(10-28-2025 10:49 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  Remember, EVERYONE is "Pre-Approved" for a loan. Then they have to submit two years of tax returns and the trouble begins. The courts would be booked for decades if they all were indicted for "lying".

Again, not in the slightest what the issues were in the NY case. But please loudly complain on something having zero relevance to the issues in the case.

(10-28-2025 10:39 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Hey Tanq, have you ever looked at a single post here in threads you frequent, where you just say, "No, I'm going to pass on this one?"

Yep. Maybe if you did even a cursory match that even the stupidest amongst us could do, you might ascertain that.

But apparently............. you didnt. Neat stuff.

Kind of like a whole bunch of your posts -- simply post without regard to any bother to check anything, just sling it out there and think it smart. Keep up the good work, my friend.

(10-28-2025 11:00 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 10:45 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(10-27-2025 04:14 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-27-2025 12:42 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(10-27-2025 11:50 AM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  Not to mention the bank could have said no. It’s really as simple as that.

Which they would have done had they thought they would be damaged. Imagine if the NY AG went after anyone who's information on their loan app was questionable.

Ill take it you support and defend 20 years of supplying massively fraudulent information to banks and such. Cool cool.

And at some point, a state has the power, and maybe the obligation, to take a part in policing persistent fraudulent activity within its borders. Simply to keep it own markets clean. Ill take it you are not for any AG ever taking *any* action for persistent fraudulent activity. Again, cool cool.

I take it you don't think anyone ever fudges numbers on a loan application.

Please tell us where I ever said that.

Quote:I take it you feel any and everyone who does should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law

If material to the loan, yeah. Prosecute them. Either civilly or criminally.

That isnt the issue there, though. The issue is a state enforcement action against persistent and pervasive fraud.

And to that extent, whomever engages in persistent and pervasive fraud, I have zero problem having a state run an enforcement action against them.

Quote:even when the bank claimed no harm was done. Cool cool.

In cases of persistent and pervasive fraud, that rises to the level and scope of a state enforcement action -- yeah. Paxton has done that exact same style of action here in Texas numerous times. And to repeat, one of the few issues I actually support him on.

Quote: I take it you live somewhere outside the real world. Cool cool.

I take it you live somewhere where you cant get your arms around the real issues that were in play.

You the only one that can put words in others mouth. Cool cool
James went after Trump because it was Trump. That's my opinion and to be honest I could care less what you think about it.
No, I just recognize hit jobs when I see them. Sorry you don't have that ability.

(10-28-2025 10:12 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 06:43 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

Id suggest yall at least get the underlying facts straight instead of repeating rhetorical claptrap. Or not. You be you.

Ill take it that you think that simply adding another floor to a penthouse magically is the mark of non-fraudulent activity. Cool cool. Or simply wish it away with memes and 'witchhunt' that seem to be the favored means to do so here.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-fraud-l...2c791d29ab

Quote:NEW YORK (AP) — When Deutsche Bank loaned Donald Trump’s company hundreds of millions lawyers of dollars, the bank always followed its own guidelines that include checking out information that would-be borrowers provide, an executive testified Tuesday at the former president’s civil fraud trial.

The loans — for projects in Florida, Chicago and Washington, D.C. — are a focus of New York Attorney General Letitia James’ lawsuit contending that Trump and his company deceived lenders and insurers by giving them financial statements that baldly overstated his asset values and overall net worth. The defendants deny the allegations.

Deutsche Bank reviewed the financial statements before making the loans through its department that works with rich individuals — a pathway that allowed for more favorable interest rates than likely available from the commercial real estate division, according to the lawsuit. The deals came with conditions about Trump’s net worth and, sometimes, liquidity, and they often required annual submissions of his financial statements.

But, testifying for the defense, managing director David Williams said the bankers viewed clients’ reports of their net worth as “subjective or subject to estimates” and took its own view of such financial statements.

“I think we expect clients-provided information to be accurate. At the same time, it’s not an industry standard that these statements be audited. They’re largely reliant on the use of estimates,” Williams said, so bankers routinely “make some adjustments.”


At times, the bank pegged Trump’s wealth at several billion dollars lower than he did, according to documents and testimony. In 2019, for example, Trump’s financial statement listed his net worth at $5.8 billion, which the bank adjusted down to $2.5 billion.

But Williams said such differences weren’t necessarily unusual or alarming.


