I’m starting to love this thread

(10-06-2023 05:08 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-06-2023 04:03 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-06-2023 03:51 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

Its really unfathomable for an honest judge to make that type of ruling before trial.
Seize assets first. Have due process later.

The entire point of a judgement is to get to a judgement. Judge rendered judgement via summary judgement

Thanks Kamala.....

(10-06-2023 05:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-06-2023 03:52 PM)banker Wrote:  

(10-05-2023 04:51 PM)banker Wrote:  Tanq, do you believe this case has political motivations and punitive judgement beyond what we would see for other real estate developers with an identical fact pattern?

It says a lot that he has time to write multi paragraph, multi quote posts, but not the time to reply to a question that only requires a one word answer.

Intellectual honesty is a bridge too far for many people.

Sorry I didnt see it.

It could well be what you say. Or it could be that Trump has a long history of this.

If Trump engaged in fraudulent activity, I have zero problem with this pursuit.

If anyone engages in the level and depth of activity as has been alleged I wouldnt have a problem.

Notwithstanding if Trump has a political history or not ---

No one forced Trump to do the actions in the complaint, if shown he directed them.

No one pointed a gun at Trump's head to make Trump to do the actions in the complaint, if shown he directed them.

And it seems clear from the record that it is a real issue. And trump has every opportunity to present his side in the remaining counts. And he has every right to pursue an appeal of the corporate death penalty represented by the SJ.

If you think others have done this same thing at this apparent level -- then I would have zero issue with a similar AG action.

If in fact there is liability here due to persistent behavior, bummer that Trump did it and was quite prominent. If it is found he persistently breached his obligations -- kind of stupid to operate that way for a score of years and hope to fly under the radar with it with a prominent political career following those actions.

If it is found that he was pure and innocent as the driven snow, Ill take your position. The record doesnt really help him here on that.

Criminy, right now, his attorneys are now arguing that everything was because of his accountants -- Kise mentioned he thinks Mazur should be the one on trial here. That doesnt sound like a defense that is saying 'good appraisals, and good financial condition' -- it sounds as though they are admitting the issues in the SCFs and simply pointing the finger. The testimony of Trump's ex-controller (and fellow defendant in the suit) today certainly didnt help the 'there is nothing wrong in the statements' defense page.

Kind of a far cry from what the gallery here is repeating. I guess that hot take hasnt come through with the new messaging yet.

One attorney to another, just ratchet it down. You are trying too hard. Your personal advocacy makes you look like a clown. Perhaps you are in the real world, too. Dunno. Don't care.

What you aren't is a litigator.

I'm getting a whole transactional guy who wants to play litigator on the interwebs vibe. Biggly.

Hate to do it, but the ignore feature is there for not having to read stupid.

(10-06-2023 06:18 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(10-06-2023 05:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-06-2023 03:52 PM)banker Wrote:  

(10-05-2023 04:51 PM)banker Wrote:  Tanq, do you believe this case has political motivations and punitive judgement beyond what we would see for other real estate developers with an identical fact pattern?

It says a lot that he has time to write multi paragraph, multi quote posts, but not the time to reply to a question that only requires a one word answer.

Intellectual honesty is a bridge too far for many people.

Sorry I didnt see it.

It could well be what you say. Or it could be that Trump has a long history of this.

If Trump engaged in fraudulent activity, I have zero problem with this pursuit.

If anyone engages in the level and depth of activity as has been alleged I wouldnt have a problem.

Notwithstanding if Trump has a political history or not ---

No one forced Trump to do the actions in the complaint, if shown he directed them.

No one pointed a gun at Trump's head to make Trump to do the actions in the complaint, if shown he directed them.

And it seems clear from the record that it is a real issue. And trump has every opportunity to present his side in the remaining counts. And he has every right to pursue an appeal of the corporate death penalty represented by the SJ.

If you think others have done this same thing at this apparent level -- then I would have zero issue with a similar AG action.

If in fact there is liability here due to persistent behavior, bummer that Trump did it and was quite prominent. If it is found he persistently breached his obligations -- kind of stupid to operate that way for a score of years and hope to fly under the radar with it with a prominent political career following those actions.

If it is found that he was pure and innocent as the driven snow, Ill take your position. The record doesnt really help him here on that.

Criminy, right now, his attorneys are now arguing that everything was because of his accountants -- Kise mentioned he thinks Mazur should be the one on trial here. That doesnt sound like a defense that is saying 'good appraisals, and good financial condition' -- it sounds as though they are admitting the issues in the SCFs and simply pointing the finger. The testimony of Trump's ex-controller (and fellow defendant in the suit) today certainly didnt help the 'there is nothing wrong in the statements' defense page.

Kind of a far cry from what the gallery here is repeating. I guess that hot take hasnt come through with the new messaging yet.

One attorney to another, just ratchet it down. You are trying too hard. Your personal advocacy makes you look like a clown. Perhaps you are in the real world, too. Dunno. Don't care.

What you aren't is a litigator.

