Trump Trials Watch I

Garmel said:
That all comes from the judge's verdict who also devalued Trump's stuff intentionally.

Sorry, I don't take his word for it on all of this.
Click to expand...

You wut? Literally nothing here comes from the Judge. Just mind bogglingly stupid. The appraiser says he did appraisal for Trump property. Mazaars said they asked for any appraisals and were told there were none. What part of that is from the Judge exactly? The appraiser saying he was listed as the source for cap rates he either had nothing to do with or gave different valuations is from the Judge? Wut?
 
Carp said:
I mean you don't have to take our word for it that it's a sham:

https://nypost.com/2024/09/05/us-ne...ing-blasting-da-bragg-over-trump-prosecution/
Click to expand...

Cool, now can we get the opinion of the janitor at the DoJ. If this was anyone with even the slightest involvement in the case there might be a point but he has nothing to do with anything regarding Trump. He is entitled to his opinion which he gives. One random person says one thing you people agree with and you come here pimping it as the biggest **** but just completely no sell all the people who give negative opinions about Trump from half the people who used to work for him. Just **** off with your BS.
 
cajunrevenge said:
Cool, now can we get the opinion of the janitor at the DoJ. If this was anyone with even the slightest involvement in the case there might be a point but he has nothing to do with anything regarding Trump. He is entitled to his opinion which he gives. One random person says one thing you people agree with and you come here pimping it as the biggest **** but just completely no sell all the people who give negative opinions about Trump from half the people who used to work for him. Just **** off with your BS.
Click to expand...

Random person? A representative for the US Attorney's office in Manhattan is a random person now... This is the level you've stooped to?

When this case is thrown out, like it appears will happen, what will be your excuse then?
 
Carp said:
Random person? A representative for the US Attorney's office in Manhattan is a random person now... This is the level you've stooped to?

When this case is thrown out, like it appears will happen, what will be your excuse then?
Click to expand...

It won’t matter. He will pivot to something else.
 
According to the same NY Post article: An apologetic Biase told The Post in a statement Thursday that he made the remarks in a private setting with someone he’d “just met” and was trying to “impress.”

Wonder who the honeypot was.

Anyhow Trump and his fine attorneys are free to depose Biase for their appeals. Political animus and selective prosecution can be grounds for appeal.
 
nsacpi said:
According to the same NY Post article: An apologetic Biase told The Post in a statement Thursday that he made the remarks in a private setting with someone he’d “just met” and was trying to “impress.”

Wonder who the honeypot was.

Anyone Trump and his fine attorneys are free to depose Biase for their appeals.
Click to expand...

Someone back tracks their comments after getting caught on video. Where have I seen that before?

He was awfully specific for someone trying to impress a girl.

I am not surprised nsacpi is gullible enough to believe it though.
 
Speaking of secret tape recordings. Have you guys heard of the tape of Trump showing people our classified war plans for Iran? Is it illegal to show classified documents to people without security clearance?
 
I will accept the verdict whatever it is. I havent listened to the hearing yet though. I know better than to take what you people say at face value.
 
Carp said:
Random person? A representative for the US Attorney's office in Manhattan is a random person now... This is the level you've stooped to?

When this case is thrown out, like it appears will happen, what will be your excuse then?
Click to expand...

A PR guy. Is he even a lawyer? You give more weight to this random guy than 100 lifelong Republicans who have personally dealt with Trump and saw how corrupt and incompetent he was. You point to one guy in the DoJ I point to Trumps AG, second AG, VP, 2012 GOP nominee, 2008 GOP nominee, 2 national security directors, Secretary of Defense, Chief of Staff, etc. I dont believe the DoJ guy because I have no proof he has any involvement in the case. He has an opinion. Great. He is welcome to it. These other people worked with and for Trump directly.
 
nsacpi said:
According to the same NY Post article: An apologetic Biase told The Post in a statement Thursday that he made the remarks in a private setting with someone he’d “just met” and was trying to “impress.”

Wonder who the honeypot was.

Anyhow Trump and his fine attorneys are free to depose Biase for their appeals. Political animus and selective prosecution can be grounds for appeal.
Click to expand...

Trump should hire him to be his defense lawyer. He made such a compelling argument.
 
cajunrevenge said:
You wut? Literally nothing here comes from the Judge. Just mind bogglingly stupid. The appraiser says he did appraisal for Trump property. Mazaars said they asked for any appraisals and were told there were none. What part of that is from the Judge exactly? The appraiser saying he was listed as the source for cap rates he either had nothing to do with or gave different valuations is from the Judge? Wut?
Click to expand...

Okay. I misunderstood what you said.

All of these here can be nothing but misunderstanding between parties.

Every error on a sheet or contradiction between Trump and an employee/ag isn't a sign of fraud.

I don't know if it will be this court or another one down the road but this sham of a case will be dismissed.
 
cajunrevenge said:
Literally every bank in the world charges more based on higher risk. Find me one that doesnt.
Click to expand...

