So now we know where Tanq gets his legal opinions?

(12-29-2023 05:15 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 12:08 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 11:24 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 10:02 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

Quote:As to the italicized --- that sounds great. I suggest you actually look at some issues when you do so.

Again, what part of 'I am skeptical of the integrity of the prosecution... and I want that critically vetted before I even delve into the guilt or innocence of the accused.' is not clear to you? I was merely presenting ways that 'what he says' could easily misrepresent the actual situation. He made statements as if they were universal truths and they simply are not.

And you made asinine assumptions about what the judge said in your rush to the 'could be'. Again, without bother t o actual underlying facts in the record. Again - -maybe the 'facts in the record' as opposed to a slurry of Ham- 'whadabout my garage, and whadabout my outdoor space'.

*You* made a jacktard comment without even looking into what he relied upon, or why the judicial notice was made. Just a fast and furious bit of Ham 'maybes and could bes'. No -- that is *far* from making a critically vetted comment from your quarter.

Wash rinse and repeat for a number of issues in that regard.

Quote:Said simply, since words seem to befuddle you...
(Among other things the judge said that were not true...) It is NOT true that there is only one way to present the square footage of a property...

Said simply, because issues seem to befuddle you-- you didnt have (and probably still dont have) a fing clue what the judge relied upon in the judicial notice of sq ft.

But leave it to you to regale us with the hand waving you perform on the issue, amusingly bereft of the actual facts in the issue.

As for your asshat comment about 'words befuddling' -- I guess you didnt clue in that the issue presented isnt 'which way it is presented'. The issue is that Trump claimed 30k sq ft over three complete floors. The issue in that Trump only *has* one floor, based from multiple official sources.

So please dont lecture me about 'words seem to befuddle me' when you have an abject problem in that issue, and since you have an abject problem of backing up your thin rhetoric one liners with actual facts.

Quote:and it is NOT true that 'tax valuations' remotely represent the value of (especially) income producing property. The judge presented these things as EVIDENCE of fraud... and they are not.

Among other issues. But in true Ham fashion you fixate on that and denote one sub-portion of one item in isolation -- pretty laughable approach.

Quote:

Quote:If you want to look 'critically', please do. Nothing in here or in our PMs indicates your have done anything more than look at rhetorical one liners in your pursuit of 'critical examination', to be honest.

When your only tool is a hammer, you see everything as a nail. Your opinion above is more a reflection of your own perspective, and not of mine.

Coming from the guy that still doesn't understand the basis of the sq ft issue and the hows and whys of how the judge made a determination there -- again that is pretty laughable Ham.

Once you actually stop fixating on one tiny iota in isolation and repeteing the mantra and truism of that item in isolation -- I wouldnt make the comment above.

Or, maybe, if you simply took the time or an erg of effort beyond the thin, rhetorical statements you make that you think are so world important -- maybe I wouldnt make the comments above.

Just a thought.

Quote:Of course not, unless your goal is to impact the political arena and not to 'protect the public interest'. She literally ran on prosecuting Trump... not on prosecuting murderers.

But once again, beware....

She ran on investigating Trump. With the underlying presumption that if he found stuff to prosecute -- she would. Given the Cohen background at the time and the information Cohen has provided, seems reasonable to investigate items that a fixer to the Trump Organization is providing. How terrible, how horrible.

At least you have retreated off your 'she ran with the promise to CONVICT Trump', which was somehow a response based in the civics definition of 'convict', mind you.

Cohen was found guilty of lying. Do you understand, as an attorney, what issues she is going to have relying on anything from him?

Also, do you have an update on the $25million valuation for maralargo? Is the "Jury Trial Box" still in play?

lmmfao ... it just got a whole lotta rosier for DJT ... I don't believe they can muck the works at a faster pace...

https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2023/12/...s-n2168075

Cohen needs a second circumcision for this one! Then the GOP needs to start lopping off some hydra heads! I have a new term and slogan for you, "Cyber-Commies!" "Their intelligence was always artificial!"

