A pox on both the parties, and on Trump and Biden

Case 1:

The Trump organization fibs on its loan applications. The banks however don't lose any money, and they knew he was fibbing. A New York judge awards the state of New York (not the banks) $500 million, out of Trump's pocket.

Today, Trump fired Lisa Cook, the first black woman to serve on the Fed Board of Governors, for fibbing on her mortgage applications. Probably the banks didn't lose any money on their loans to her either.

Case 2:

Trump leaves classified documents lying around his house after he leaves the presidency, most notably in the guest bathroom to entertain his guests when they're taking a dump. When requested by the DOJ to turn them over, he doesn't. The DOJ charges him with felonies that presumably could result in his incarceration

The DOJ raids John Bolton's house and office, presumably looking for evidence to charge and incarcerate Bolton.

Case 3:

Biden shuts down new permitting for LNG facilities, to pander to the green movement. This is ironic considering the LNG would mostly substitute for coal, which emits more carbon than LNG.

Trump halts construction on Orsted and Blackstone's Revolution Wind Project, even though it's 80% finished. Why? Who the hell knows. Maybe because Orsted is Danish and Trump doesn't like the Danes.



Why do both parties, and presidents from both parties, insist on screwing over the other side, and the American people? Now we've even got Republicans screwing Republicans (Bolton.)

People need to learn how to get along, and not weaponize government against their political opponents.

Case 1:
The Trump organization fibs on its loan applications. The banks however don't lose any money, and they knew he was fibbing. A New York judge awards the state of New York (not the banks) $500 million, out of Trump's pocket.

Today, Trump fired Lisa Cook, the first black woman to serve on the Fed Board of Governors, for fibbing on her mortgage applications. Probably the banks didn't lose any money on their loans to her either. Originally Posted by Tiny

The difference is in what the apparent fib was about. In Trumps case the supposed fib was over the valuation of the property. Essentially a subjective argument over the assessed value of a property that was collateral for your loan. Its a moot point because the loan was paid back under the legal terms of the contract. The bankers required no relief as they were made whole. The state did not lose tax revenue since the claim from the state was that Trump over-valued the property which would lead to more tax revenue from the transaction. In fact the financial penalty was not paid to the bankers but to the state! Now thats some organized crime!

Essentially he took a loan for $100 when his collateral in case of default was only worth $50. He then proceeded to pay back the $100 plus agreed interest. Mind you... he had $1000 in other assets in case of default that the banks could pursue in case of default. Is that illegal? Well apparently so which now means EVERY real estate transaction has an increased risk of litigation based around the valuation assessments of property... which if you have ever bought a house, you know can change yearly... both up and down. Except that.... everyone knows this was just used as a pretext to try and punish Trump. The Gov. of New York even assured the market of that.

Cook on the other hand, had two mortgages and claimed both as her primary residence. I can't legally do that. You can't legally do that. And the reason its illegal, is that the banks are being denied interest (Primary residence mortgage rates are lower... so are the associated insurance costs). Its a crime. Says so right on the mortgage papers you sign at closing. You also don't mistakenly understand which house you live in.

So you can characterize the behaviour as the same (a lie) and you do BECAUSE you know the cases are different. Because the entire point of your post is anti Trump. You don't really give two fcuks about any crimes the Democrats may have committed. I mean if this bothers you so much... what about the FBI LYING UNDER OATH to surveil a private citizen? THATS PURE FCUKING INSANE! And that the LIE was propagated from the Oval Office?! Jesus old style classical liberals should be coming apart at the seams for such behaviour! Watergate was nothing in comparison...

but....

crickets.

And we all know why.

Case 2:
Trump leaves classified documents lying around his house after he leaves the presidency, most notably in the guest bathroom to entertain his guests when they're taking a dump. When requested by the DOJ to turn them over, he doesn't. The DOJ charges him with felonies that presumably could result in his incarceration

The DOJ raids John Bolton's house and office, presumably looking for evidence to charge and incarcerate Bolton. Originally Posted by Tiny

Ah but you missed the important part (of course) Trump was president. He was the national command authority he can declassify anything he wants to with a word. He doesn't have to inform anyone. He has access to every classified black site worldwide (assuming he knows about it) all he has to do is show up. So he can just claim those docs are declassified. You also omit the fact that the FBI mishandled the documents so there is in fact ZERO way of knowing if they inserted damaging documents into the evidence from the raid. Given that the FBI lied (under oath) and continued to claim that Trump may have been a Russian asset, there is plenty of reason to distrust the FBI.

