Trump keeps begging for donations - Yikes, that doesn't bode well

[WrestlingRasta]

1 hour ago, Husker_Du said:

why don't you just admit what you are - a cheerleader. you pick a side and throw reason out the window. 

Pure gold. Absolute, pure gold. 

[jross]

6 hours ago, GreatWhiteNorth said:

Let me get this straight:

You have decided to become a Trump defender?

You believe "no one was harmed"? Are you serious about that? You should not be.

The "judge was antagonistic to Trump" that is an interesting take. Maybe just being an honest judge.

You think the judgement made indicates the judge was a "Trump hater"? Don't see any evidence of that other than Trump losing the case.

You are so far off base.

...

Art - WTF? You decided to become just another cog in the Trump excuse machine? That's disappointing.

Alex (Trebek), what is intellectual honesty and principled opposition?

You can disagree with and dislike Trump while recognizing unfair treatment. 

[JimmyBT]

I’ll take TDS victims for 500 Alex 

[uncle bernard]

7 hours ago, Husker_Du said:

what fraud was committed and what was the formula to determine the number?

why don't you just admit what you are - a cheerleader. you pick a side and throw reason out the window. 

he did not defraud a single entity. even the banks testified FOR him on a loan paid back in its entirety.

for a man that runs around chanting that the USA is crooked, you can't notice the most obvious effin' example. 

I'm not a cheerleader. I hate the democratic party and I really don't give a shit if Trump has to pay or not. It's just funny watching people who complain about law and order get mad when it's actually applied.

Did he or did he not commit fraud?

[red viking]

Sucker born every day! Wow! 

[mspart]

17 hours ago, Husker_Du said:

because everyone does that (elevates values)

Gov. Kathy Holchul had to make a public statement that the state wouldn't go after them because so many people were scared. 

that's all you really need to know.

although, you could also know that the US Govt totally misrepresented the value of Mar-a-Lago

Actually she went to tell everyone the state wouldn't go after them because they were not Trump.  

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/4474774-hochul-tells-ny-businesses-not-to-fear-about-trump-verdict-nothing-to-worry-about/

“I think that this is really an extraordinary, unusual circumstance that the law-abiding and rule-following New Yorkers who are business people have nothing to worry about, because they’re very different than Donald Trump and his behavior,” Hochul responded.

Outwardly saying what everyone knew.   They were out to get Trump and Trump only.   But the precedent has been set. 

https://thehill.com/business/4477608-kevin-oleary-says-he-will-no-longer-invest-in-loser-new-york-after-trump-verdict/

“This award, I mean, just leaving the whole Trump thing out of it and seeing what occurred here … And I’m no different than any other investor, I’m shocked at this,” O’Leary said in an interview Monday with Fox Business. “I can’t even understand or fathom the decision at all. There’s no rationale for it.”

...“We’re very worried, every investor is worried because where is the victim? Who lost the money? This is some arbitrary decision a judge made,” O’Leary responded. “This policy … what does this say about the bar? About the legal bar in New York? Aren’t they going to question this judge? What is this?”

“I’m sorry her words fall on deaf ears to everybody,” he added. “There’s nothing she can say to justify this decision. And this has nothing to do with Trump, nothing to do with Trump. Forget about Trump, this is not a Trump situation, this is a New York problem.”

And this is why Hochul felt the need to go out and say no one should be concerned.   We were just after Trump because he is Trump and we hate Trump, so we railroaded him and extracted/extorted $355 million from him.   We won't do that to you.   You are not Trump.  

mspart

 

 

 

[mspart]

10 hours ago, GreatWhiteNorth said:

Let me get this straight:

You have decided to become a Trump defender?

You believe "no one was harmed"? Are you serious about that? You should not be.

The "judge was antagonistic to Trump" that is an interesting take. Maybe just being an honest judge.

You think the judgement made indicates the judge was a "Trump hater"? Don't see any evidence of that other than Trump losing the case.

You are so far off base.

...

Art - WTF? You decided to become just another cog in the Trump excuse machine? That's disappointing.

