biased judge, that was overturned by the appellate 4 times during the sham trial…
You're a good Stalinist piglet!At the moment nobody even knows he'll be able to come up with the cash to even get to appeal. But let's suppose he does. I've read the judgement. Something I'm sure you haven't.
It's detailed, goes over all the witnesses, what they testified to. How credible they were or weren't. That stuff isn't appealable.
What is left is the amount of damages and how the law is applied. The judgement lays out in great detail how the amount of damages was calculated and he's a judge applying a pretty common and broad anti-corruption law in New York.
I don't know what the basis for an appeal would even be or if he has the money to get to an appeal within 30 days.
I suspect he'll be able to come up with the cash. I highly doubt he'll get anywhere on appeal.
Good argument I'm so crushed by your staggering intellect, I'm crying.You're a good Stalinist piglet!
After just about a CENTURY of Marxist infiltration into our Edu, Media, and Governance, we have come to a point that the aforementioned Democrat Party has taken up Soviet tactics to TRY to defeat their political opponents.Good argument I'm so crushed by your staggering intellect, I'm crying.
Maybe you should take a little nap. I think it's past your bedtime.
Do you even hear yourself????A judge determined their was... period.
Stomp your feet. Cry. Tear your hair out. The judgement is out. The facts of the case have been established by the judger of facts, (the judge.) And somewhere in the future Trump will likely have to pay something like 600 million dollars.
I don't know the rules but I would think he could sell his business interest in New York. I think New York would be happy to get rid of him. They're going to be collecting property taxes and income taxes on whoever owns the properties. Having to deal with someone who doesn't pride themselves on their dishonesty and illegal acts would certainly be welcome.
At the moment nobody even knows he'll be able to come up with the cash to even get to appeal. But let's suppose he does. I've read the judgement. Something I'm sure you haven't.
It's detailed, goes over all the witnesses, what they testified to. How credible they were or weren't. That stuff isn't appealable.
What is left is the amount of damages and how the law is applied. The judgement lays out in great detail how the amount of damages was calculated and he's a judge applying a pretty common and broad anti-corruption law in New York.
I don't know what the basis for an appeal would even be or if he has the money to get to an appeal within 30 days.
I suspect he'll be able to come up with the cash. I highly doubt he'll get anywhere on appeal.