I'm getting a whole transactional guy who wants to play litigator on the interwebs vibe. Biggly.

Hate to do it, but the ignore feature is there for not having to read stupid.

Feel free to fire off the Ignore button. Free country and all that jazz.

I love all the drama queens who announce what they are going to do.

And yeah, I have a position. Just like every other schmo on this board. Just like you, and just like any other person here. Bummer.

As for litigation, yep, dont do near as much as I did in the past. Big fing whoopee there. Lolz.

(10-06-2023 06:18 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(10-06-2023 05:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-06-2023 03:52 PM)banker Wrote:  

(10-05-2023 04:51 PM)banker Wrote:  Tanq, do you believe this case has political motivations and punitive judgement beyond what we would see for other real estate developers with an identical fact pattern?

It says a lot that he has time to write multi paragraph, multi quote posts, but not the time to reply to a question that only requires a one word answer.

Intellectual honesty is a bridge too far for many people.

Sorry I didnt see it.

It could well be what you say. Or it could be that Trump has a long history of this.

If Trump engaged in fraudulent activity, I have zero problem with this pursuit.

If anyone engages in the level and depth of activity as has been alleged I wouldnt have a problem.

Notwithstanding if Trump has a political history or not ---

No one forced Trump to do the actions in the complaint, if shown he directed them.

No one pointed a gun at Trump's head to make Trump to do the actions in the complaint, if shown he directed them.

And it seems clear from the record that it is a real issue. And trump has every opportunity to present his side in the remaining counts. And he has every right to pursue an appeal of the corporate death penalty represented by the SJ.

If you think others have done this same thing at this apparent level -- then I would have zero issue with a similar AG action.

If in fact there is liability here due to persistent behavior, bummer that Trump did it and was quite prominent. If it is found he persistently breached his obligations -- kind of stupid to operate that way for a score of years and hope to fly under the radar with it with a prominent political career following those actions.

If it is found that he was pure and innocent as the driven snow, Ill take your position. The record doesnt really help him here on that.

Criminy, right now, his attorneys are now arguing that everything was because of his accountants -- Kise mentioned he thinks Mazur should be the one on trial here. That doesnt sound like a defense that is saying 'good appraisals, and good financial condition' -- it sounds as though they are admitting the issues in the SCFs and simply pointing the finger. The testimony of Trump's ex-controller (and fellow defendant in the suit) today certainly didnt help the 'there is nothing wrong in the statements' defense page.

Kind of a far cry from what the gallery here is repeating. I guess that hot take hasnt come through with the new messaging yet.

One attorney to another, just ratchet it down. You are trying too hard. Your personal advocacy makes you look like a clown. Perhaps you are in the real world, too. Dunno. Don't care.

What you aren't is a litigator.

I'm getting a whole transactional guy who wants to play litigator on the interwebs vibe. Biggly.

Hate to do it, but the ignore feature is there for not having to read stupid.

There is some serious hatred of Trump going on between Tanq’s ears. Common sense and rational thinking have been replaced by legalese mumbo jumbo in an attempt to reason away this sham fiasco.

Like I said insert any name in place of Trump and this isn’t a trial. And, if it is it has KANGAROO COURT written all over it.

Egos overshadow the ignorance of any atty or judge that believes they are an expert in all professions.

Tang seek help.

(10-06-2023 05:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-06-2023 03:52 PM)banker Wrote:  

(10-05-2023 04:51 PM)banker Wrote:  Tanq, do you believe this case has political motivations and punitive judgement beyond what we would see for other real estate developers with an identical fact pattern?

It says a lot that he has time to write multi paragraph, multi quote posts, but not the time to reply to a question that only requires a one word answer.

Intellectual honesty is a bridge too far for many people.

Sorry I didnt see it.

It could well be what you say. Or it could be that Trump has a long history of this.

If Trump engaged in fraudulent activity, I have zero problem with this pursuit.

If anyone engages in the level and depth of activity as has been alleged I wouldnt have a problem.

Notwithstanding if Trump has a political history or not ---

No one forced Trump to do the actions in the complaint, if shown he directed them.

No one pointed a gun at Trump's head to make Trump to do the actions in the complaint, if shown he directed them.

And it seems clear from the record that it is a real issue. And trump has every opportunity to present his side in the remaining counts. And he has every right to pursue an appeal of the corporate death penalty represented by the SJ.

If you think others have done this same thing at this apparent level -- then I would have zero issue with a similar AG action.

If in fact there is liability here due to persistent behavior, bummer that Trump did it and was quite prominent. If it is found he persistently breached his obligations -- kind of stupid to operate that way for a score of years and hope to fly under the radar with it with a prominent political career following those actions.

If it is found that he was pure and innocent as the driven snow, Ill take your position. The record doesnt really help him here on that.