I do not want Trump to be President.   Does that mean I shouldn't call out corrupt government/judicial operations when I see it?   I am off base for calling out corruption.   The judicial system is supposed to be fair and unbiased.   There was no way this was fair and unbiased and it is easy to see if you will see.   I'm not off base.  

mspart

[mspart]

25 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

Did he or did he not commit fraud?

He did not.   He valued his properties to get a loan.   Any bank worth their salt will look into these valuations and determine if they are proper or not.   If proper, then the loan can go through.  If not, then the conditions of the loan will change or the loan will not be made.   The bank testified for Trump.   They made money and wanted to make more  by working with Trump again.   Does that sound like fraud to you?   Who was defrauded?   The banks made money, Trump used the loan money for purposes he had and benefitted.   Win win, except it was win lose.   How can you claim there was fraud when the entity supposedly defrauded claims they were not and want to do more business with that company?  That there tells you the case was already decided when it was brought to trial.   In fact, if he committed fraud, that is against criminal code.   This was a civil case.   That should also tell you something.  

Is there any doubt that this fine will be vastly reduced or eliminated upon appeal?   No doubt.   The victim in this case is the State of NY who have just lost any business investment opportunities because of the mania to get Trump.   New Yorkers need to vote differently to get a different result for themselves. 

mspart

[jross]

Quote

But an Associated Press analysis of nearly 70 years of similar cases showed Trump’s case stands apart: It’s the only big business found that was threatened with a shutdown without a showing of obvious victims and major losses.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-fraud-business-law-courts-banks-lending-punishment-1355c3b48cdefa2894ce623ec59748bd

 

New York Supreme Court Judge Arthur Engoron ruled last year that Trump had committed fraud in sending 11 years of allegedly inflated net worth estimates to Deutsche Bank...

 

This Bank?

Quote

 

Deutsche Bank viewed Donald Trump as a “whale” of a client, was eager to land him and eagerly cultivated a relationship that grew from $13,000 worth of revenue to $6 million in two years, according to documents presented Wednesday at the former president’s civil fraud trial.

Trump personally guaranteed the loans at issue – standard practice for lending by Deutsche Bank’s division that caters to rich individuals, Vrablic said. The deals came with conditions about Trump’s net worth and, sometimes, liquidity, and they often required annual submissions of his financial statements.

Other current and former Deutsche Bank executives have testified that while they expected the information to be accurate, they came up with their own numbers.

Documents show the bank sliced Trump’s $4.2 billion estimate of his net worth to $2.4 billion when considering the Doral loan, for example. Asked Wednesday whether the cut had concerned her, Vrablic said that if the bank’s credit experts “were comfortable with it, I would be comfortable with it.”

The $125 million loan went ahead, with one banker writing in an email that Trump had “among the strongest personal balance sheets we have seen.” A top executive agreed to sign off but insisted on an “iron clad” guarantee from Trump.

Trump provided it, Vrablic said Wednesday.

 

https://www.pressherald.com/2023/11/29/deutsche-bank-was-keen-to-land-a-whale-of-a-client-in-trump-documents-at-his-fraud-trial-show/

[ThreePointTakedown]

On 2/19/2024 at 2:12 PM, mspart said:

This fine just handed to Trump is an egregious miscarriage of justice.   In the trial, the banks were queried if they were harmed.   They said no and that they would do business with Trump again.   So no one was harmed.   You don't levy a civil fine of this size for no one being harmed.   It is a gross miscarriage of justice, weaponizing the justice system to get rid of people you don't want around.   Now with this judgement, other business types are on notice that they too could be targeted if this ruling stands. 

In addition, it was apparent from the beginning that the judge was antagonistic to Trump and did not allow certain evidence Trump wanted to bring up but allowed the state to do so for everything.   It was like muzzling the defendant.   That should not happen in any judicial case.   I'm not talking about outbursts.   I'm talking about evidence not allowed, explanations not allowed to be expanded on while on the witness stand.  