Not much worse that what happened with at least 2 of Trump's experts --- but the issues with Trump's experts happened in the context of the fraud trial itself.

And yep, if Cohen (or any attorney for that matter) submits false cases (AI or not), there should be repercussions. No doubt.

(12-29-2023 05:15 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 12:08 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 11:24 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 10:02 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

Quote:As to the italicized --- that sounds great. I suggest you actually look at some issues when you do so.

Again, what part of 'I am skeptical of the integrity of the prosecution... and I want that critically vetted before I even delve into the guilt or innocence of the accused.' is not clear to you? I was merely presenting ways that 'what he says' could easily misrepresent the actual situation. He made statements as if they were universal truths and they simply are not.

And you made asinine assumptions about what the judge said in your rush to the 'could be'. Again, without bother t o actual underlying facts in the record. Again - -maybe the 'facts in the record' as opposed to a slurry of Ham- 'whadabout my garage, and whadabout my outdoor space'.

*You* made a jacktard comment without even looking into what he relied upon, or why the judicial notice was made. Just a fast and furious bit of Ham 'maybes and could bes'. No -- that is *far* from making a critically vetted comment from your quarter.

Wash rinse and repeat for a number of issues in that regard.

Quote:Said simply, since words seem to befuddle you...
(Among other things the judge said that were not true...) It is NOT true that there is only one way to present the square footage of a property...

Said simply, because issues seem to befuddle you-- you didnt have (and probably still dont have) a fing clue what the judge relied upon in the judicial notice of sq ft.

But leave it to you to regale us with the hand waving you perform on the issue, amusingly bereft of the actual facts in the issue.

As for your asshat comment about 'words befuddling' -- I guess you didnt clue in that the issue presented isnt 'which way it is presented'. The issue is that Trump claimed 30k sq ft over three complete floors. The issue in that Trump only *has* one floor, based from multiple official sources.

So please dont lecture me about 'words seem to befuddle me' when you have an abject problem in that issue, and since you have an abject problem of backing up your thin rhetoric one liners with actual facts.

Quote:and it is NOT true that 'tax valuations' remotely represent the value of (especially) income producing property. The judge presented these things as EVIDENCE of fraud... and they are not.

Among other issues. But in true Ham fashion you fixate on that and denote one sub-portion of one item in isolation -- pretty laughable approach.

Quote:

Quote:If you want to look 'critically', please do. Nothing in here or in our PMs indicates your have done anything more than look at rhetorical one liners in your pursuit of 'critical examination', to be honest.

When your only tool is a hammer, you see everything as a nail. Your opinion above is more a reflection of your own perspective, and not of mine.

Coming from the guy that still doesn't understand the basis of the sq ft issue and the hows and whys of how the judge made a determination there -- again that is pretty laughable Ham.

Once you actually stop fixating on one tiny iota in isolation and repeteing the mantra and truism of that item in isolation -- I wouldnt make the comment above.

Or, maybe, if you simply took the time or an erg of effort beyond the thin, rhetorical statements you make that you think are so world important -- maybe I wouldnt make the comments above.

Just a thought.

Quote:Of course not, unless your goal is to impact the political arena and not to 'protect the public interest'. She literally ran on prosecuting Trump... not on prosecuting murderers.

But once again, beware....

She ran on investigating Trump. With the underlying presumption that if he found stuff to prosecute -- she would. Given the Cohen background at the time and the information Cohen has provided, seems reasonable to investigate items that a fixer to the Trump Organization is providing. How terrible, how horrible.

At least you have retreated off your 'she ran with the promise to CONVICT Trump', which was somehow a response based in the civics definition of 'convict', mind you.

Cohen was found guilty of lying. Do you understand, as an attorney, what issues she is going to have relying on anything from him?