Criminy, right now, his attorneys are now arguing that everything was because of his accountants -- Kise mentioned he thinks Mazur should be the one on trial here. That doesnt sound like a defense that is saying 'good appraisals, and good financial condition' -- it sounds as though they are admitting the issues in the SCFs and simply pointing the finger. The testimony of Trump's ex-controller (and fellow defendant in the suit) today certainly didnt help the 'there is nothing wrong in the statements' defense page.

Kind of a far cry from what the gallery here is repeating. I guess that hot take hasnt come through with the new messaging yet.

You know, I’m not an attorney, but feel I have a pretty good grasp having been in many depositions, on both sides of the table over the years. Your reply reminds me of something my counsel told me once. “If they ask you the time, don’t tell them how to build a f’in clock. Just answer the question.”

My question was “do YOU believe this case has political motivations and punitive judgement beyond what we would see for any other real estate developer with an identical fact pattern?”

Your entire response was layered speculation when all I asked is what you personally believe.

(10-06-2023 10:44 PM)banker Wrote:  

(10-06-2023 05:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-06-2023 03:52 PM)banker Wrote:  

(10-05-2023 04:51 PM)banker Wrote:  Tanq, do you believe this case has political motivations and punitive judgement beyond what we would see for other real estate developers with an identical fact pattern?

It says a lot that he has time to write multi paragraph, multi quote posts, but not the time to reply to a question that only requires a one word answer.

Intellectual honesty is a bridge too far for many people.

Sorry I didnt see it.

It could well be what you say. Or it could be that Trump has a long history of this.

If Trump engaged in fraudulent activity, I have zero problem with this pursuit.

If anyone engages in the level and depth of activity as has been alleged I wouldnt have a problem.

Notwithstanding if Trump has a political history or not ---

No one forced Trump to do the actions in the complaint, if shown he directed them.

No one pointed a gun at Trump's head to make Trump to do the actions in the complaint, if shown he directed them.

And it seems clear from the record that it is a real issue. And trump has every opportunity to present his side in the remaining counts. And he has every right to pursue an appeal of the corporate death penalty represented by the SJ.

If you think others have done this same thing at this apparent level -- then I would have zero issue with a similar AG action.

If in fact there is liability here due to persistent behavior, bummer that Trump did it and was quite prominent. If it is found he persistently breached his obligations -- kind of stupid to operate that way for a score of years and hope to fly under the radar with it with a prominent political career following those actions.

If it is found that he was pure and innocent as the driven snow, Ill take your position. The record doesnt really help him here on that.

Criminy, right now, his attorneys are now arguing that everything was because of his accountants -- Kise mentioned he thinks Mazur should be the one on trial here. That doesnt sound like a defense that is saying 'good appraisals, and good financial condition' -- it sounds as though they are admitting the issues in the SCFs and simply pointing the finger. The testimony of Trump's ex-controller (and fellow defendant in the suit) today certainly didnt help the 'there is nothing wrong in the statements' defense page.

Kind of a far cry from what the gallery here is repeating. I guess that hot take hasnt come through with the new messaging yet.

You know, I’m not an attorney, but feel I have a pretty good grasp having been in many depositions, on both sides of the table over the years. Your reply reminds me of something my counsel told me once. “If they ask you the time, don’t tell them how to build a f’in clock. Just answer the question.”

My question was “do YOU believe this case has political motivations and punitive judgement beyond what we would see for any other real estate developer with an identical fact pattern?”

Your entire response was layered speculation when all I asked is what you personally believe.

It could well be what you say. Or it could be that Trump has a long history of this. I dont know which it is.

(10-07-2023 12:03 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-06-2023 10:44 PM)banker Wrote:  

(10-06-2023 05:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-06-2023 03:52 PM)banker Wrote:  

(10-05-2023 04:51 PM)banker Wrote:  Tanq, do you believe this case has political motivations and punitive judgement beyond what we would see for other real estate developers with an identical fact pattern?

It says a lot that he has time to write multi paragraph, multi quote posts, but not the time to reply to a question that only requires a one word answer.

Intellectual honesty is a bridge too far for many people.

Sorry I didnt see it.

It could well be what you say. Or it could be that Trump has a long history of this.

If Trump engaged in fraudulent activity, I have zero problem with this pursuit.

If anyone engages in the level and depth of activity as has been alleged I wouldnt have a problem.

Notwithstanding if Trump has a political history or not ---

No one forced Trump to do the actions in the complaint, if shown he directed them.

No one pointed a gun at Trump's head to make Trump to do the actions in the complaint, if shown he directed them.

And it seems clear from the record that it is a real issue. And trump has every opportunity to present his side in the remaining counts. And he has every right to pursue an appeal of the corporate death penalty represented by the SJ.

If you think others have done this same thing at this apparent level -- then I would have zero issue with a similar AG action.

If in fact there is liability here due to persistent behavior, bummer that Trump did it and was quite prominent. If it is found he persistently breached his obligations -- kind of stupid to operate that way for a score of years and hope to fly under the radar with it with a prominent political career following those actions.

If it is found that he was pure and innocent as the driven snow, Ill take your position. The record doesnt really help him here on that.