Bolton was never President. He can't have classified documents at home. Sorry... But you missed the better case. Biden had documents at home from his era as VP. (Guess what.. he can't declassify stuff as the VP) Investigators confirmed he likely committed a crime but declined to prosecute because a jury would see him as a bumbling old man incapable of knowing that he was in fact committing a crime.

Said bumbling old man still had his finger on the nuclear button.

Pretty fcuking convenient the way the chips always seem to be falling now don't you think?

Case 3:
Biden shuts down new permitting for LNG facilities, to pander to the green movement. This is ironic considering the LNG would mostly substitute for coal, which emits more carbon than LNG.

Trump halts construction on Orsted and Blackstone's Revolution Wind Project, even though it's 80% finished. Why? Who the hell knows. Maybe because Orsted is Danish and Trump doesn't like the Danes. Originally Posted by Tiny

Well Biden did it for political reasons, and Trump probably is as well. They cited NatSec concerns but most likely its a way to pull federal dollars back. Politics are politics in this case... both appear to be stupid decisions.

Surprise! Politicians do dumb shit!

Why do both parties, and presidents from both parties, insist on screwing over the other side, and the American people? Now we've even got Republicans screwing Republicans (Bolton.) Originally Posted by Tiny

Who cares that Bolton was a Republican? Trump was once a Democrat... does that affect how democrats treat him?

People need to learn how to get along, and not weaponize government against their political opponents. Originally Posted by Tiny

I think there was some douche in Chiraq that said something to the effect of the chickens are coming home to roost. Democrats were warned not to go down this road because of the precedent this would set. But were they smart enough to listen? FCUK NO. So when you bitch about the "weaponization" of the government against political enemies you better be looking STRAIGHT at the Democrats. They wanted to play ball because they thought they would never lose power to Trump again. But just like Darth whacking Obi... they only made him stronger.

So people don't need to learn shit. Its DEMOCRATS that need to understand they are playing with fire. Thats why I want DEMOCRATS to go to jail for their lies. Because thats the only way we're ever going to get what you hope for as well... preventing political parties from using the levers of power to pursue their political opposition.

But of course the Republicans are pussies... they won't do what needs being done.

And so the next Democrat administration will do the same thing... the spiral downward for the Republic will continue apace simply because we don't have any politicians with a spine.

If history is any guide (hint: it is) Trump is the upside... the next guy we get that will end the corruption in the government will likely be executing their political opposition.

So all the geniuses that supported making the below happen will know they brought on worse than they imagined.

Didn’t Trump’s lies garner him better interest rates? If so, that’s exactly what you’re arguing is illegal.

Also, as I understood it, Trump's lies allowed him to receive financing in amounts at the lower interest he otherwise wouldn't have been qualified for. He would have had to leverage other properties to the bank incurring more debt, again, getting an essentially lower rate and lower repayment to the bank. Exactly what you argue is illegal.

Didn’t Trump’s lies garner him better interest rates? If so, that’s exactly what you’re arguing is illegal. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Deutsche Bank testified they didn't care anyway since Trump had that $1000 alluded to in my earlier simplification. And again, assets valuations are subjective. They are not objective like is that your primary residence or not?

More to your point... you just justified his firing of the FOMC governor. Thanks ;-)

Deutsche Bank testified they didn't care anyway since Trump had that $1000 alluded to in my earlier simplification. And again, assets valuations are subjective. They are not objective like is that your primary residence or not?

More to your point... you just justified his firing of the FOMC governor. Thanks ;-) Originally Posted by texassapper

There doesn't always need to be a victim in fraud attempts. The laws are there to 'discourage' the exact actions that Trump et al was doing because they could easily lead to ill gotten gains, and engorgements based on fraud. It's not that hard of a concept. And assuming that deutsche bank got the loan interest paid back- doesn't mean they didn't have a claim of loss. Perhaps if the loan application referred or revealed that the valuations were askew- the loan would have been issued at a higher rate or terms more favorable to the bank for taking on extra risk. That's all a bank bases the loan on. Collateral and risk- equals terms and rates. Banks are publicly traded companies and as shareholders,aka owners- those owners have an interest in getting as much juice from every loan that they are legally entitled to. LEGALLY - meaning based on the standards of GAAP and valuations that are signed off on, as being fair and honest representations of the value- not some hucksters assessment and thumb on the scale type of value.

If Trump falsely got better rates etc., or had sub-rated collateral based on valuations - then DB could have been seeking compensation. They didn't probably because of a long banking arrangement and of course not to politicize this even more- imagine if they had what Trump would be doing to them right now?!

as far as politicizing energy.. Both parties and administrations are guilty and just fucking over the population on shit that is dumb. The only thing that I am not a fan of- is offshoring our natural gas resources onto an open market. My prediction is once that happens in wholesale - pricing of local gas is going to increase, just as electricity has increased; In that capacity perhaps exit tariffs should be in place so that all this doesn't fall on the average joe' pocket book.