Also, do you have an update on the $25million valuation for maralargo? Is the "Jury Trial Box" still in play?

lmmfao ... it just got a whole lotta rosier for DJT ... I don't believe they can muck the works at a faster pace...

https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2023/12/...s-n2168075

oh sh*t thats gonna be bad.......

It would have been funny if the AI had created a case of Orange Man Bad versus crooked Hillary.

(10-26-2023 09:58 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-26-2023 09:56 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-25-2023 08:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-25-2023 08:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  How do you stack the above against the testimony on the requirement to 'back into a net worth' from Trump?

I'd call that something that happens frequently.

Most people just don't have a clue about business or real estate.
I think the judge clearly falls into that category, not that he cares.

But you think a 12-person jury would?

They'd be more likely than that judge to do so.

When the jury is told there us no victim they would question why they are there.

(01-02-2024 09:37 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  When the jury is told there us no victim they would question why they are there.

Juries don't like to convict without victims.

(01-02-2024 09:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-02-2024 09:37 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  When the jury is told there us no victim they would question why they are there.

Juries don't like to convict without victims.

Especially when damages are involved. A civil case with no victim seeking damages. Would turn the study of law on its head.

(10-30-2023 07:29 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 06:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If the loans were rolled over to a new debt holder, then that new debt holder would presumably have to support his/her/its loan requests with valuations, presumably of the same properties, and presumably at similar valuations.
I still think this whole deal is a biased judge trying to interpret valuation methodologies in a way that doesn't fit reality, in order to justify a hatchet job on Donald Trump. I will be interested in seeing what happens on appeal.

Maybe you should have offered your insights to the Trump legal team. Or to the judge.

I don't think the judge would be interested in any insights. He is on a mission to destroy Donald Trump, and doesn't give a flying f**k about facts.

(01-02-2024 09:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 07:29 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 06:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If the loans were rolled over to a new debt holder, then that new debt holder would presumably have to support his/her/its loan requests with valuations, presumably of the same properties, and presumably at similar valuations.
I still think this whole deal is a biased judge trying to interpret valuation methodologies in a way that doesn't fit reality, in order to justify a hatchet job on Donald Trump. I will be interested in seeing what happens on appeal.

Maybe you should have offered your insights to the Trump legal team. Or to the judge.

I don't think the judge would be interested in any insights. He is on a mission to destroy Donald Trump, and doesn't give a flying f**k about facts.

Obviously, he isn't the only one.

(01-02-2024 09:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I don't think the judge would be interested in any insights. He is on a mission to destroy Donald Trump, and doesn't give a flying f**k about facts.

Neither does tanq

Thousand+ posts in and STILL have to explain how this trial works and that there doesn't have to be a direct victim. Not to mention the fact that yes, damages may be awarded here to the State of New York as requested, in the amount of $250M.

But I especially love that judges that rule against your hero are always on these missions to destroy poor Donny and just randomly dismiss facts and procedures along the way to accomplish that, but when they rule in his favor...nothing to see here.....

(01-02-2024 09:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 07:29 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 06:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If the loans were rolled over to a new debt holder, then that new debt holder would presumably have to support his/her/its loan requests with valuations, presumably of the same properties, and presumably at similar valuations.
I still think this whole deal is a biased judge trying to interpret valuation methodologies in a way that doesn't fit reality, in order to justify a hatchet job on Donald Trump. I will be interested in seeing what happens on appeal.

Maybe you should have offered your insights to the Trump legal team. Or to the judge.

I don't think the judge would be interested in any insights. He is on a mission to destroy Donald Trump, and doesn't give a flying f**k about facts.

^This. It really is that simple.

(01-03-2024 09:38 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(01-02-2024 09:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 07:29 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 06:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If the loans were rolled over to a new debt holder, then that new debt holder would presumably have to support his/her/its loan requests with valuations, presumably of the same properties, and presumably at similar valuations.
I still think this whole deal is a biased judge trying to interpret valuation methodologies in a way that doesn't fit reality, in order to justify a hatchet job on Donald Trump. I will be interested in seeing what happens on appeal.