Criminy, right now, his attorneys are now arguing that everything was because of his accountants -- Kise mentioned he thinks Mazur should be the one on trial here. That doesnt sound like a defense that is saying 'good appraisals, and good financial condition' -- it sounds as though they are admitting the issues in the SCFs and simply pointing the finger. The testimony of Trump's ex-controller (and fellow defendant in the suit) today certainly didnt help the 'there is nothing wrong in the statements' defense page.

Kind of a far cry from what the gallery here is repeating. I guess that hot take hasnt come through with the new messaging yet.

You know, I’m not an attorney, but feel I have a pretty good grasp having been in many depositions, on both sides of the table over the years. Your reply reminds me of something my counsel told me once. “If they ask you the time, don’t tell them how to build a f’in clock. Just answer the question.”

My question was “do YOU believe this case has political motivations and punitive judgement beyond what we would see for any other real estate developer with an identical fact pattern?”

Your entire response was layered speculation when all I asked is what you personally believe.

It could well be what you say. Or it could be that Trump has a long history of this. I dont know which it is.

Why don't you answer the question ? It's a simple yes or no answer.

(10-05-2023 08:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-05-2023 08:49 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-05-2023 08:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Misrepresenting your finances to a lender is an act of fraud, because there is an obligation by the borrower to be truthful.

But I'm still not convinced they were misrepresented. If the properties cash flowed enough to repay the loans that were made based on those appraisals, then those appraisals were probably accurate.

Care to point that out in the record? And yes, there is a record, a substantial one.
I agree with one of your previous points -- lets see what the record brings forth and says on the issue. Can you point out where in the record the assumption you made above is, and what precisely backs it? Or is this pure conjecture on your part above?
I seem to remember much angst on your part about conjectures in other matters by me.

It's a lot more than conjecture. There have been statements to that effect that I have seen. Some of the strongest have come from Trump itself. I am not going to take anything at face value from him (and extend the same to Biden, by the way), but I realize that you seem at this point bound and determined that anything he says is a lie, and I don't go that far. I do know that the left en masse have called Trump out for "lies" so many times that if this claim were not true I would certinly expect an avalance of "liar" accusations about what is such a material fact, and I have seen none to date. I've seen nothing about the truth or falsity of such claims, but the assertions have been made and to my knowledge not refuted.

(10-07-2023 12:28 AM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(10-07-2023 12:03 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-06-2023 10:44 PM)banker Wrote:  

(10-06-2023 05:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-06-2023 03:52 PM)banker Wrote:  It says a lot that he has time to write multi paragraph, multi quote posts, but not the time to reply to a question that only requires a one word answer.

Intellectual honesty is a bridge too far for many people.

Sorry I didnt see it.

It could well be what you say. Or it could be that Trump has a long history of this.

If Trump engaged in fraudulent activity, I have zero problem with this pursuit.

If anyone engages in the level and depth of activity as has been alleged I wouldnt have a problem.

Notwithstanding if Trump has a political history or not ---

No one forced Trump to do the actions in the complaint, if shown he directed them.

No one pointed a gun at Trump's head to make Trump to do the actions in the complaint, if shown he directed them.

And it seems clear from the record that it is a real issue. And trump has every opportunity to present his side in the remaining counts. And he has every right to pursue an appeal of the corporate death penalty represented by the SJ.

If you think others have done this same thing at this apparent level -- then I would have zero issue with a similar AG action.

If in fact there is liability here due to persistent behavior, bummer that Trump did it and was quite prominent. If it is found he persistently breached his obligations -- kind of stupid to operate that way for a score of years and hope to fly under the radar with it with a prominent political career following those actions.

If it is found that he was pure and innocent as the driven snow, Ill take your position. The record doesnt really help him here on that.

Criminy, right now, his attorneys are now arguing that everything was because of his accountants -- Kise mentioned he thinks Mazur should be the one on trial here. That doesnt sound like a defense that is saying 'good appraisals, and good financial condition' -- it sounds as though they are admitting the issues in the SCFs and simply pointing the finger. The testimony of Trump's ex-controller (and fellow defendant in the suit) today certainly didnt help the 'there is nothing wrong in the statements' defense page.

Kind of a far cry from what the gallery here is repeating. I guess that hot take hasnt come through with the new messaging yet.

You know, I’m not an attorney, but feel I have a pretty good grasp having been in many depositions, on both sides of the table over the years. Your reply reminds me of something my counsel told me once. “If they ask you the time, don’t tell them how to build a f’in clock. Just answer the question.”

My question was “do YOU believe this case has political motivations and punitive judgement beyond what we would see for any other real estate developer with an identical fact pattern?”

Your entire response was layered speculation when all I asked is what you personally believe.

It could well be what you say. Or it could be that Trump has a long history of this. I dont know which it is.

Why don't you answer the question ? It's a simple yes or no answer.

I have answered the question.

The question is (was) "“do YOU believe this case has political motivations and punitive judgement beyond what we would see for any other real estate developer"

"I dont know" is an answer -- and a valid one. Maybe not the one *you* like, but it reflects my mind set.

