Any Bankers Here? Please Comment On What a FARCE the Trump Trial Is!!

If you're not interested, then why have you commented 7 times in this thread without adding any substance to the discussion? Originally Posted by lustylad

Why are you even posting this ?

... WHO provided "fake financial statements" to
banking institutions??

#### Salty Originally Posted by Salty Again

Review the case

And which Trump Organization financial statements were "fake"? The income statement? the balance sheet? the statement of cash flows?

Did the auditor 'fess up and say they signed off on fake & fraudulent financial statements?

You just swallow whole hog whatever you read in the brainless & fanatically over-reaching left-wing media, dontcha?

Do you have a degree, or any experience, in finance, banking or accounting? Do you even know how to read and analyze financial statements?

Didn't think so. Originally Posted by lustylad

Review the case.

I do have a degree and experience in finance, banking, accounting, and securities. How about yourself ? Your last comment is a mistake.

Review the case Originally Posted by VitaMan

... The banks don't believe they were false.
The banks actually were okay with everything and
even LENT THE MONEY. $$$$

... Got payed back too...

... And how do we know? ... The BANKS HAVE SAID SO!

#### Salty

Review the case Originally Posted by VitaMan

we have and your obvious lack of substance to your claims we find to be ..


lacking of substance








so tell us ... if you're so well versed here .....


WHO DID TRUMP DEFRAUD?

You don't understand the case, the statute, or the reason for the judgement.

That is why I suggested you take time to review them.

The judgement has already been made that fraud was committed. So you are a little behind.

You don't understand the case, the statute, or the reason for the judgement.

That is why I suggested you take time to review them.

The judgement has already been made that fraud was committed. So you are a little behind. Originally Posted by VitaMan

by a clearly biased judge driven by a ambitious liberal cunt who campaigned on a "Get Trump!" platform and this her "politically motivated" campaign promise,


you believe this nonsense for one reason only .. you dislike Trump


so stop with the two sentence vague DA NILES and answer one simple question


WHO DID TRUMP DEFRAUD?


the forum awaits your reply


some background for u on this nonsense bullshit


(AP) — Letitia James fixated on Donald Trump as she campaigned for New York attorney general, branding the then-president a “con man” and ″carnival barker” and pledging to shine a “bright light into every dark corner of his real estate dealings.”Sep 28, 2023


to you .. she's a "freedom fighter" to me she's a liberal cunt misusing her authority to advance her political agenda

Now you are back on the "witch hunt" theme.

If you took the time to understand the statute, the case, and the reason it was judged fraud was committed, maybe you would feel better.

But you probably won't.

Now you are back on the "witch hunt" theme.

If you took the time to understand the statute, the case, and the reason it was judged fraud was committed, maybe you would feel better.

But you probably won't. Originally Posted by VitaMan

i have and there is no "victim" here. i'll call u out once again

impress us all with your vast knowledge of the case and all the relevant statues .. er statutes to support your claim

once again the forum awaits your erudite reply


bahahaaa

Review the statute first.
Then the case.
Then the reason for the judgement.

You don't understand them, as your comments show.
Educate yourself.

Review the statute first.
Then the case.
Then the reason for the judgement.

You don't understand them, as your comments show.
Educate yourself. Originally Posted by VitaMan

good night valued poster


NY Attorney General Letitia James Has a Long History of Fighting Trump and Other Powerful Targets

https://www.usnews.com/news/politics...werful-targets


she's a high profile target cunt


and she always loses

You don't understand the case, the statute, or the reason for the judgement.

That is why I suggested you take time to review them.

The judgement has already been made that fraud was committed. So you are a little behind. Originally Posted by VitaMan

The statute is Section 63, part 12 of the New York Executive Law. You can find it here.

https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/EXC/63

The purpose of the statute is to grab revenue for the state of New York and to score political points for the attorney general. It was used to sue Exxon for allegedly failing to disclose risks associated with global warming to shareholders. New York extracted billions for the state's coffers from banks and insurance companies with Section 63(12). Elliott Spitzer used it to turbocharge his political career. If you want to claim fraud with scanty evidence then 63(12)'s your friend. You only have to prove the defendant engaged in "persistent deception, misrepresentation, concealment, suppression, false pretense, false promise, or unconscionable contractual provisions."

Google it and you'll see there are attorneys and others who dislike Trump but believe Letitia James is really stretching, going for $370 million and trying to get Trump's businesses kicked out of New York. The law allows for restitution and damages but is $370 million reasonable considering no one suffered damage? It's also questionable whether the court has the power to kick Trump out of New York, even though Engoron initially set out to do that after he issued his partial summary judgement.

One of the reasons the United States of America is so successful is because we have rule of law. People like you invest and create businesses believing government won't steal from them. This New York statute and the way the AG uses it, for political purposes and to generate revenue, is more indicative of countries where authoritarianism, crony capitalism, or populism predominates.

And yeah, Republicans do this shit too. For example DeSantis and Disney. I think the Democrats are worse though.