Deutsche Bank testified they didn't care anyway since Trump had that $1000 alluded to in my earlier simplification. And again, assets valuations are subjective. They are not objective like is that your primary residence or not?

More to your point... you just justified his firing of the FOMC governor. Thanks ;-) Originally Posted by texassapper

Did I or did I point out that you claimed it’s different that what Trump did, it wasn’t, if she in fact did anything. She hasn’t been charged to my knowledge.

So you can characterize the behaviour as the same (a lie) and you do BECAUSE you know the cases are different. Because the entire point of your post is anti Trump. You don't really give two fcuks about any crimes the Democrats may have committed. I mean if this bothers you so much... what about the FBI LYING UNDER OATH to surveil a private citizen? THATS PURE FCUKING INSANE! And that the LIE was propagated from the Oval Office?! Jesus old style classical liberals should be coming apart at the seams for such behaviour! Watergate was nothing in comparison...

but....

crickets. Originally Posted by texassapper

LMFAO. I defended Trump on this issue more than anyone on the board. See for example LustyLad's thread,

https://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=2950063

Leticia James went after Trump to promote her political career and raise revenues for the state of New York. Trump went after Cook because he wants to control the Fed. Only an extreme partisan would believe Trump deserves a $500 million judgement or Cook deserves to be fired for bank fraud.

And we all know why.
Ah but you missed the important part (of course) Trump was president. He was the national command authority he can declassify anything he wants to with a word. He doesn't have to inform anyone. He has access to every classified black site worldwide (assuming he knows about it) all he has to do is show up. So he can just claim those docs are declassified. You also omit the fact that the FBI mishandled the documents so there is in fact ZERO way of knowing if they inserted damaging documents into the evidence from the raid. Given that the FBI lied (under oath) and continued to claim that Trump may have been a Russian asset, there is plenty of reason to distrust the FBI.

Bolton was never President. He can't have classified documents at home. Sorry... But you missed the better case. Biden had documents at home from his era as VP. (Guess what.. he can't declassify stuff as the VP) Investigators confirmed he likely committed a crime but declined to prosecute because a jury would see him as a bumbling old man incapable of knowing that he was in fact committing a crime.

Said bumbling old man still had his finger on the nuclear button. Originally Posted by texassapper

That's an awfully weak argument there texassapper. Trump should be absolved and Bolton and Biden should not, because ex-presidents can wave their magic wands years after they leave office and declassify material.

If I were judge and jury I wouldn't have given Trump more than a slap on the wrist over this. Maybe a misdemeanor and a fine. Maybe home confinement at Mar a Lago with an ankle bracelet for a month, tops. But then I'm not sure Edward Snowden deserves a felony jail conviction either.

Trump was once a Democrat... does that affect how democrats treat him? Originally Posted by texassapper

Once a Democrat always a Democrat

I think there was some douche in Chiraq that said something to the effect of the chickens are coming home to roost. Democrats were warned not to go down this road because of the precedent this would set. But were they smart enough to listen? FCUK NO. So when you bitch about the "weaponization" of the government against political enemies you better be looking STRAIGHT at the Democrats. They wanted to play ball because they thought they would never lose power to Trump again. But just like Darth whacking Obi... they only made him stronger.

So people don't need to learn shit. Its DEMOCRATS that need to understand they are playing with fire. Thats why I want DEMOCRATS to go to jail for their lies. Because thats the only way we're ever going to get what you hope for as well... preventing political parties from using the levers of power to pursue their political opposition.

But of course the Republicans are pussies... they won't do what needs being done.

And so the next Democrat administration will do the same thing... the spiral downward for the Republic will continue apace simply because we don't have any politicians with a spine.

If history is any guide (hint: it is) Trump is the upside... the next guy we get that will end the corruption in the government will likely be executing their political opposition.

So all the geniuses that supported making the below happen will know they brought on worse than they imagined.

Originally Posted by texassapper

If the Democrats incarcerate all the Republicans and the Republicans incarcerate all the Democrats, who's going to be left to pay taxes? Yeah, New York Democrats got pretty damn overzealous when they went after Trump in courtrooms. So did Washington D.C. Democrats when they sentenced people like the Q Anon Shaman to long prison sentences. But as one of our country's wisest chics with dicks (Michelle Obama) said, "When they go low, we go high." Trump should go high. Instead he chooses to hyperfocus on retribution for real and imagined misdeeds.