“It’s a conservative measure to make these adjustments,” he testified, characterizing them as “standard” and a “stress test” of financial strength.

The attorney general’s office, however, has maintained that such adjustments were never intended to account for the alleged fraud. A now-retired Deutsche Bank executive, Nicholas Haigh, testified earlier in the trial that he assumed the figures “were broadly accurate,” though the bank subjected them to ”sanity checks” and sometimes made sizable “haircuts.”

Trump acted as the guarantor for the loans and was quick to act when the bank raised concerns that the properties weren’t generating enough cash to make payments, Williams said. At one point, Trump moved $8.6 million into the Washington hotel’s coffers after its cash flow fell short of a requirement. No payments were missed, and the loans were never found to be in default, Williams said.

After Williams finished testifying, Trump’s lawyers sought — as they repeatedly had before — to have the case thrown out. They argued the bank executive had neutralized any allegations that the defendants deceived the lender about Trump’s wealth.


“The bank conducted its own due diligence. The bank had no problem with a $2 billion or a $3 billion difference,” defense lawyer Christopher Kise said. He argued the lender wasn’t harmed because it “didn’t change what it did based on what President Trump submitted.”

State lawyer Kevin Wallace retorted, “I think the idea that you can’t lie to a bank is pretty well established.”

Judge Arthur Engoron said he was taking the request for dismissal under advisement, but he noted “that the mere fact that lenders were happy doesn’t mean that the statute wasn’t violated.”

Engoron already has ruled that Trump and other defendants engaged in fraud. The trial is to decide remaining claims of conspiracy, insurance fraud and falsifying business records. There’s no jury, so Engoron will decide the verdict.

Trump, the current Republican 2024 presidential front-runner, casts the entire case as a political low blow from James, a Democrat.

Trump maintains that his financial statements actually lowballed his wealth and that any overstatements — such as listing his Trump Tower penthouse for years at nearly three times its actual size — were mistakes.


He asserted in his own testimony this month that his lenders cared more about property locations and the parameters of the deals than they did about the financial statements. And he argued that lenders were essentially told to do their own homework, pointing to disclaimers that said the statements weren’t audited, among other caveats.

Deutsche Bank guidelines told lending officers to “independently verify all material facts,” and Williams said the bankers followed those and other instructions when dealing with Trump.

“Are you aware of any time Deutsche Bank didn’t adhere to its own guidelines in making loans to President Trump?” defense attorney Jesus M. Suarez asked.


“No,” Williams replied.

we hashed this shite out in real-time ... blame the banks if'n ya want, but wtfe, bruv...

#muhDisgorgementLanced

Tanq is still O-fer, of course. Don't you get tired of being wrong? It's embarrassing to you, or it should be, lol.

Hey Tanq, also prove you don't post every time somebody says something to you in a thread. Your word is crap.

(10-28-2025 11:40 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 10:12 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 06:43 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

Id suggest yall at least get the underlying facts straight instead of repeating rhetorical claptrap. Or not. You be you.

Ill take it that you think that simply adding another floor to a penthouse magically is the mark of non-fraudulent activity. Cool cool. Or simply wish it away with memes and 'witchhunt' that seem to be the favored means to do so here.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-fraud-l...2c791d29ab

Quote:NEW YORK (AP) — When Deutsche Bank loaned Donald Trump’s company hundreds of millions lawyers of dollars, the bank always followed its own guidelines that include checking out information that would-be borrowers provide, an executive testified Tuesday at the former president’s civil fraud trial.

The loans — for projects in Florida, Chicago and Washington, D.C. — are a focus of New York Attorney General Letitia James’ lawsuit contending that Trump and his company deceived lenders and insurers by giving them financial statements that baldly overstated his asset values and overall net worth. The defendants deny the allegations.

Deutsche Bank reviewed the financial statements before making the loans through its department that works with rich individuals — a pathway that allowed for more favorable interest rates than likely available from the commercial real estate division, according to the lawsuit. The deals came with conditions about Trump’s net worth and, sometimes, liquidity, and they often required annual submissions of his financial statements.

But, testifying for the defense, managing director David Williams said the bankers viewed clients’ reports of their net worth as “subjective or subject to estimates” and took its own view of such financial statements.