The statute is Section 63, part 12 of the New York Executive Law. You can find it here.

https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/EXC/63

The purpose of the statute is to grab revenue for the state of New York and to score political points for the attorney general. It was used to sue Exxon for allegedly failing to disclose risks associated with global warming to shareholders. New York extracted billions for the state's coffers from banks and insurance companies with Section 63(12). Elliott Spitzer used it to turbocharge his political career. If you want to claim fraud with scanty evidence then 63(12)'s your friend. You only have to prove the defendant engaged in "persistent deception, misrepresentation, concealment, suppression, false pretense, false promise, or unconscionable contractual provisions."

Google it and you'll see there are attorneys and others who dislike Trump but believe Letitia James is really stretching, going for $370 million and trying to get Trump's businesses kicked out of New York. The law allows for restitution and damages but is $370 million reasonable considering no one suffered damage? It's also questionable whether the court has the power to kick Trump out of New York, even though Engoron initially set out to do that after he issued his partial summary judgement.

One of the reasons the United States of America is so successful is because we have rule of law. People like you invest and create businesses believing government won't steal from them. This New York statute and the way the AG uses it, for political purposes and to generate revenue, is more indicative of countries where authoritarianism, crony capitalism, or populism predominates.

And yeah, Republicans do this shit too. For example DeSantis and Disney. I think the Democrats are worse though. Originally Posted by Tiny

Excellent post; agree 100%.

For starters, how many real estate developers have you ever known who haven't claimed some rather "blue-sky" valuations when pitching deals to investors and lenders? There have been plenty of guys in Dallas who, for decades, have been something along the lines of junior varsity versions of "The Donald." And I've never heard of any of them being hauled before a court of law, only to find a judge capriciously trying to deny them the right to continue operating their businesses, and to separate them from something on the order of 15-20% of their net worth to boot.

Further, if Donald had committed fraudulent acts of a sufficiently egregious nature as to warrant this level of attention by the New York State attorney general, don't you think any of several lenders would have brought an action against the Trump Organization by now, and that it would have been very well publicized?

Anyone who is even passingly familiar with finance knows very well that lenders, especially large lenders of the sort who loaned against Trump properties, conduct rigorous due diligence and are in a better position than anyone to know what the hell the market values of these assets are.

Perhaps most ridiculous of all is that if the AG's office were actually interested in protecting these "naive" lenders from being duped by a sharp operator like Donald, why would they seek to force Donald to disgorge a high percentage of his net worth; an amount that he almost certainly cannot raise without offering many of his holdings at reduced prices in a difficult market? After all, wouldn't that be likely to put downward pressure on Donald's holdings and potentially increase the risk that some of the loans could dip into non-performing status, even if they weren't likely to do so absent the need to liquidate some assets?

None of this is remotely justified or makes any sense, unless your goal is to pull every kitchen sink out of every plumbing supply house in America and throw it at him.

And I say this as someone who (to say the least) isn't much of a fan of Donald.

Judge For Trump Trial Revealed To Be Kangaroo In A Powdered Wig


NEW YORK, NY — Several eagle-eyed observers reportedly noticed something strange about the arraignment judge as Trump arrived in court this afternoon. According to sources, the judge looks suspiciously like a kangaroo wearing a powdered wig.

"I'm here to ensure these proceedings are fair and impartial," said the judge as he hopped up to the bench. "Now as I read the counts, I will ask the legal team to confirm how the defendant will plea."

"Hey! That's a kangaroo!" said Congresswoman Margorie Taylor Greene obnoxiously from the back of the room before being dragged off by other security kangaroos who were standing guard. "And why is he wearing a powdered wig? This isn't England! Let me go!"

"No one is above the rule of law," continued the judge after the short interruption. "I vow to conduct these proceedings with all the sacred, lawful dignity of my office until Trump is imprisoned or executed--preferably both."

At publishing time, Trump had been seen trying to get the charges dropped by bribing the judge with a sack of oats and carrots.

Judge For Trump Trial Revealed To Be Kangaroo In A Powdered Wig


NEW YORK, NY — Several eagle-eyed observers reportedly noticed something strange about the arraignment judge as Trump arrived in court this afternoon. According to sources, the judge looks suspiciously like a kangaroo wearing a powdered wig.

"I'm here to ensure these proceedings are fair and impartial," said the judge as he hopped up to the bench. "Now as I read the counts, I will ask the legal team to confirm how the defendant will plea."

"Hey! That's a kangaroo!" said Congresswoman Margorie Taylor Greene obnoxiously from the back of the room before being dragged off by other security kangaroos who were standing guard. "And why is he wearing a powdered wig? This isn't England! Let me go!"

"No one is above the rule of law," continued the judge after the short interruption. "I vow to conduct these proceedings with all the sacred, lawful dignity of my office until Trump is imprisoned or executed--preferably both."

At publishing time, Trump had been seen trying to get the charges dropped by bribing the judge with a sack of oats and carrots.


Originally Posted by lustylad

LOL!

At least the the AG took on a harder law to put in court than an easier one of tax fraud. Guess the repubs forgot that their saying that the demos do the easy thing and can't govern or for that fact, practice jurisdiction.