Didn’t Trump’s lies garner him better interest rates? If so, that’s exactly what you’re arguing is illegal. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Yeah, Texassapper is grasping at straws. Firing Cook is a bigger deal than you'd think. Trump's master plan is to get control of the Fed and drop interest rates to 1%. Or that's what he says it is. This is a nutty idea. He wants to copy Turkish monetary policy, setting interest rates way below the inflation rate. That makes sense in a deep recession, but not when the economy is humming along. It's a recipe for out-of-control inflation.

Also, as I understood it, Trump's lies allowed him to receive financing in amounts at the lower interest he otherwise wouldn't have been qualified for. He would have had to leverage other properties to the bank incurring more debt, again, getting an essentially lower rate and lower repayment to the bank. Exactly what you argue is illegal. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

No, actually what happened was that Trump was offered loans for development of the Chicago property by (a) the real estate arm of Deutsche Bank and (b) DB's private bank. The offer by the real estate arm was collateralized by the Chicago property and was non recourse, meaning that if the loan failed, DB couldn't go after Trump's personal assets. The loan was at a relatively high rate, pulling a number out of the air because I'm too lazy to research this, maybe 9%.

The private bank loan was collateralized by the Chicago property, AND also the bank would have recourse against Trump's unencumbered assets if it failed. Trump, as is his habit, lied about the value of those other assets. He said his net worth was $4 or $5 billion, when it was actually only $2 or $3 billion.

DB almost certainly knew Trump was puffing up his balance sheet. Based on evidence that came out in the court proceedings, DB looked at scenarios where Trump's net worth was around half of the amount he claimed. Anybody in the world with half a brain who's followed Trump closely would know he was lying about his net worth.

Anyway, because DB would be able to go after all of Trump's unencumbered assets if the Chicago loan failed, and because it figured he was worth $2 billion or more, and because the amount of the loan was around $700 million, the private bank offered him a substantially lower rate than the real estate group at DB, maybe around 4% or 5%.

Bizarrely, in coming up with his $500 million judgement, Engoron assumed that Deutsche Bank would have received whatever interest rate the real estate group was offering, 9% or whatever, if Trump hadn't lied about his net worth. Engoron chose to totally ignore that Trump's additional $2 billion or $3 billion made the private bank's lower interest loan a much safer bet than the higher interest nonrecourse loan.

There doesn't always need to be a victim in fraud attempts. The laws are there to 'discourage' the exact actions that Trump et al was doing because they could easily lead to ill gotten gains, and engorgements based on fraud. It's not that hard of a concept. And assuming that deutsche bank got the loan interest paid back- doesn't mean they didn't have a claim of loss. Perhaps if the loan application referred or revealed that the valuations were askew- the loan would have been issued at a higher rate or terms more favorable to the bank for taking on extra risk. That's all a bank bases the loan on. Collateral and risk- equals terms and rates. Banks are publicly traded companies and as shareholders,aka owners- those owners have an interest in getting as much juice from every loan that they are legally entitled to. LEGALLY - meaning based on the standards of GAAP and valuations that are signed off on, as being fair and honest representations of the value- not some hucksters assessment and thumb on the scale type of value.

If Trump falsely got better rates etc., or had sub-rated collateral based on valuations - then DB could have been seeking compensation. They didn't probably because of a long banking arrangement and of course not to politicize this even more- imagine if they had what Trump would be doing to them right now?! Originally Posted by eyecu2

Eyecu2, you have an insider's perspective on this that the rest of us don't, and a stronger appreciation of what's in the bank's best interest. Agreed, people should be truthful on loan applications. As explained above, I believe DB went into this with its eyes wide open. Trump's reputation and history, including his Atlantic City bankruptcies, were well known.

as far as politicizing energy.. Both parties and administrations are guilty and just fucking over the population on shit that is dumb. The only thing that I am not a fan of- is offshoring our natural gas resources onto an open market. My prediction is once that happens in wholesale - pricing of local gas is going to increase, just as electricity has increased; In that capacity perhaps exit tariffs should be in place so that all this doesn't fall on the average joe' pocket book. Originally Posted by eyecu2

Have to disagree with you on this. The USA is the Saudi Arabia of Natural Gas. And it's not just the Marcellus, the Haynesville, the Gulf Coast and associated gas from West Texas. The resource in the Rockies, in the Green River, Piceance and Uinta Basins is huge. We have the largest gas resources in the world. It's very possible that developing LNG exports would actually in the long run result in lower domestic natural gas prices, because of the additional infrastructure and development.

President Carter made a big mistake, because he believed the USA was going to run out of natural gas, so he discouraged development. Better to forge ahead and provide clean(er) burning natural gas produced in the USA to the world IMHO.