Trump Trials Watch I

cajunrevenge said:
For starters he is talking about the NY case not all the indictments. Second, he is a PR guy, he has literally no more insight into the case than any random Joe that works at McDonalds. Is the guy even a lawyer? I am not interested in the opinions of Trump tards even if they clean the windows at the FBI. Meanwhile all these people who worked with or for Trump in his administration talk about what a piece of **** he is and won't even endorse him and you just brush that off as meaningless.
Click to expand...

You love calling people tards but you're the tard that still believes what we're seeing in the courts is real when most people see it for what it is.

You're an idiot because you don't realize this will be overturned because it's so laughable.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You are welcome to your opinion. I honestly don't even care, even if you were right you could only accuse Democrats of using the Trump playbook. You yourself were high stepping when Durham was weaponizing the law. I recall the MAGA response to Stormy Daniels being kidnapped by police officers. It certainly wasnt condemnation. No one now currently complaining about "lawfare" against Trump have two ****s when it happened to Hillary and likely cost her thr election. So spare me the fake outrage.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I thought it would probably take the SCOTUS to overturn the case but the NY appellate court looks skeptical of this case as any sane human should.

[tw]1839400199263076414[/tw]
 
High stepping early again I see. Thats never backfired on you before or anything. Its factually incorrect that no one lost money. If Trump was honest he would have been required to pay more. The judgement was literally for the amount of money Trump saved himself by lying. I think it would send a terrible message to say fraud is okay as long as the person you do it to makes some money. As long as they make a penny no one was harmed. I still find it hard to believe they would overturn the verdict. You want to make stupid points about Maralago thats fine but theres no excuses for outright lying about assets profitability and his liquid assets. I think best outcome for Trump to hope for is a reduction of the verdict.
 
cajunrevenge said:
Literally every bank in the world charges more based on higher risk. Find me one that doesnt.
Click to expand...

You're still under the assumption that his portfolio is exaggerated. That's according to a judge who obviously doesn't know much of anything. 18 million my ass.
 
Lets be clear where the goal posts are here. My position is that the case will not be overturned based on the merits of the case. As in they arent going to overturn the case because his statements were truthful. They arent going to overturn his case because the Judge misvalued something. I dont know the particular details of the statute of limitations so I cant say it wont be overturned because of that. I would argue that statute of limitations should not be ticking when evidence is delayed by lengthy frivolous lawsuits but I dont know how the courts will rule on that.

I havent listened to the hearing yet but heres my thoughts on the points raised I have seen from articles about it.

- "There was no victim". - The statute does not require a victim and theres plenty of people in prison for crimes with no victim. Who is the victim in Hunter Bidens tax case? It was paid back in full with interest. Who is the victim in the Hunter Biden gun charge? There is a victim though. DB made less money than if Trump was honest because they would have charged more. They cant require him to do all that paperwork then claim the paperwork was meaningless.

- "Deutch Bank never complained and is happy and satisfied with the transaction" - They are so happy they refuse to do business with him anymore. Are they satisfied with no complaints or do they just not want to bear the financial cost of pissing off his cult. I would ask the Judge what they would do in DB situation. Tell the truth and lose potentially hundreds of millions of dollars or lie and lose no money. Every business in the world is protecting their income. Theres also the issue of Trumps vindictive nature and the possibility he may be President again. Do you think DB would come into the court and risk upsetting the potential next President who would spend his entire Presidency seeking revenge?

- I would ask the Judge if they are saying it is perfectly legal to lie on financial documents so long as you pay back the loan.
 
cajunrevenge said:
Lets be clear where the goal posts are here. My position is that the case will not be overturned based on the merits of the case. As in they arent going to overturn the case because his statements were truthful. They arent going to overturn his case because the Judge misvalued something. I dont know the particular details of the statute of limitations so I cant say it wont be overturned because of that. I would argue that statute of limitations should not be ticking when evidence is delayed by lengthy frivolous lawsuits but I dont know how the courts will rule on that.

I havent listened to the hearing yet but heres my thoughts on the points raised I have seen from articles about it.

- "There was no victim". - The statute does not require a victim and theres plenty of people in prison for crimes with no victim. Who is the victim in Hunter Bidens tax case? It was paid back in full with interest. Who is the victim in the Hunter Biden gun charge? There is a victim though. DB made less money than if Trump was honest because they would have charged more. They cant require him to do all that paperwork then claim the paperwork was meaningless.

- "Deutch Bank never complained and is happy and satisfied with the transaction" - They are so happy they refuse to do business with him anymore. Are they satisfied with no complaints or do they just not want to bear the financial cost of pissing off his cult. I would ask the Judge what they would do in DB situation. Tell the truth and lose potentially hundreds of millions of dollars or lie and lose no money. Every business in the world is protecting their income. Theres also the issue of Trumps vindictive nature and the possibility he may be President again. Do you think DB would come into the court and risk upsetting the potential next President who would spend his entire Presidency seeking revenge?

- I would ask the Judge if they are saying it is perfectly legal to lie on financial documents so long as you pay back the loan.
Click to expand...

If one of us lied about the info on a mortage application, got a favorable mortgage rate and then paid it off what happens. In a sense there is no victim since the bank got paid back. But the bank took a chance that they didn't reallze they were taking on someone with lower creditworthiness than they realized. So they were victimized into doing something they wouldn't normally do. The downside just failed to materialize. But it was there. And it is a crime.
 
Garmel said:
You're still under the assumption that his portfolio is exaggerated. That's according to a judge who obviously doesn't know much of anything. 18 million my ass.
Click to expand...