“I think we expect clients-provided information to be accurate. At the same time, it’s not an industry standard that these statements be audited. They’re largely reliant on the use of estimates,” Williams said, so bankers routinely “make some adjustments.”


At times, the bank pegged Trump’s wealth at several billion dollars lower than he did, according to documents and testimony. In 2019, for example, Trump’s financial statement listed his net worth at $5.8 billion, which the bank adjusted down to $2.5 billion.

But Williams said such differences weren’t necessarily unusual or alarming.


“It’s a conservative measure to make these adjustments,” he testified, characterizing them as “standard” and a “stress test” of financial strength.

The attorney general’s office, however, has maintained that such adjustments were never intended to account for the alleged fraud. A now-retired Deutsche Bank executive, Nicholas Haigh, testified earlier in the trial that he assumed the figures “were broadly accurate,” though the bank subjected them to ”sanity checks” and sometimes made sizable “haircuts.”

Trump acted as the guarantor for the loans and was quick to act when the bank raised concerns that the properties weren’t generating enough cash to make payments, Williams said. At one point, Trump moved $8.6 million into the Washington hotel’s coffers after its cash flow fell short of a requirement. No payments were missed, and the loans were never found to be in default, Williams said.

After Williams finished testifying, Trump’s lawyers sought — as they repeatedly had before — to have the case thrown out. They argued the bank executive had neutralized any allegations that the defendants deceived the lender about Trump’s wealth.


“The bank conducted its own due diligence. The bank had no problem with a $2 billion or a $3 billion difference,” defense lawyer Christopher Kise said. He argued the lender wasn’t harmed because it “didn’t change what it did based on what President Trump submitted.”

State lawyer Kevin Wallace retorted, “I think the idea that you can’t lie to a bank is pretty well established.”

Judge Arthur Engoron said he was taking the request for dismissal under advisement, but he noted “that the mere fact that lenders were happy doesn’t mean that the statute wasn’t violated.”

Engoron already has ruled that Trump and other defendants engaged in fraud. The trial is to decide remaining claims of conspiracy, insurance fraud and falsifying business records. There’s no jury, so Engoron will decide the verdict.

Trump, the current Republican 2024 presidential front-runner, casts the entire case as a political low blow from James, a Democrat.

Trump maintains that his financial statements actually lowballed his wealth and that any overstatements — such as listing his Trump Tower penthouse for years at nearly three times its actual size — were mistakes.


He asserted in his own testimony this month that his lenders cared more about property locations and the parameters of the deals than they did about the financial statements. And he argued that lenders were essentially told to do their own homework, pointing to disclaimers that said the statements weren’t audited, among other caveats.

Deutsche Bank guidelines told lending officers to “independently verify all material facts,” and Williams said the bankers followed those and other instructions when dealing with Trump.

“Are you aware of any time Deutsche Bank didn’t adhere to its own guidelines in making loans to President Trump?” defense attorney Jesus M. Suarez asked.


“No,” Williams replied.

we hashed this shite out in real-time ... blame the banks if'n ya want, but wtfe, bruv...

#muhDisgorgementLanced

I don't think caveat emptor applies here. The fraud is intentionally misleading the bank, not if the bank believes you or not.

(10-28-2025 11:40 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 10:12 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 06:43 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

Id suggest yall at least get the underlying facts straight instead of repeating rhetorical claptrap. Or not. You be you.

Ill take it that you think that simply adding another floor to a penthouse magically is the mark of non-fraudulent activity. Cool cool. Or simply wish it away with memes and 'witchhunt' that seem to be the favored means to do so here.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-fraud-l...2c791d29ab

Quote:NEW YORK (AP) — When Deutsche Bank loaned Donald Trump’s company hundreds of millions lawyers of dollars, the bank always followed its own guidelines that include checking out information that would-be borrowers provide, an executive testified Tuesday at the former president’s civil fraud trial.

The loans — for projects in Florida, Chicago and Washington, D.C. — are a focus of New York Attorney General Letitia James’ lawsuit contending that Trump and his company deceived lenders and insurers by giving them financial statements that baldly overstated his asset values and overall net worth. The defendants deny the allegations.

Deutsche Bank reviewed the financial statements before making the loans through its department that works with rich individuals — a pathway that allowed for more favorable interest rates than likely available from the commercial real estate division, according to the lawsuit. The deals came with conditions about Trump’s net worth and, sometimes, liquidity, and they often required annual submissions of his financial statements.