Kind of like what my answer would be to 'is music a better area of study than art'.

(10-07-2023 11:57 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-07-2023 12:28 AM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(10-07-2023 12:03 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-06-2023 10:44 PM)banker Wrote:  

(10-06-2023 05:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Sorry I didnt see it.

It could well be what you say. Or it could be that Trump has a long history of this.

If Trump engaged in fraudulent activity, I have zero problem with this pursuit.

If anyone engages in the level and depth of activity as has been alleged I wouldnt have a problem.

Notwithstanding if Trump has a political history or not ---

No one forced Trump to do the actions in the complaint, if shown he directed them.

No one pointed a gun at Trump's head to make Trump to do the actions in the complaint, if shown he directed them.

And it seems clear from the record that it is a real issue. And trump has every opportunity to present his side in the remaining counts. And he has every right to pursue an appeal of the corporate death penalty represented by the SJ.

If you think others have done this same thing at this apparent level -- then I would have zero issue with a similar AG action.

If in fact there is liability here due to persistent behavior, bummer that Trump did it and was quite prominent. If it is found he persistently breached his obligations -- kind of stupid to operate that way for a score of years and hope to fly under the radar with it with a prominent political career following those actions.

If it is found that he was pure and innocent as the driven snow, Ill take your position. The record doesnt really help him here on that.

Criminy, right now, his attorneys are now arguing that everything was because of his accountants -- Kise mentioned he thinks Mazur should be the one on trial here. That doesnt sound like a defense that is saying 'good appraisals, and good financial condition' -- it sounds as though they are admitting the issues in the SCFs and simply pointing the finger. The testimony of Trump's ex-controller (and fellow defendant in the suit) today certainly didnt help the 'there is nothing wrong in the statements' defense page.

Kind of a far cry from what the gallery here is repeating. I guess that hot take hasnt come through with the new messaging yet.

You know, I’m not an attorney, but feel I have a pretty good grasp having been in many depositions, on both sides of the table over the years. Your reply reminds me of something my counsel told me once. “If they ask you the time, don’t tell them how to build a f’in clock. Just answer the question.”

My question was “do YOU believe this case has political motivations and punitive judgement beyond what we would see for any other real estate developer with an identical fact pattern?”

Your entire response was layered speculation when all I asked is what you personally believe.

It could well be what you say. Or it could be that Trump has a long history of this. I dont know which it is.

Why don't you answer the question ? It's a simple yes or no answer.

I have answered the question.

The question is (was) "“do YOU believe this case has political motivations and punitive judgement beyond what we would see for any other real estate developer"

"I dont know" is an answer -- and a valid one. Maybe not the one *you* like, but it reflects my mind set.

Kind of like what my answer would be to 'is music a better area of study than art'.

Thats why its clear your not being rational about this. Public resources are limited. There is zero chance a AG who is working for the actual interests of the people is expending substantial resources on a case in which not only was nobody harmed----nobody is even complaining about the actions. Furthermore---it turns out she spend thousands of hours on actions crafting a case on which the statute of limitations had already run out. Maybe you arent sure if this is politically motivated---but anyone without an axe to grind can see that it obviously is politically motivated---especially given that the AG said she was going to "get Trump" when she was campaigning and lacked any evidence (or even a complaint) upon which to substantiate the need for an investigation of Trump.

(10-07-2023 01:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-07-2023 11:57 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-07-2023 12:28 AM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(10-07-2023 12:03 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-06-2023 10:44 PM)banker Wrote:  You know, I’m not an attorney, but feel I have a pretty good grasp having been in many depositions, on both sides of the table over the years. Your reply reminds me of something my counsel told me once. “If they ask you the time, don’t tell them how to build a f’in clock. Just answer the question.”

My question was “do YOU believe this case has political motivations and punitive judgement beyond what we would see for any other real estate developer with an identical fact pattern?”

Your entire response was layered speculation when all I asked is what you personally believe.

It could well be what you say. Or it could be that Trump has a long history of this. I dont know which it is.

Why don't you answer the question ? It's a simple yes or no answer.

I have answered the question.

The question is (was) "“do YOU believe this case has political motivations and punitive judgement beyond what we would see for any other real estate developer"

"I dont know" is an answer -- and a valid one. Maybe not the one *you* like, but it reflects my mind set.

Kind of like what my answer would be to 'is music a better area of study than art'.

Thats why its clear your not being rational about this. Public resources are limited. There is zero chance a AG who is working for the actual interests of the people is expending substantial resources on a case in which not only was nobody harmed----nobody is even complaining about the actions. Furthermore---it turns out she spend thousands of hours on actions crafting a case on which the statute of limitations had already run out. Maybe you arent sure if this is politically motivated---but anyone without an axe to grind can see that it obviously is politically motivated---especially given that the AG said she was going to "get Trump" when she was campaigning and lacked any evidence (or even a complaint) upon which to substantiate the need for an investigation of Trump.

