(10-17-2023 01:10 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: (10-17-2023 11:24 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: 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, what part of my preceeding comment was not clear to you?
My inclusion of the judge's comments is evidence to me of a lack of understanding of 'valuation' which goes back to the preconception that 'we just know there is bad news in here'. Once again... typed slower for you...
I was first referring to your stupid hand waving about sq footage in particular Ham. That is, fundamentally not considering in the slightest the plethora of actual items the judge took judicial notice in when making the leap that Trump *did not* in fact own three floors but one.
Among others.
Quote:I never get to the specific charges about Trump... because at this point, I am simply looking at the bias and evidence of 'a conclusion in search of justification'.
You sure do flap your lips about everything else in addition to that, mind you.
Quote:If I were trying to prove Trump innocent, I would be doing what you suggest and the details would matter.... but as I have said from the start:
I
Never
Get
To
any
facts
about
Trump
Well, yes you do. I simply ask you to look at your fing tomes of issues you have with the facts. Get back to us with your outlook on the above when you do that.
Quote:I am challenging the logical path the judge is following, and noting that There IS no victim here and nobody actually looking for valuations 'to protect the little guy' would say what he says or go about it this way.
And had you bothered to note any of the articles I sent you -- that isnt the angle in 63(12).
Quote:Quote: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.
Once again... YOUR issue (is Trump guilty)... hence my 'get Trump' allegation.... not MY issue (an honest judiciary first).
Got it. Add the judiciary to the long list of cabal members to justify yourself. Sounds peachy.
Quote:I've made this clear in my references to numbers, who obviously agrees at least for the most part that the honesty of the prosecution has not been established.
You both had made pretty much airless allegations -- that is correct.
Quote: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.
Again, only to YOUR concern... not to mine.
It often doesn't matter what other pieces of evidence the prosecution has if the 'smoking gun' was planted. It taints everything. [/quote]
I got it. Everything is planted now. Sounds fun. The problem is that you continuously mischaracterize the issue you hammer on as being that 'proof of being planted'.
Quote:Seriously... in ANY other context, you would agree/understand this.
When there is more than air angst, yes.
Quote:Quote: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.
So again... You just assume over my repeated corrections that you think I'm saying this to vindicate Trump... despite the dozens of ways I've said that is not the case.
Actually here I am saying the results of all your thrashings seemingly end up supporting Trump. Distinct difference Ham.
Quote:Even simple comments like even mentioning the assessed tax values is an example of a bias... because everyone who knows anything about tax assessments knows that they mean NOTHING when it comes to the financial value of an operation... but 'the people' often don't. This to me is what someone does when they are 'playing to a crowd'.... and literally nothing else that they say or do changes that assessment of that.
And you pointedly (and consistently) leave out the literally reams of stuff that cut against your crying wail above.
Quote:I stay fixated on it because nobody has addressed it. Yes, I could go much deeper, but why bother when such simple observations go unanswered?? I'm in a decision tree and you want me to just skip a part of it... ignoring that the decision tree has two options... and you are dismissing the one I am most concerned about.
Here is the decision tree presented Ham, one that you continuously gloss over. Specifically to the MAL issue that fixate on like Raymond in Rain Man. To the exclusion of any other item in the MAL issue, and to the exclusion of *all* the other properties.
A. AG presents evidence of Trump valuation of X.
B. AG presents evidence of impairment to the value that is specifically said not to exist by Trump.
C. AG presents multiple pieces of evidence relating to the valuation. ONE of which is the tax assessment, and to which the tax assessor actually uses the impairment in value presented. That is Trump gave up property rights.
D. Trump presents testimony that gives *no* evidence of value.
In the end, you have (some evidence) v (no evidence). Guess which one wins in a civil matter Ham?
Quote:Tanq... you are seriously doing the same thing here. You have a bias (you insist that I am defending Trump)
I am noting every single action you take acts to defend Trump's interest. That is *not* saying you are defending Trump. Those concepts are vastly different.
Quote:which taints your readings of everything I write.... because you THINK you know why I say what I say and ignore what I ignore.... and you're just wrong.
Read the above.
Quote:It should be notable to you (yet you ignore it) that my FIRST COMMENTS on this forum some 45 pages ago told you specifically what my concerns were....
and here we are 45 pages later and Numbers is essentially still saying the same thing....
Actually you two have not said the same thing.
Quote:Quote: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.
No retreat... A distinction without a difference to my point.
You told me what a dumb*** I was when you screamed your garbage about knowing the civics definition between 'CONVICT' and investigate. Funny that.
Quote:Your 'she ran on investigating Trump' is just as unreasonable an interpretation of what happened as mine. I believe your actual comment was that 'ANYONE' who did this would be subject to this... but as I said, she didn't RUN on 'going after' ANYONE. She ran on going after Trump.
After having the knowledge of what Chen knows, mind you.
Quote:But I think it obvious that she wasn't simply saying... 'Some concerning information has been released that we will look into regarding Trump's financial dealings'... she ALSO said 'we will shine a bright light into every dark corner of his real estate holdings'. She was VASTLY more aggressive than you are admitting.... because she was playing to a constituency.
Lol. Yeah, quite the horrible difference. Lolz.
Quote:You intentionally select her more benign comments on the issue and ignore the much more damning ones... as if that would matter in any other context.
I simply was interested in what she said, given your assertions of what she said. That is what I found. Not what I selected mind you.
As I noted there, if you find different comments -- please do tell. I guess you didnt read my comment here: "If you want to link where James said she promises to CONVICT, I’m all ears."
https://csnbbs.com/thread-978134-post-19...id19206690
Quote:as if that would matter in any other context.
Read the above, read the link above as well. Or just make stupid self-serving comments that fly in the face of what is stated. Your choice.
Quote:Again, it is worth noting that her initial responses were not similar to what you claim here... but were instead a denial of what our own eyes and ears were hearing.
I posted a listing of her comments in 2018. None of them quite stack up to your jumping up and down, mind you.
Quote:So why is the judge talking about the risk that this misrepresentation presents to the little guy and how the state must step in to protect it??
The state, any state, has every right to step in and stop distortions of the market in its state due to *persistent* fraud. Period.
States have done this sort of enforcement action to, when such persistent fraud is present, cancel the fraud undertaker from doing business in its jurisdiction. Period.
You seemingly forget what the state is seeking in this. Funny that, given your rapt attention to the details and facts.
Quote:And where is the lender in that equation?
Well, Ham, put that vaunted thinking cap on. Does a lender have the power or the charge to cancel a business license, as a first thought experiment, amongst a few....
Quote:I've asked this a dozen times... and you have no answer other than 'that's just not necessary under the law'... which makes no practical sense. Do you not see that his justification SEEMS 'made up'?? No victim... and in fact a willing 'counterparty'... yet the judge says he has to protect those who can't protect themselves?
Ive answered it just as many times, Ham. The function of a private party fraud claim and a state AG fraud claim are two distinct, wildly different animals.
But please keep peeping off about the role of private counterparties in this.....
![[Image: sddefault.jpg]](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/tJ-LivK4-78/sddefault.jpg)
![[Image: 82vzko.jpg]](https://i.imgflip.com/82vzko.jpg)