But, testifying for the defense, managing director David Williams said the bankers viewed clients’ reports of their net worth as “subjective or subject to estimates” and took its own view of such financial statements.

“I think we expect clients-provided information to be accurate. At the same time, it’s not an industry standard that these statements be audited. They’re largely reliant on the use of estimates,” Williams said, so bankers routinely “make some adjustments.”


At times, the bank pegged Trump’s wealth at several billion dollars lower than he did, according to documents and testimony. In 2019, for example, Trump’s financial statement listed his net worth at $5.8 billion, which the bank adjusted down to $2.5 billion.

But Williams said such differences weren’t necessarily unusual or alarming.


“It’s a conservative measure to make these adjustments,” he testified, characterizing them as “standard” and a “stress test” of financial strength.

The attorney general’s office, however, has maintained that such adjustments were never intended to account for the alleged fraud. A now-retired Deutsche Bank executive, Nicholas Haigh, testified earlier in the trial that he assumed the figures “were broadly accurate,” though the bank subjected them to ”sanity checks” and sometimes made sizable “haircuts.”

Trump acted as the guarantor for the loans and was quick to act when the bank raised concerns that the properties weren’t generating enough cash to make payments, Williams said. At one point, Trump moved $8.6 million into the Washington hotel’s coffers after its cash flow fell short of a requirement. No payments were missed, and the loans were never found to be in default, Williams said.

After Williams finished testifying, Trump’s lawyers sought — as they repeatedly had before — to have the case thrown out. They argued the bank executive had neutralized any allegations that the defendants deceived the lender about Trump’s wealth.


“The bank conducted its own due diligence. The bank had no problem with a $2 billion or a $3 billion difference,” defense lawyer Christopher Kise said. He argued the lender wasn’t harmed because it “didn’t change what it did based on what President Trump submitted.”

State lawyer Kevin Wallace retorted, “I think the idea that you can’t lie to a bank is pretty well established.”

Judge Arthur Engoron said he was taking the request for dismissal under advisement, but he noted “that the mere fact that lenders were happy doesn’t mean that the statute wasn’t violated.”

Engoron already has ruled that Trump and other defendants engaged in fraud. The trial is to decide remaining claims of conspiracy, insurance fraud and falsifying business records. There’s no jury, so Engoron will decide the verdict.

Trump, the current Republican 2024 presidential front-runner, casts the entire case as a political low blow from James, a Democrat.

Trump maintains that his financial statements actually lowballed his wealth and that any overstatements — such as listing his Trump Tower penthouse for years at nearly three times its actual size — were mistakes.


He asserted in his own testimony this month that his lenders cared more about property locations and the parameters of the deals than they did about the financial statements. And he argued that lenders were essentially told to do their own homework, pointing to disclaimers that said the statements weren’t audited, among other caveats.

Deutsche Bank guidelines told lending officers to “independently verify all material facts,” and Williams said the bankers followed those and other instructions when dealing with Trump.

“Are you aware of any time Deutsche Bank didn’t adhere to its own guidelines in making loans to President Trump?” defense attorney Jesus M. Suarez asked.


“No,” Williams replied.

we hashed this shite out in real-time ... blame the banks if'n ya want, but wtfe, bruv...

#muhDisgorgementLanced

Lookup 'state enforcement action'.

(10-28-2025 11:38 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 11:00 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 10:45 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(10-27-2025 04:14 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-27-2025 12:42 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  Which they would have done had they thought they would be damaged. Imagine if the NY AG went after anyone who's information on their loan app was questionable.

Ill take it you support and defend 20 years of supplying massively fraudulent information to banks and such. Cool cool.

And at some point, a state has the power, and maybe the obligation, to take a part in policing persistent fraudulent activity within its borders. Simply to keep it own markets clean. Ill take it you are not for any AG ever taking *any* action for persistent fraudulent activity. Again, cool cool.

I take it you don't think anyone ever fudges numbers on a loan application.

Please tell us where I ever said that.

Quote:I take it you feel any and everyone who does should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law

If material to the loan, yeah. Prosecute them. Either civilly or criminally.

That isnt the issue there, though. The issue is a state enforcement action against persistent and pervasive fraud.

And to that extent, whomever engages in persistent and pervasive fraud, I have zero problem having a state run an enforcement action against them.