And the difference between your POV and mine is simple: *if* Trump committed the acts he did as detailed in the actions -- that is fraud. He has an obligation not to do those things.

If one persistently commits acts of fraud, I have *zero* issue with a state AG yanking their business licenses. No matter who they are.

Another difference is in the comment you make and bolded. In that statement, you are essentially saying "If you commit fraudulent acts, and no consumer complains -- you are okay with it."

Im not okay with that. There is no room anywhere for anyone committing fraudulent acts on a persistent and continued basis. You seemingly believe there is a giant exception for that conduct. 

Its one thing that if the state cannot show the actions being fraudulent (and remember, every borrower has an independent obligation to truthfully set out their financial status) -- if Trump prevails at trial that the acts are not fraudulent, or that the appellate division says that there are no persistent mistatements -- then in those cases I would agree with you that the actions are unwarranted.

If the comment is 'well gee willikers, it is fraudulent, but lets let the fraud slide' (which is seemingly what your stance is in the above bolded) --- then I disagree with you sharply.

Again, my stance is that no one (and I mean *no one*) should be allowed to engage in persistent fraudulent activity.

If Trump in fact that did that, he is an idiot for doing putting himself in the crosshairs. And he is a double idiot to think that that type of action would slide under scrutiny. And, honestly, the folks that say 'lets just ignore the fraudulent activity because no one complained' -- I dont have a great deal of comfort in that viewpoint. If the acts are in fact not breaching a obligation, then I might join your POV. But the request to simply ignore them seems thin soup for me.

Yeah, lets lie on financial statements for 20+years, then run for office. And then fall over ourselves to excuse that when it comes to light. Sounds fun.... any other fraudulent acts or crimes you think we shouldnt bother with, just..... because?

I guess if all you want to do is ignore the acts 'because', go ahead. I am not going to excuse committing persistent and serial fraudulent activity because I support the guy for office or not, or whether I like the guy or not.

(10-07-2023 02:59 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-07-2023 01:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-07-2023 11:57 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-07-2023 12:28 AM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(10-07-2023 12:03 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  It could well be what you say. Or it could be that Trump has a long history of this. I dont know which it is.

Why don't you answer the question ? It's a simple yes or no answer.

I have answered the question.

The question is (was) "“do YOU believe this case has political motivations and punitive judgement beyond what we would see for any other real estate developer"

"I dont know" is an answer -- and a valid one. Maybe not the one *you* like, but it reflects my mind set.

Kind of like what my answer would be to 'is music a better area of study than art'.

Thats why its clear your not being rational about this. Public resources are limited. There is zero chance a AG who is working for the actual interests of the people is expending substantial resources on a case in which not only was nobody harmed----nobody is even complaining about the actions. Furthermore---it turns out she spend thousands of hours on actions crafting a case on which the statute of limitations had already run out. Maybe you arent sure if this is politically motivated---but anyone without an axe to grind can see that it obviously is politically motivated---especially given that the AG said she was going to "get Trump" when she was campaigning and lacked any evidence (or even a complaint) upon which to substantiate the need for an investigation of Trump.

And the difference between your POV and mine is simple: *if* Trump committed the acts he did as detailed in the actions -- that is fraud. He has an obligation not to do those things.

If one persistently commits acts of fraud, I have *zero* issue with a state AG yanking their business licenses. No matter who they are.

Another difference is in the comment you make and bolded. In that statement, you are essentially saying "If you commit fraudulent acts, and no consumer complains -- you are okay with it."

Im not okay with that. There is no room anywhere for anyone committing fraudulent acts on a persistent and continued basis. You seemingly believe there is a giant exception for that conduct. 

Its one thing that if the state cannot show the actions being fraudulent (and remember, every borrower has an independent obligation to truthfully set out their financial status) -- if Trump prevails at trial that the acts are not fraudulent, or that the appellate division says that there are no persistent mistatements -- then in those cases I would agree with you that the actions are unwarranted.

If the comment is 'well gee willikers, it is fraudulent, but lets let the fraud slide' (which is seemingly what your stance is in the above bolded) --- then I disagree with you sharply.

Again, my stance is that no one (and I mean *no one*) should be allowed to engage in persistent fraudulent activity.

If Trump in fact that did that, he is an idiot for doing putting himself in the crosshairs. And he is a double idiot to think that that type of action would slide under scrutiny. And, honestly, the folks that say 'lets just ignore the fraudulent activity because no one complained' -- I dont have a great deal of comfort in that viewpoint. If the acts are in fact not breaching a obligation, then I might join your POV. But the request to simply ignore them seems thin soup for me.

Yeah, lets lie on financial statements for 20+years, then run for office. And then fall over ourslebves to excuse that. Sounds fun....


I guess if all you want to do is ignore the former, go ahead. I am not going to excuse committing persistent and serial fraudulent activity because I support the guy for office or not, or whether I like the guy or not.