And your still under the assumption that this is only about him exaggerating the price of his properties. Explain the following things to me as something other than deliberate intent to deceive.

- Lying to Mazars about the existence of appraisals of his properties. He could have given it to them and explained why he thought they were wrong. He knew if he provided it they would have used that. Given me any other explanation. And to quote Trump "I have one of the greatest memories in history". I also remind you that Trump got to pick the appraiser and could have chosen any appraiser in the world he wanted. Why not get a second appraisal if he thought the first was so wrong?

- Lying to Mazars that the information provided conformed with GAAP. Why not tell Mazars they had no idea what GAAP was which is what Weaselberg said in court. If theres no intent to decieve why lie? Because if they told Mazars it did not conform with GAAP they would have know it wasnt reliable.

- The appraiser for Cushman & Wakefield was listed as the source for cap rates on some of Trumps properties despite him never being involved or even discussing those properties with anyone in the Trump Org. They also listed him as a source for the cap rate on his interest in Vornado which he had no involvement in. He did appraise a property called Dean & Deluca but they added 200 million to the value and signed his name to it. How do you explain taking an appraisal, adding hundreds of millions of dollars, then trying to pass it off as being from the appraiser?

- How do you explain McConney saying Mazaars wrote the valuation and disclaimer language that appeared in the SFCs when he forwarded hand written notes to Mazaars directing the majority of the draft SFC language to be changed.

- How do you explain Trump listing interest from Vornado as withdrawable income when he had no ability to withdraw money from it. Which McConney testified they knew. This was listed from 2015-2021. Not just one erroneous statement.

- How do you explain valuing Trump Park Avenue as if it was unrestricted property and had already been renovated. They are specifically supposed to include present day value not 10 years from now. It would have been fine if they simply said this is the value we think it will be at when renovated 5 years from now. They didnt do that because Mazaars would have said "Thats nice but whats the value now".

- How do you explain McConney testifying that they initially valued Maralago as a Residence despite knowing it can only be used for commercial property. You can argue all you want about the valuation of Maralago but nothing was stopping them from listing the same price and saying it was commercial. He literally said they purposely used information they knew was false to value the property.

- Can you explain to me why McConney says he knowingly committed tax fraud with Weaselberg because he thought he would be fired if he didnt.

This is just the start. Thats not even halfway through the verdict. If it was just one of these things I can understand saying it was a mistake. You try to argue about 2-3 things when the case involves 100 different instances of fraud. Take out the 2-3 you dont agree with and theres still 97 instances of fraud.
 
cajunrevenge said:
And your still under the assumption that this is only about him exaggerating the price of his properties. Explain the following things to me as something other than deliberate intent to deceive.

- Lying to Mazars about the existence of appraisals of his properties. He could have given it to them and explained why he thought they were wrong. He knew if he provided it they would have used that. Given me any other explanation. And to quote Trump "I have one of the greatest memories in history". I also remind you that Trump got to pick the appraiser and could have chosen any appraiser in the world he wanted. Why not get a second appraisal if he thought the first was so wrong?

- Lying to Mazars that the information provided conformed with GAAP. Why not tell Mazars they had no idea what GAAP was which is what Weaselberg said in court. If theres no intent to decieve why lie? Because if they told Mazars it did not conform with GAAP they would have know it wasnt reliable.

- The appraiser for Cushman & Wakefield was listed as the source for cap rates on some of Trumps properties despite him never being involved or even discussing those properties with anyone in the Trump Org. They also listed him as a source for the cap rate on his interest in Vornado which he had no involvement in. He did appraise a property called Dean & Deluca but they added 200 million to the value and signed his name to it. How do you explain taking an appraisal, adding hundreds of millions of dollars, then trying to pass it off as being from the appraiser?

- How do you explain McConney saying Mazaars wrote the valuation and disclaimer language that appeared in the SFCs when he forwarded hand written notes to Mazaars directing the majority of the draft SFC language to be changed.

- How do you explain Trump listing interest from Vornado as withdrawable income when he had no ability to withdraw money from it. Which McConney testified they knew. This was listed from 2015-2021. Not just one erroneous statement.

- How do you explain valuing Trump Park Avenue as if it was unrestricted property and had already been renovated. They are specifically supposed to include present day value not 10 years from now. It would have been fine if they simply said this is the value we think it will be at when renovated 5 years from now. They didnt do that because Mazaars would have said "Thats nice but whats the value now".

- How do you explain McConney testifying that they initially valued Maralago as a Residence despite knowing it can only be used for commercial property. You can argue all you want about the valuation of Maralago but nothing was stopping them from listing the same price and saying it was commercial. He literally said they purposely used information they knew was false to value the property.

- Can you explain to me why McConney says he knowingly committed tax fraud with Weaselberg because he thought he would be fired if he didnt.

This is just the start. Thats not even halfway through the verdict. If it was just one of these things I can understand saying it was a mistake. You try to argue about 2-3 things when the case involves 100 different instances of fraud. Take out the 2-3 you dont agree with and theres still 97 instances of fraud.
Click to expand...

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.
 
A lot of civil cases are brought on the basis that the harm involves undermining public confidence in institutions such as financial markets and the banking system.

Insider trading being a classic example. It is hard to identify a specific victim in most cases of insider trading.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Garmel said:
In a civil case there has to be a victim. End of story.
Click to expand...

The victim would be the competition and DB. If Trump doesnt get the loan someone else buys the properties. If DB still gives him the loan but charges him more then DB lost profitability.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top