Quote:even when the bank claimed no harm was done. Cool cool.

In cases of persistent and pervasive fraud, that rises to the level and scope of a state enforcement action -- yeah. Paxton has done that exact same style of action here in Texas numerous times. And to repeat, one of the few issues I actually support him on.

Quote: I take it you live somewhere outside the real world. Cool cool.

I take it you live somewhere where you cant get your arms around the real issues that were in play.

James went after Trump because it was Trump. That's my opinion and to be honest I could care less what you think about it.

Yep, that seems to be the entire stance of MAGA. Everything is a witch-hunt. And who cares what the developed facts in the record. And who cares what the law in issue actually is or does. Especially when you can replace them with pithy, stupid, rhetorical, and false comments.

Yes, you absolutely do have that right. No doubt about that.

Quote:No, I just recognize hit jobs when I see them. Sorry you don't have that ability.

I dont seem to have the ability to rely on regurgitated misleading rhetoric either. Cool cool.

(10-28-2025 11:53 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 11:40 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 10:12 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 06:43 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

Id suggest yall at least get the underlying facts straight instead of repeating rhetorical claptrap. Or not. You be you.

Ill take it that you think that simply adding another floor to a penthouse magically is the mark of non-fraudulent activity. Cool cool. Or simply wish it away with memes and 'witchhunt' that seem to be the favored means to do so here.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-fraud-l...2c791d29ab

Quote:NEW YORK (AP) — When Deutsche Bank loaned Donald Trump’s company hundreds of millions lawyers of dollars, the bank always followed its own guidelines that include checking out information that would-be borrowers provide, an executive testified Tuesday at the former president’s civil fraud trial.

The loans — for projects in Florida, Chicago and Washington, D.C. — are a focus of New York Attorney General Letitia James’ lawsuit contending that Trump and his company deceived lenders and insurers by giving them financial statements that baldly overstated his asset values and overall net worth. The defendants deny the allegations.

Deutsche Bank reviewed the financial statements before making the loans through its department that works with rich individuals — a pathway that allowed for more favorable interest rates than likely available from the commercial real estate division, according to the lawsuit. The deals came with conditions about Trump’s net worth and, sometimes, liquidity, and they often required annual submissions of his financial statements.

But, testifying for the defense, managing director David Williams said the bankers viewed clients’ reports of their net worth as “subjective or subject to estimates” and took its own view of such financial statements.

“I think we expect clients-provided information to be accurate. At the same time, it’s not an industry standard that these statements be audited. They’re largely reliant on the use of estimates,” Williams said, so bankers routinely “make some adjustments.”


At times, the bank pegged Trump’s wealth at several billion dollars lower than he did, according to documents and testimony. In 2019, for example, Trump’s financial statement listed his net worth at $5.8 billion, which the bank adjusted down to $2.5 billion.

But Williams said such differences weren’t necessarily unusual or alarming.


“It’s a conservative measure to make these adjustments,” he testified, characterizing them as “standard” and a “stress test” of financial strength.

The attorney general’s office, however, has maintained that such adjustments were never intended to account for the alleged fraud. A now-retired Deutsche Bank executive, Nicholas Haigh, testified earlier in the trial that he assumed the figures “were broadly accurate,” though the bank subjected them to ”sanity checks” and sometimes made sizable “haircuts.”

Trump acted as the guarantor for the loans and was quick to act when the bank raised concerns that the properties weren’t generating enough cash to make payments, Williams said. At one point, Trump moved $8.6 million into the Washington hotel’s coffers after its cash flow fell short of a requirement. No payments were missed, and the loans were never found to be in default, Williams said.

After Williams finished testifying, Trump’s lawyers sought — as they repeatedly had before — to have the case thrown out. They argued the bank executive had neutralized any allegations that the defendants deceived the lender about Trump’s wealth.


“The bank conducted its own due diligence. The bank had no problem with a $2 billion or a $3 billion difference,” defense lawyer Christopher Kise said. He argued the lender wasn’t harmed because it “didn’t change what it did based on what President Trump submitted.”

State lawyer Kevin Wallace retorted, “I think the idea that you can’t lie to a bank is pretty well established.”

Judge Arthur Engoron said he was taking the request for dismissal under advisement, but he noted “that the mere fact that lenders were happy doesn’t mean that the statute wasn’t violated.”