The absolute size of the award to the state (who had no harm done to it either) is the best indication of the attitude of the judge in this case.   A Trump hater doing to Trump what he wanted, rather than an impartial judge.   Because the banks received no harm, this case should have been thrown out before it started.  

mspart

Lender and lendee may not have been harmed. But do you know who was? Everyone else that could've used that money for ANYTHING useful.

He benefitted from fraud. For years. That's it. Had he not tried to be president he probably would've gotten away with it and not been charged with the other crimes too. Which is probably why he strung everyone along about releasing his taxes. Then didn't. Because he had already won and didn't need to do anything anyone wanted, just like normal. Then congress stepped in and there was nothing he could do. So he did the thing he's been doing since... suing to slow things down so he doesn't have to face any consequences. 

What evidence? And yes the judge can determine if evidence is pertinent to a case or if it comes from a 75+ year old orange haired  unhinged toddler. Which is probably what they will appeal on... and lose. So when they lose. It will be from another court that will also determine that the 'evidence' that wasn't allowed to be brought, was not pertinent. All the while the juice will be growing on the fine. 

Again, everyone that had ambition to borrow from the same bank that was turned down because the funds were otherwise used for 45's fraudulent business, was potentially harmed. So the harm is incalculable.

 

[mspart]

This is not about liking Trump.   This is about the abrogation of the judicial system to get predetermined results based on fallacious claims.   This is no different than Biden getting a pass for keeping secret document he had no business having in the first place (he was never president because he is too old and doddering and with a horrible memory, or Hillary who Comey determined that no reasonable prosecutor would take her case.   Remember she had her own server upon which resided State Department documents, some classified some not.   She also tried to obstruct justice by bleachbitting the server hard drive, hammered the cell phones and destroyed subpoened evidence.   But no reasonable person would prosecute.   So what do you have to do with classified and government property to be prosecuted.   Be Trump.   That's the lesson here.  

mspart

[ThreePointTakedown]

1 hour ago, mspart said:

He did not.   He valued his properties to get a loan.   Any bank worth their salt will look into these valuations and determine if they are proper or not.   If proper, then the loan can go through.  If not, then the conditions of the loan will change or the loan will not be made.   The bank testified for Trump.   They made money and wanted to make more  by working with Trump again.   Does that sound like fraud to you?   Who was defrauded?   The banks made money, Trump used the loan money for purposes he had and benefitted.   Win win, except it was win lose.   How can you claim there was fraud when the entity supposedly defrauded claims they were not and want to do more business with that company?  That there tells you the case was already decided when it was brought to trial.   In fact, if he committed fraud, that is against criminal code.   This was a civil case.   That should also tell you something.  

Is there any doubt that this fine will be vastly reduced or eliminated upon appeal?   No doubt.   The victim in this case is the State of NY who have just lost any business investment opportunities because of the mania to get Trump.   New Yorkers need to vote differently to get a different result for themselves. 

mspart

Yes, fraudulently. When you lie to get money from someone its called fraud. He lied. Knowingly lied. Again. And again. And again. That the bank was complicit should be addressed as well. Knowing how much banks love regulations. They will be over joyed that they made money from him in the way they did. So will the other banks that didn't, that will need to spend more money to potentially follow the new regulations put in place to keep this from happening again. There, more victims. Happy? 

[mspart]

4 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

Lender and lendee may not have been harmed. But do you know who was? Everyone else that could've used that money for ANYTHING useful.

He benefitted from fraud. For years. That's it. Had he not tried to be president he probably would've gotten away with it and not been charged with the other crimes too. Which is probably why he strung everyone along about releasing his taxes. Then didn't. Because he had already won and didn't need to do anything anyone wanted, just like normal. Then congress stepped in and there was nothing he could do. So he did the thing he's been doing since... suing to slow things down so he doesn't have to face any consequences. 

What evidence? And yes the judge can determine if evidence is pertinent to a case or if it comes from a 75+ year old orange haired  unhinged toddler. Which is probably what they will appeal on... and lose. So when they lose. It will be from another court that will also determine that the 'evidence' that wasn't allowed to be brought, was not pertinent. All the while the juice will be growing on the fine. 