You are assuming he was a higher risk.

He likely wasn’t.

Like applying for a mortgage with a 800 or a 750 score isn’t going to change the rate

It also sounds like the lender could do more asset verification because no one is forcing them to lend huge sums of money.

This is a giant nothing burger

If you go get a mortgage they are gonna do asset verification.
 
The fake elector scheme accusation is the only one of these that really moves the needle for me personally (and I don’t think he can be prosecuted for this now after the SC immunity ruling? I could be wrong). If that could be proven (and the evidence appears quite strong), that’s disqualifying for me.

The rest do reek a bit of lawfare.
 
Tapate50 said:
You are assuming he was a higher risk.

He likely wasn’t.

Like applying for a mortgage with a 800 or a 750 score isn’t going to change the rate

It also sounds like the lender could do more asset verification because no one is forcing them to lend huge sums of money.

This is a giant nothing burger

If you go get a mortgage they are gonna do asset verification.
Click to expand...

Sure, if you think the banks included conditions regarding net worth and liquid income and all that paperwork just for ****s and giggles. And if the bank tells you an 800 credit score is required for the loan but you have 750 is it fraud to sign the documents asserting your credit score is 800?
 
chop2chip said:
The fake elector scheme accusation is the only one of these that really moves the needle for me personally (and I don’t think he can be prosecuted for this now after the SC immunity ruling? I could be wrong). If that could be proven (and the evidence appears quite strong), that’s disqualifying for me.

The rest do reek a bit of lawfare.
Click to expand...

I dont understand. Its a disqualifier for you but only if he is convicted? He doesnt deny it. He just denies that doing it was illegal.

And you cant seriously think the documents case is lawfare. They gave him many opportunities to give them back. He forced his lawyers to sign a false affidavit lying that he didnt have the documents. He tried to obstruct a subpoena and tried to hide evidence. If he legitimately thought the documents were his he had every chance to file for an injunction. If the conduct doesnt bother you thats fine, but I cant accept that you dont think its a serious crime that should be prosecuted.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
cajunrevenge said:
I dont understand. Its a disqualifier for you but only if he is convicted? He doesnt deny it. He just denies that doing it was illegal.

And you cant seriously think the documents case is lawfare. They gave him many opportunities to give them back. He forced his lawyers to sign a false affidavit lying that he didnt have the documents. He tried to obstruct a subpoena and tried to hide evidence. If he legitimately thought the documents were his he had every chance to file for an injunction. If the conduct doesnt bother you thats fine, but I cant accept that you dont think it’s a serious crime that should be prosecuted.
Click to expand...

“Proven” not convicted
 
cajunrevenge said:
Sure, if you think the banks included conditions regarding net worth and liquid income and all that paperwork just for ****s and giggles. And if the bank tells you an 800 credit score is required for the loan but you have 750 is it fraud to sign the documents asserting your credit score is 800?
Click to expand...

Holy ****

The bank literally tells you what you qualify for after asset verification and they tell you the credit score.

Like I said it likely didn’t change the rate. The rate is set by the market at the time
 
Asset verification for you and Donald Trump are two entirely different things. There a reason they have an independent company like Mazaars do the SFCs and dont just ask Trump to scribble down his net worth and liquid assets on napkin and give it to them. Mazaars was supposed to be the verification because they are a credible company with legitimacy. Only because Trump purposely lied and deceived Mazaars was there any issue. The rates are set by the market and they vary based on the risk incurred by the bank in issueing the loan. You cant tell me every single person gets the same rates on loans. Trump got his rates because he personally guaranteed the loans since he has screwed banks before by filing bankruptcy of his company to avoid paying back loans. The personal guarantee was only worth it if he met certain criteria. Saying now after the fact that the criteria and paperwork were meaningless is BS. If they were going to give him the loans at the same rate anyways they wouldnt have asked for all that ****.
 
For a Judge who has made numerous unnecessary delays in Trumps documents trial she sure wants to get this trial for Trumps second attempted assassin to get started quick. Wants trial to start November 18th. If he wasnt a convicted felon I think he should use the second amendment as his defense. Courts used to have a very literal interpretation of the second amendment. If a cop planted drugs on me it was perfectly legal for me to shoot him if he tried to arrest me. Which a lot of people mistakenly still believe applies. At some point Judge decided that if a cop plants drugs on you that you have the option to file a complaint and if that dont work out tough luck. When it comes to government leaders courts say that because you have the option to vote for your elected leaders anything they do cant really qualify as tyranny. Only when the right to choose our elected officials was taken away does it qualify as tyranny. If I was his lawyers I would argue Trump tried once and he plans to do it again but this time he is more prepared. I would ask to subpoena all kinds of Trump campaign documents and emails looking for any discussion of it. I highly doubt the Judge would grant the subpoena in the first place though. Its an argument that I think is correct but is a guaranteed loser. Not that he has a chance. You want to see a rigged trial watch his trial. When your guilty as sin its gonna look like that,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top