Sigh. What Im saying is in a world literally full of fraudulent claims that voters DO complain about---there is little need to expend massive resources on "so called fraud" that is a matter of opinion, harmed nobody, and for which nobody is complaining about. But of course---you've completely missed the point and are irrationally directing the subject back to your hate of Trump----proving my point that you are completely irrational on the topic. Rational people allocate resources rationally. Even assuming everything you say is correct (which its not)----your argument still hinges on the irrational allocation of resources---which is why Im saying your positions in this thread seem more driven by your hate of Trump than any rational thought process that would find this case to be a traditional reasonable and normal operation of our justice system. Its simply not. It is what it is---political persecution.

(10-07-2023 03:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-07-2023 02:59 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-07-2023 01:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-07-2023 11:57 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-07-2023 12:28 AM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  Why don't you answer the question ? It's a simple yes or no answer.

I have answered the question.

The question is (was) "“do YOU believe this case has political motivations and punitive judgement beyond what we would see for any other real estate developer"

"I dont know" is an answer -- and a valid one. Maybe not the one *you* like, but it reflects my mind set.

Kind of like what my answer would be to 'is music a better area of study than art'.

Thats why its clear your not being rational about this. Public resources are limited. There is zero chance a AG who is working for the actual interests of the people is expending substantial resources on a case in which not only was nobody harmed----nobody is even complaining about the actions. Furthermore---it turns out she spend thousands of hours on actions crafting a case on which the statute of limitations had already run out. Maybe you arent sure if this is politically motivated---but anyone without an axe to grind can see that it obviously is politically motivated---especially given that the AG said she was going to "get Trump" when she was campaigning and lacked any evidence (or even a complaint) upon which to substantiate the need for an investigation of Trump.

And the difference between your POV and mine is simple: *if* Trump committed the acts he did as detailed in the actions -- that is fraud. He has an obligation not to do those things.

If one persistently commits acts of fraud, I have *zero* issue with a state AG yanking their business licenses. No matter who they are.

Another difference is in the comment you make and bolded. In that statement, you are essentially saying "If you commit fraudulent acts, and no consumer complains -- you are okay with it."

Im not okay with that. There is no room anywhere for anyone committing fraudulent acts on a persistent and continued basis. You seemingly believe there is a giant exception for that conduct. 

Its one thing that if the state cannot show the actions being fraudulent (and remember, every borrower has an independent obligation to truthfully set out their financial status) -- if Trump prevails at trial that the acts are not fraudulent, or that the appellate division says that there are no persistent mistatements -- then in those cases I would agree with you that the actions are unwarranted.

If the comment is 'well gee willikers, it is fraudulent, but lets let the fraud slide' (which is seemingly what your stance is in the above bolded) --- then I disagree with you sharply.

Again, my stance is that no one (and I mean *no one*) should be allowed to engage in persistent fraudulent activity.

If Trump in fact that did that, he is an idiot for doing putting himself in the crosshairs. And he is a double idiot to think that that type of action would slide under scrutiny. And, honestly, the folks that say 'lets just ignore the fraudulent activity because no one complained' -- I dont have a great deal of comfort in that viewpoint. If the acts are in fact not breaching a obligation, then I might join your POV. But the request to simply ignore them seems thin soup for me.

Yeah, lets lie on financial statements for 20+years, then run for office. And then fall over ourslebves to excuse that. Sounds fun....


I guess if all you want to do is ignore the former, go ahead. I am not going to excuse committing persistent and serial fraudulent activity because I support the guy for office or not, or whether I like the guy or not.

Sigh. What Im saying is in a world literally full of fraudulent claims that voters DO complain about---there is little need to expend massive resources on "so called fraud" that is a matter of opinion, harmed nobody, and for which nobody is complaining about. But of course---you've completely missed the point and are irrationally directing the subject back to your hate of Trump----proving my point that you are completely irrational on the topic. Rational people allocate resources rationally. Even assuming everything you say is correct (which its not)----your argument still hinges on the irrational allocation of resources---which is why Im saying your positions in this thread seem more driven by your hate of Trump than any rational thought process that would find this case to be a traditional reasonable and normal operation of our justice system. Its simply not. It is what it is---political persecution.

Please do tell where I make any comment on my personal stance on Trump?

And, maybe even note the comment on

Quote:"if Trump prevails at trial that the acts are not fraudulent, or that the appellate division says that there are no persistent mistatements -- then in those cases I would agree with you that the actions are unwarranted."

Yep, nothing but utter anti-Trump stance. Lol.

I guess my comment on

Quote:It could well be what you say. Or it could be that Trump has a long history of this. I dont know which it is.

is also dripping with anti-Trump sentiment, based on your comments about it.

I like how the troop of monkeys around here takes a 'I will wait to see if the actions that are charged are valid' as such a horrendous position. Or 'I dont support any persistent fraud, no matter who does it' as such either. Fun, fun, fun.

But you be you.

New York has no shortage of blatant and obvious crimes committed every day. Crimes that directly impact the safety and security of the citizens of New York. To expend resources to try and ferret out crimes that are not blatant, obvious and impacting the safety and security of the citizens seems like a poor use of time without alternate motivation IMO.