Again, everyone that had ambition to borrow from the same bank that was turned down because the funds were otherwise used for 45's fraudulent business, was potentially harmed. So the harm is incalculable.

 

Yes a judge can determine what evidence is admitted.   For sure, that is how the system works.   When the judge is corrupt with a predetermined result in mind, then that is not a fair use of his judgement.   That is where your reasoning fails.   But the judge said it.   Well, the judge predetermined the result.   Like the hanging judges of old. 

mspart

[mspart]

2 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

Yes, fraudulently. When you lie to get money from someone its called fraud. He lied. Knowingly lied. Again. And again. And again. That the bank was complicit should be addressed as well. Knowing how much banks love regulations. They will be over joyed that they made money from him in the way they did. So will the other banks that didn't, that will need to spend more money to potentially follow the new regulations put in place to keep this from happening again. There, more victims. Happy? 

The bank vetted him and found the loan passed muster.   There was no fraud.   If you don't seen this as a corrupt prosecution, you can't be helped.    Again, when the system goes after one side, the natural result is when the winds shift, the other side will be gotten.   This is not how this country is supposed to run.    Blind lady justice and all that. 

mspart

Edited February 20 by mspart

[ThreePointTakedown]

2 minutes ago, mspart said:

This is not about liking Trump.   This is about the abrogation of the judicial system to get predetermined results based on fallacious claims.   This is no different than Biden getting a pass for keeping secret document he had no business having in the first place (he was never president because he is too old and doddering and with a horrible memory, or Hillary who Comey determined that no reasonable prosecutor would take her case.   Remember she had her own server upon which resided State Department documents, some classified some not.   She also tried to obstruct justice by bleachbitting the server hard drive, hammered the cell phones and destroyed subpoened evidence.   But no reasonable person would prosecute.   So what do you have to do with classified and government property to be prosecuted.   Be Trump.   That's the lesson here.  

mspart

You're upset he made it too easy to figure out and prosecute his crimes? 

[ThreePointTakedown]

1 minute ago, mspart said:

The bank vetted him and found the loan passed muster.   There was no fraud. 

mspart

That they believed the lie, because they were guaranteed a payday, doesn't make it true. Just makes them accomplices. 

[mspart]

He was not prosecuted for a crime TPT.   Get it straight.   This was a civil litigation because they could not prove he committed an actual crime.   It was not a criminal trial.   Therefore no crime.   He was found liable which is all that can be found in a civil litigation.  

Just like he was found civilly liable for sexually assaulting a woman who couldn't remember when it happened but by golly it happened.   You can't have justice when the result is predetermined.   How in the world can you be held liable for doing something when the complainant can't even remember which year this supposed thing happened?   

You are happy this is happening to Trump and refuse to see and understand what this means for the justice system in the USA.  

mspart

[mspart]

3 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

That they believed the lie, because they were guaranteed a payday, doesn't make it true. Just makes them accomplices. 

No.   Wrong.   You are crazy if you think a bank would fork over that much money in a loan when they knew everything was a lie.   What happens when it all goes bad?  They lose out.   Banks don't take those chances.   They knew Trump was good for it based on their own investigation of his holdings.   They said as much.  

mspart

[Offthemat]

What happened to the people who vetted Solyndra?

[ThreePointTakedown]

11 minutes ago, mspart said:

He was not prosecuted for a crime TPT.   Get it straight.   This was a civil litigation because they could not prove he committed an actual crime.   It was not a criminal trial.   Therefore no crime.   He was found liable which is all that can be found in a civil litigation.  

Just like he was found civilly liable for sexually assaulting a woman who couldn't remember when it happened but by golly it happened.   You can't have justice when the result is predetermined.   How in the world can you be held liable for doing something when the complainant can't even remember which year this supposed thing happened?   

You are happy this is happening to Trump and refuse to see and understand what this means for the justice system in the USA.  

mspart

And you have a long way to go to prove that anything was predetermined. 

