Trump Trials Watch I

cajunrevenge said:
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 ****.
Click to expand...

IDK how to even respond, its fairly evident you have not undergone this process and none of us have gone through this process at this level.

Of course they would asset verify, but id does not mean the rate would change with any issues they found automatically. That is a false assumption. On deals this large, they likely know the parameters that are going to work before stepping foot in the same room. Rates, Terms, etc...
 
57Brave said:
Wow, no mention here of Pence sworn testimony
Click to expand...

I dont see the point anymore. They have decided what they want the truth to believe. Any evidence to the contrary is a deep state conspiracy by Huge Chavez who secretly lives on Mars. Theres no reason to argue with idiots who believe **** like that.

Trumps response is amusing as always. There is nothing new or damaging in the filing but it is somehow election interference because..... I dont know. To that I say when/if Trump wins, since he has said a President has the right to get involved, publicly order your AG to prosecute Jack Smith. Please I am begging him. Please try it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Googliani is asking the court to not allow the people he is liable for defaming to collect on his debt he claims Trump owes Googliani because it will look like Googliani is suing Trump and that would........ you guessed it...... election interference.
 
Its such a disgrace what the left did to this country.

Unless lots of people lose their licenses (including media companies) and go to jail nothing will change.
 
The Carroll case was perhaps crazier. I've never seen a case where the so-called victim gets to change her story substantially and the judge would not let Trump's team bring up to the jury that she changed her story.
 
Garmel said:
The Carroll case was perhaps crazier. I've never seen a case where the so-called victim gets to change her story substantially and the judge would not let Trump's team bring up to the jury that she changed her story.
Click to expand...

Its a continuation of the same crap they pulled against Kavanaugh.

Made up lies.

Made up precedent.

These people want to destroy the country.
 
thethe said:
[tw]1844375852894781462[/tw]
Click to expand...

I dont know what thats a recap of but it wasnt the appellate court hearing. You people are just setting yourself up again. I think the best you can hope for is a reduction of the fine to the amount of bond of he paid. The claim that the prosecutors were begging to not be sanctioned is laughable. This law was passed in 1956 at the behest of a Republican AG and has been used in several cases including Exxon and Martin Shkreli.
 
Tapate50 said:
Cajun the great legal mind of our generation thinks its legit, soooooo
Click to expand...

Until I am proven wrong you got nothing to stand on. So go ahead, make some **** up and deliberately misinterpret what I post to try and say I was wrong. Its what you people do.
 
cajunrevenge said:
I dont know what thats a recap of but it wasnt the appellate court hearing. You people are just setting yourself up again. I think the best you can hope for is a reduction of the fine to the amount of bond of he paid. The claim that the prosecutors were begging to not be sanctioned is laughable. This law was passed in 1956 at the behest of a Republican AG and has been used in several cases including Exxon and Martin Shkreli.
Click to expand...

It has not been used when there was no victim in the case. That's the point.

Okay, where's the real recap if you know the real story?

Edit- Yes, it will overturned either by this court or one down the road.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The hearings only like 45 minutes. Go listen for yourself. There is a victim. DB lost money because like every bank in the world they charge more for higher risk. DB can say their process they required was meaningless until they are blue in the face but it wouldnt be required if it was meaningless. DB isnt claiming to be a victim because it would incut retaliation from Trump and his cult. Its a business move. Whats more telling is that they refuse to do business with him anymore after this stuff came out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top