Engoron already has ruled that Trump and other defendants engaged in fraud. The trial is to decide remaining claims of conspiracy, insurance fraud and falsifying business records. There’s no jury, so Engoron will decide the verdict.

Trump, the current Republican 2024 presidential front-runner, casts the entire case as a political low blow from James, a Democrat.

Trump maintains that his financial statements actually lowballed his wealth and that any overstatements — such as listing his Trump Tower penthouse for years at nearly three times its actual size — were mistakes.


He asserted in his own testimony this month that his lenders cared more about property locations and the parameters of the deals than they did about the financial statements. And he argued that lenders were essentially told to do their own homework, pointing to disclaimers that said the statements weren’t audited, among other caveats.

Deutsche Bank guidelines told lending officers to “independently verify all material facts,” and Williams said the bankers followed those and other instructions when dealing with Trump.

“Are you aware of any time Deutsche Bank didn’t adhere to its own guidelines in making loans to President Trump?” defense attorney Jesus M. Suarez asked.


“No,” Williams replied.

we hashed this shite out in real-time ... blame the banks if'n ya want, but wtfe, bruv...

#muhDisgorgementLanced

Lookup 'state enforcement action'.

further opens up the door to go after NGOs and their slush funds...

yeah, I know you want me to bite on the lack of 'consumer protection' side of the equation...

oh, bobby darn ... that's gonna suck even more for the donks...

@makeItHappenCap'n

addendum in irony: proving disgorgement doesn't require harming the consumer(s)

I didn't think anybody here was worse then Tanq, but we have a new contender.

(10-28-2025 12:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 11:38 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 11:00 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 10:45 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(10-27-2025 04:14 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Ill take it you support and defend 20 years of supplying massively fraudulent information to banks and such. Cool cool.

And at some point, a state has the power, and maybe the obligation, to take a part in policing persistent fraudulent activity within its borders. Simply to keep it own markets clean. Ill take it you are not for any AG ever taking *any* action for persistent fraudulent activity. Again, cool cool.

I take it you don't think anyone ever fudges numbers on a loan application.

Please tell us where I ever said that.

Quote:I take it you feel any and everyone who does should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law

If material to the loan, yeah. Prosecute them. Either civilly or criminally.

That isnt the issue there, though. The issue is a state enforcement action against persistent and pervasive fraud.

And to that extent, whomever engages in persistent and pervasive fraud, I have zero problem having a state run an enforcement action against them.

Quote:even when the bank claimed no harm was done. Cool cool.

In cases of persistent and pervasive fraud, that rises to the level and scope of a state enforcement action -- yeah. Paxton has done that exact same style of action here in Texas numerous times. And to repeat, one of the few issues I actually support him on.

Quote: I take it you live somewhere outside the real world. Cool cool.

I take it you live somewhere where you cant get your arms around the real issues that were in play.

James went after Trump because it was Trump. That's my opinion and to be honest I could care less what you think about it.

Yep, that seems to be the entire stance of MAGA. Everything is a witch-hunt. And who cares what the developed facts in the record. And who cares what the law in issue actually is or does. Especially when you can replace them with pithy, stupid, rhetorical, and false comments.

Yes, you absolutely do have that right. No doubt about that.

Quote:No, I just recognize hit jobs when I see them. Sorry you don't have that ability.

I dont seem to have the ability to rely on regurgitated misleading rhetoric either. Cool cool.

Based on your posting you seem to be an expert on regurgitation along with long winded, insulting, and condescending posts.

Tanq's an idiot.

Banks and lenders have their own underwriting department to determine valuation. And they arent just determining real valuation, but how much danger there is in that valuation. (ie liklihood it could drop in the future.)

When I sold my first house, I got a contract for $99,900. The along comes an appraiser who says its only worth $95K. THe financial institution's underwriting department overrode the appraiser and allowed the sale at $99,900.

Why?

Because valuations are subjective.

But in Tanq's world, I should be fined $400million dollars because I said my property was worth $99,900 when the appraiser said it was only worth $95K.


How is the above different from Letit James? LeTit got a favorable rate because she took advantage of a financing plan where the house had to be either primary or secondary, and was not going to be used as a rental/investment property, which would require LeTit to go through a different process. LeTit then signs her name, and proceeds to convert it to a rental/investment property. Thats not subjective. LeTit did something with the property that was not allowed for the financing she was approved for.