And again, because you haven't addressed it and this might be the crux of the case. There was harm done because the banks saw him as such a whale because he lied. Others were not allowed access to money they might have otherwise been able to use. This may and quite probably did cause harm. Businesses may have gone under. Jobs lost. Lives ruined. Much like 45 did, dozens(if not hundreds) of times, when denying businesses full payment for contracted work. Using the courts to bury them and force them to settle for pennies on the dollar. All while over stating his worth and assets to get more money to buy and screw over smaller businesses that worked with him. Not a victimless fraud. 

ps. never said crime. Just said he had help. 

[jross]

 

 

[mspart]

1 hour ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

And you have a long way to go to prove that anything was predetermined. 

And again, because you haven't addressed it and this might be the crux of the case. There was harm done because the banks saw him as such a whale because he lied. Others were not allowed access to money they might have otherwise been able to use. This may and quite probably did cause harm. Businesses may have gone under. Jobs lost. Lives ruined. Much like 45 did, dozens(if not hundreds) of times, when denying businesses full payment for contracted work. Using the courts to bury them and force them to settle for pennies on the dollar. All while over stating his worth and assets to get more money to buy and screw over smaller businesses that worked with him. Not a victimless fraud. 

ps. never said crime. Just said he had help. 

Nice try.   Predetermined by the way they treated Trump and his team.   Please name those that were harmed.   Probably some were?   That doesn't hold up in court.   Name names.   Have dates and data.   Probably doesn't cut it except in this monkey trial.   It was a civil trial because the DA couldn't make it a criminal trial because she couldn't prove anything.  Civil just is 51-49 and you win.   Much easier.   Again nice try.  

I have no evidence of predetermined outcome other than what I saw, read, and heard.   You have no evidence there was harm, even though everyone associated is whole, but you suppose it.   Of course it is my opinion, just like yours is yours.   But a $355 Million judgement plus interest is excessive and shows the bias of the judge.   Period.   I think that is pretty cut and dried.  You may not.   But there is no precedent for this kind of ruling.  

mspart

[JimmyBT]

2 hours ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

You're upset he made it too easy to figure out and prosecute his crimes? 

Never said crimes ??

[Lipdrag]

2 hours ago, mspart said:

You are happy this is happening to Trump and refuse to see and understand what this means for the justice system in the USA.  

[mspart]

2 hours ago, mspart said:

 You are happy this is happening to Trump and refuse to see and understand what this means for the justice system in the USA. 

The DA, the judge, and the governor were happy too until......      Oh no, we just screwed ourselves.   Quick Kathy, go out and tell everyone they are not Trump so they won't be treated this way.   Quick, Go!!!

The law of unintended consequences is a thing to behold. 

1.  Pass law giving gig workers minimum wage.   Gig workers make half as much as they did. 

2.  Pass law decriminalizing drug use.   Drug use runs rampant and overdose deaths ensue.   General lawlessness prevails in an effort to the next hit. 

3.  Stop prosecuting shoplifting.   Oh my, shoplifting rates go through the roof and Walmart leaves Portland en toto due to theft.   Walgreens  closes down in poor neighborhoods because they can't take the losses.   And these companies are racist because of this.   How about stop stealing!!

4.  Reducing charges for use of a gun in a felony.   Oh, why oh why are we seeing more armed crime in our city?

5.  No border enforcement.   Oh my, our wonderful sanctuary cities and states are overrun and we can't handle anymore.   They are taking our tax base and we can't provide for our own people.   Ohhhhhhh.

6.  Reduce funding for police.   Oh wow.   How is it that crime has gone up so tremendously?   Oh wait, we just won't report it anymore and therefore crime rates have gone down.   Statistically this may work.   Realistically it is obvious it does not work. 

7.   Pass judgement on a political enemy of gargantuan and unprecedented proportions.   Oh my get the governor out there to say not to worry, no one else will be so pursued.    It was only because he was an enemy of the current regime.   You are not such an enemy (until you are determined to be so).   Wow, why is no one investing in our state anymore?  

The people bring this upon themselves and it only takes a correct vote to change this.   But as seen in Seattle, it takes years for people to realize they have screwed themselves finally, and do something about it.   So now after 10 years we supposedly have a sane City Council.   But I haven't seen or heard of much changing yet.  

mspart