Maybe you should have offered your insights to the Trump legal team. Or to the judge.

I don't think the judge would be interested in any insights. He is on a mission to destroy Donald Trump, and doesn't give a flying f**k about facts.

^This. It really is that simple.

There are some things about Trump's presentation of himself that I don't care for, but I've voted for him twice.

But there is one thing I don't think anyone with a conservative bent can deny about him, "The man is hated by all of the right people and groups!" And that's an outstanding attribute which cannot be denied!

(01-03-2024 09:38 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(01-02-2024 09:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 07:29 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 06:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If the loans were rolled over to a new debt holder, then that new debt holder would presumably have to support his/her/its loan requests with valuations, presumably of the same properties, and presumably at similar valuations.
I still think this whole deal is a biased judge trying to interpret valuation methodologies in a way that doesn't fit reality, in order to justify a hatchet job on Donald Trump. I will be interested in seeing what happens on appeal.

Maybe you should have offered your insights to the Trump legal team. Or to the judge.

I don't think the judge would be interested in any insights. He is on a mission to destroy Donald Trump, and doesn't give a flying f**k about facts.

^This. It really is that simple.

It takes a pretty childish understanding of what's going on to boil down Don's criminality as unfair victimization.

(01-03-2024 09:45 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(01-03-2024 09:38 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(01-02-2024 09:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 07:29 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 06:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If the loans were rolled over to a new debt holder, then that new debt holder would presumably have to support his/her/its loan requests with valuations, presumably of the same properties, and presumably at similar valuations.
I still think this whole deal is a biased judge trying to interpret valuation methodologies in a way that doesn't fit reality, in order to justify a hatchet job on Donald Trump. I will be interested in seeing what happens on appeal.

Maybe you should have offered your insights to the Trump legal team. Or to the judge.

I don't think the judge would be interested in any insights. He is on a mission to destroy Donald Trump, and doesn't give a flying f**k about facts.

^This. It really is that simple.

It takes a pretty childish understanding of what's going on to boil down Don's criminality as unfair victimization.

Believing everything you've been spoon-fed is pretty childish too, no?

(01-03-2024 09:37 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Thousand+ posts in and STILL have to explain how this trial works and that there doesn't have to be a direct victim. Not to mention the fact that yes, damages may be awarded here to the State of New York as requested, in the amount of $250M.

But I especially love that judges that rule against your hero are always on these missions to destroy poor Donny and just randomly dismiss facts and procedures along the way to accomplish that, but when they rule in his favor...nothing to see here.....

This is a message board dumb***. It's just for fun. No one here has to explain or prove anything to your satisfaction.

(01-03-2024 09:46 AM)appst89 Wrote:  

(01-03-2024 09:45 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(01-03-2024 09:38 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(01-02-2024 09:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 07:29 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Maybe you should have offered your insights to the Trump legal team. Or to the judge.

I don't think the judge would be interested in any insights. He is on a mission to destroy Donald Trump, and doesn't give a flying f**k about facts.

^This. It really is that simple.

It takes a pretty childish understanding of what's going on to boil down Don's criminality as unfair victimization.

Believing everything you've been spoon-fed is pretty childish too, no?

Yes, it is, thanks for agreeing

“Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.” - Marcus Aurelius


Ancient wisdom that some of you should consider.

(01-03-2024 09:48 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(01-03-2024 09:46 AM)appst89 Wrote:  

(01-03-2024 09:45 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(01-03-2024 09:38 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(01-02-2024 09:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I don't think the judge would be interested in any insights. He is on a mission to destroy Donald Trump, and doesn't give a flying f**k about facts.

^This. It really is that simple.

It takes a pretty childish understanding of what's going on to boil down Don's criminality as unfair victimization.

Believing everything you've been spoon-fed is pretty childish too, no?

Yes, it is, thanks for agreeing

Well played, but incorrect.

Try thinking sometime. You might be surprised at what it yields.