(10-28-2025 12:24 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 12:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I dont seem to have the ability to rely on regurgitated misleading rhetoric either. Cool cool.

Based on your posting you seem to be an expert on regurgitation along with long winded, insulting, and condescending posts.

Ding ding ding! Winner winner!

(10-28-2025 12:24 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 12:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 11:38 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 11:00 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 10:45 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  I take it you don't think anyone ever fudges numbers on a loan application.

Please tell us where I ever said that.

Quote:I take it you feel any and everyone who does should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law

If material to the loan, yeah. Prosecute them. Either civilly or criminally.

That isnt the issue there, though. The issue is a state enforcement action against persistent and pervasive fraud.

And to that extent, whomever engages in persistent and pervasive fraud, I have zero problem having a state run an enforcement action against them.

Quote:even when the bank claimed no harm was done. Cool cool.

In cases of persistent and pervasive fraud, that rises to the level and scope of a state enforcement action -- yeah. Paxton has done that exact same style of action here in Texas numerous times. And to repeat, one of the few issues I actually support him on.

Quote: I take it you live somewhere outside the real world. Cool cool.

I take it you live somewhere where you cant get your arms around the real issues that were in play.

James went after Trump because it was Trump. That's my opinion and to be honest I could care less what you think about it.

Yep, that seems to be the entire stance of MAGA. Everything is a witch-hunt. And who cares what the developed facts in the record. And who cares what the law in issue actually is or does. Especially when you can replace them with pithy, stupid, rhetorical, and false comments.

Yes, you absolutely do have that right. No doubt about that.

Quote:No, I just recognize hit jobs when I see them. Sorry you don't have that ability.

I dont seem to have the ability to rely on regurgitated misleading rhetoric either. Cool cool.

Based on your posting you seem to be an expert on regurgitation along with long winded, insulting, and condescending posts.

Maybe if folks like you might stop with the initial regurgitated misleading rhetoric followed by the moral outrage with actual facts in the record, the condescension would most likely disappear.

You said you recognize hit jobs when you see them. It is your right to do that. No problem here with that, my friend.

My response about 'I dont seem to have the ability to rely on regurgitated misleading rhetoric' is insulting, but in direct response to your dumb*** catcall that paralleled that language.

So go off in the corner and throw your temper tantrum. Or simply recognized the equivalence and direct parallels to your own snotty **** language that I returned. Either one is good with me. You be you.

(10-28-2025 12:37 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Tanq's an idiot.

Banks and lenders have their own underwriting department to determine valuation. And they arent just determining real valuation, but how much danger there is in that valuation. (ie liklihood it could drop in the future.)

When I sold my first house, I got a contract for $99,900. The along comes an appraiser who says its only worth $95K. THe financial institution's underwriting department overrode the appraiser and allowed the sale at $99,900.

Why?

Because valuations are subjective.

But in Tanq's world, I should be fined $400million dollars because I said my property was worth $99,900 when the appraiser said it was only worth $95K.


How is the above different from Letit James? LeTit got a favorable rate because she took advantage of a financing plan where the house had to be either primary or secondary, and was not going to be used as a rental/investment property, which would require LeTit to go through a different process. LeTit then signs her name, and proceeds to convert it to a rental/investment property. Thats not subjective. LeTit did something with the property that was not allowed for the financing she was approved for.

which is what some of us stated from the git-go...

why he states they're in the same vein is befuddling ... I can only surmise it's his TDS that is off the chain gang...

at DJT's scale, they all 'pencil whip' to the best advantage of both parties ... her INTENT WAS TO KNOWINGLY DEFRAUD ... they're two completely different animals...

oh, wellzy...

(10-28-2025 12:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 12:24 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 12:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 11:38 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 11:00 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Please tell us where I ever said that.


If material to the loan, yeah. Prosecute them. Either civilly or criminally.

That isnt the issue there, though. The issue is a state enforcement action against persistent and pervasive fraud.

And to that extent, whomever engages in persistent and pervasive fraud, I have zero problem having a state run an enforcement action against them.


In cases of persistent and pervasive fraud, that rises to the level and scope of a state enforcement action -- yeah. Paxton has done that exact same style of action here in Texas numerous times. And to repeat, one of the few issues I actually support him on.


I take it you live somewhere where you cant get your arms around the real issues that were in play.