(10-07-2023 11:57 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The question is (was) "“do YOU believe this case has political motivations and punitive judgement beyond what we would see for any other real estate developer"
"I dont know" is an answer -- and a valid one.

And you clearly have the right to your belief. I simply don't understand how anyone--particularly a libertarian--could not know.

What is happening here is exactly what I feared when the patRIOT act and its progeny were being passed in the wake of 9/11. To those who said, "If you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about," I said BS, any bureaucrat who wants to take you down can find a way to do it, and with those laws and their abuses of constitutional rights we just gave the bureaucrats a whole new tool box. "Show me the person and I'll find you a crime," has become the motto of the leadership at DOJ/FBI/CIA/DHS. I don't quite know how we will put the toothpaste back in the tube, but we need to do so ASAP.

(10-07-2023 08:23 PM)banker Wrote:  New York has no shortage of blatant and obvious crimes committed every day. Crimes that directly impact the safety and security of the citizens of New York. To expend resources to try and ferret out crimes that are not blatant, obvious and impacting the safety and security of the citizens seems like a poor use of time without alternate motivation IMO.

So you are saying that even if Trump is engaging in persistent fraudulent activity, there should be zero backlash against that activity.

First, do you think the literal thousands of fraud cases brought under 63(12) by the NY AG that are police actions under similar circumstances (i.e. no specific harm) are also stupid and wasteful?

How about the literal tens of thousands of fraud cases brought by all the state AGs?

I can tell you one that I know of very well --- guy was selling land out in the middle of the desert with no utilities and no water to recent migrants -- some of them actually legally in the country. Never had a fraud prosecution brought by an individual. The Texas AG hammered him under the 'persistent fraud' stuff above. Feel the same way about that?

I will tell you that after that event, no one did 'colonia lord' - type sales in West Texas after that.

I have zero tolerance for fraud. Whether a private action is brought or not. Would it be safe to say you are for fraud in this instance? Apparently so.

(10-08-2023 10:30 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  So you are saying that even if Trump is engaging in persistent fraudulent activity, there should be zero backlash against that activity.

No, I'm saying that if the loans have been/are being paid off on time, there is no persistent fraudulent activity.

As I've made clear from the start, I do not have proof that the loans have been/are being paid off timely. But that has been represented, and to my knowledge not refuted.

As for your colonia lord example, the clear difference is that there was substantial actual harm in that case. Where there is harm, prosecute the hell out of them, lock them up, and throw away te key. Where there is a politically motivated hatchet job, not so fast.

We literally have Leticia James on video saying she was going after Trump before she even became AG or was presented with any evidence of a crime and this resident clown attorney says he’s not sure if it’s political or not

(10-08-2023 08:25 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-07-2023 11:57 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The question is (was) "“do YOU believe this case has political motivations and punitive judgement beyond what we would see for any other real estate developer"
"I dont know" is an answer -- and a valid one.

And you clearly have the right to your belief. I simply don't understand how anyone--particularly a libertarian--could not know.

Are you daft? Being a libertarian means one 'automatically *knows* it is proper or not to pursue Trump'? That seems like a flipping shallow position.

In another funny issue, I am being a proponent here of *your* exact stance with anything that seems to bite against Trump. You are unsure until the facts are presented.

Now you seem to have gone hypocritically in the opposite direction. And in a somewhat pious manner.

Again, if the issues of Trump persistent fraud are found in the remaining counts, and/or if the finding of what seems to be very persistent fraudulent activity is upheld in the appellate -- I will tell you if the issue is 'political'.

I guess you are a proponent of such fraud based on libertarian principles now? Garbage rationale #s.

I am particularly perplexed by your adroit dance moves. Prior to the cases, you are 'we shall wait and see what comes out, but default right away to your 'cabal theory' nonetheless'.

Here we have an actual finding, and actual record, and actual facts. And now you are seemingly writing that off en toto for the same reason, and utterly overlooking you previous rationale of 'lets wait and see what the record shows' to now (I guess) 'you dont care what the fk the record shows' ---- all in a constant battle to back Trump for never being prosecuted for anything, I guess.

So please cut with your 'preachy' libertarian spiel --- I'd suggest that you yourself come to some consistent rationale to back your 'defend Trump at the utmost' for whatever reason cha cha cha first.

Unlike you, there are some instances I have absolutely called out as improper being thrown at Trump. But you be you.

Quote:What is happening here is exactly what I feared when the patRIOT act and its progeny were being passed in the wake of 9/11. To those who said, "If you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about," I said BS, any bureaucrat who wants to take you down can find a way to do it, and with those laws and their abuses of constitutional rights we just gave the bureaucrats a whole new tool box. "Show me the person and I'll find you a crime," has become the motto of the leadership at DOJ/FBI/CIA/DHS. I don't quite know how we will put the toothpaste back in the tube, but we need to do so ASAP.