The Sham Trial Against Trump

[Marener]

It means it's unprecedented. Is that really not in your vocabulary? She's using this law against a consumer regarding real estate valuations submitted to a lender. Never been done before. Unprecedented. Turns the statute on it head.

That, on top of her campaign pledge to bag the white Trump. Unprecedented.

How did you determine that no one has been charged with submitting fraudulent information to a lender?

 

[Marener]

When did you quit using it?

When did I use it to begin with?

 

[maybelooking]

It means it's unprecedented. Is that really not in your vocabulary? She's using this law against a consumer regarding real estate valuations submitted to a lender. Never been done before. Unprecedented. Turns the statute on its head.

That, on top of her campaign pledge to bag the white Trump. Unprecedented.

AND these liberal asshats would have you believe Trump is THE ONLY PERSON to ever do what hes being accused of doing. You simply must draw that conclusion if no one else has been through this. And anyone who thinks that is a moron. Just like the idiots I have on ignore here are morons.

 

[Robert W]

When did I use it to begin with?

Well, not being a doctor, who am I to cure Alzheimer's.

 

[gmeyers1944]

If you lie to get a loan that's fraud. It's that simple. Trump is a fraud. You kept asking us to prove it well they're proving it. In court no less.

What part of "No bank claims that they had been defrauded" don't you understand?

 

[Marener]

Well, not being a doctor, who am I to cure Alzheimer's.

Your posts have devolved to trolling.

 

[Freedomisneverfree]

They are trying, but now Trump wants to call more than 120 witnesses, just to delay the outcome

Make it a 1,000 Witnesses to drag this circus show on and on...

 

[Robert W]

Your posts have devolved to trolling.

As yours have been.

 

[Oldestyle]

You claimed: "with a charge that hasn't been leveled against ANYONE else...EVER?"

You are incorrect. They show the law has been used in charging others.

WW

Where? Cite the case. The three that you keep repeating have actual crimes that were alleged to have been committed and actual injured parties. They all have precedent. AG James has none of that in her prosecution of Trump. She has no "fraud" because she has no injured party.

 

[Marener]

As yours have been.

My posts have directly addressed the points you've made.

 

[Robert W]

My posts have directly addressed the points you've made.

When I did that, you told me to read them to you. I have not asked you to read your claims to me.

 

[CowboyTed]

I'm not really understanding this trial. What is it about? We've got a TDS anti-Trump prosecutor, a TDS anti-Trump judge who, before the trial even started, found Trump guilty without a jury of his peers, and now we are parading a bunch of so called witnesses through the court to determine the amount of damages of which the same TDS anti-Trump judge will decide the amount of those damages, claiming that Trump defrauded banks even though no bank claims that Trump defrauded them.

And, we've got those two clowns who are on record of saying they are going after Trump while getting all bent out of shape when Trump says that if he wins he will then go after them. What am I missing? Get this sham over with already so that Trump can then appeal the case.

You don't understand that:
Trump's team asked for no jury.

Trump during depositions pleaded the 5th over 400 times... That is to say if he answered the question he could incriminate himself.

The Judge found him guilty on the evidence which was overwhealming. It is in black and white with Trump's signature on it...

 

[Robert W]

The bank execs owe a legal fiduciary duty to their shareholders. End of story.

True and more. This crooked prosecutor is not even taking her case to a criminal court, she took it to court over money.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I'm not really understanding this trial.

Then you should have just stopped there and read up about it before making the idiotic thread title.

 

[Independent thinker]

You don't understand that:
Trump's team asked for no jury.

Trump during depositions pleaded the 5th over 400 times... That is to say if he answered the question he could incriminate himself.

The Judge found him guilty on the evidence which was overwhealming. It is in black and white with Trump's signature on it...

The judge found him guilty before the trial. This is the Dem's America.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

True and more. This crooked prosecutor is not even taking her case to a criminal court, she took it to court over money.

Yet you couldn't argue what is crooked about any of it if your life depended on it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The judge found him guilty before the trial. This is the Dem's America.

It's called "summary judgment". Happens all the time. You just want special treatment for the orange slob.

 

[Marener]

When I did that, you told me to read them to you. I have not asked you to read your claims to me.

I asked for a citation to a law (or regulation as it were) and you sent me a link to every regulation and basically said "it's in there somewhere". Maybe you didn't go to college, but that's not how citations work.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What part of "No bank claims that they had been defrauded" don't you understand?

What part of "that's utterly irrelevant" do you not understand?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

My posts have directly addressed the points you've made.

You're wasting your time.