James went after Trump because it was Trump. That's my opinion and to be honest I could care less what you think about it.

Yep, that seems to be the entire stance of MAGA. Everything is a witch-hunt. And who cares what the developed facts in the record. And who cares what the law in issue actually is or does. Especially when you can replace them with pithy, stupid, rhetorical, and false comments.

Yes, you absolutely do have that right. No doubt about that.

Quote:No, I just recognize hit jobs when I see them. Sorry you don't have that ability.

I dont seem to have the ability to rely on regurgitated misleading rhetoric either. Cool cool.

Based on your posting you seem to be an expert on regurgitation along with long winded, insulting, and condescending posts.

Maybe if folks like you might stop with the initial regurgitated misleading rhetoric followed by the moral outrage with actual facts in the record, the condescension would most likely disappear.

You said you recognize hit jobs when you see them. It is your right to do that. No problem here with that, my friend.

My response about 'I dont seem to have the ability to rely on regurgitated misleading rhetoric' is insulting, but in direct response to your dumb*** catcall that paralleled that language.

So go off in the corner and throw your temper tantrum. Or simply recognized the equivalence and direct parallels to your own snotty **** language that I returned. Either one is good with me. You be you.

I must have hit a nerve based on that response. Cool cool. You don't seem to realize I'm mimicking your own posting which is hilarious given the language returned sentence.
Go ahead and fire back slick. I'm going to find a corner to throw my temper tantrum.

(10-28-2025 12:18 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I didn't think anybody here was worse then Tanq, but we have a new contender.

Like I said, TDS sufferers have to stick together. Or something. lol

(10-28-2025 12:37 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Tanq's an idiot.

You could have stopped right there.

(10-28-2025 12:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 12:24 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 12:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 11:38 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 11:00 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Please tell us where I ever said that.


If material to the loan, yeah. Prosecute them. Either civilly or criminally.

That isnt the issue there, though. The issue is a state enforcement action against persistent and pervasive fraud.

And to that extent, whomever engages in persistent and pervasive fraud, I have zero problem having a state run an enforcement action against them.


In cases of persistent and pervasive fraud, that rises to the level and scope of a state enforcement action -- yeah. Paxton has done that exact same style of action here in Texas numerous times. And to repeat, one of the few issues I actually support him on.


I take it you live somewhere where you cant get your arms around the real issues that were in play.

James went after Trump because it was Trump. That's my opinion and to be honest I could care less what you think about it.

Yep, that seems to be the entire stance of MAGA. Everything is a witch-hunt. And who cares what the developed facts in the record. And who cares what the law in issue actually is or does. Especially when you can replace them with pithy, stupid, rhetorical, and false comments.

Yes, you absolutely do have that right. No doubt about that.

Quote:No, I just recognize hit jobs when I see them. Sorry you don't have that ability.

I dont seem to have the ability to rely on regurgitated misleading rhetoric either. Cool cool.

Based on your posting you seem to be an expert on regurgitation along with long winded, insulting, and condescending posts.

Maybe if folks like you might stop with the initial regurgitated misleading rhetoric followed by the moral outrage with actual facts in the record, the condescension would most likely disappear.

You said you recognize hit jobs when you see them. It is your right to do that. No problem here with that, my friend.

My response about 'I dont seem to have the ability to rely on regurgitated misleading rhetoric' is insulting, but in direct response to your dumb*** catcall that paralleled that language.

So go off in the corner and throw your temper tantrum. Or simply recognized the equivalence and direct parallels to your own snotty **** language that I returned. Either one is good with me. You be you.

" regurgitated misleading rhetoric"

Are you saying James comments during her 2018 campaign to go after President Trump were misleading ?

(10-28-2025 12:08 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 11:53 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Lookup 'state enforcement action'.

further opens up the door to go after NGOs and their slush funds...

yeah, I know you want me to bite on the lack of 'consumer protection' side of the equation...

oh, bobby darn ... that's gonna suck even more for the donks...

@makeItHappenCap'n

addendum in irony: proving disgorgement doesn't require harming the consumer(s)

Your addendum says it all. The state has an inherent duty to keep its markets clean, and to keep 'bad uns' from unfairly gaining based on 'bad things'.

Paxton has used it quite broadly in Texas -- and has used it to keep the markets and pretty decently clear. As an example https://www.velaw.com/insights/texas-ag-...urity-act/