two feds sitting in a bureau...P-O-S-T-I-N-G...first comes job security, then comes that TSP, then comes the Team Lead in the weekly sync/huddle to switch up AOI (area of interest)

(10-27-2023 08:45 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-26-2023 08:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-26-2023 01:05 PM)VA49er Wrote:  IMO, the actual value of the RE, for the judge, is irrelevant as his conclusion was reached before the "trial" even began.

Actually, I think all the judge knew or cared about was that it was his job to "get" Trump--and he did as best he could.

Well he has publicly said he should be jailed for the Capitol riots. And somehow hasn't recused himself. Judicial misconduct on his part.

To any nonpartisan, that's all any of this really boils down to. It's the culmination of everything, starting from the Russian collusion lies.

(10-27-2023 09:27 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  So, charging him with breaking laws on the books is a trick and a nuance. Got it.

"Poor donny" seems pretty apropos for the nonsense you continually bring to defend him with.

This is perhaps the dumbest response to one of my comments anyone has ever written. I submitted that he was dirty... and my complaint is that it still seems incredibly difficult to convict him of anything... despite some pretty extraordinary efforts to do so. My opinion is that this is evidence that the system is broken... and you somehow see this as a defense of him?

Truly ignorant.

(10-27-2023 10:25 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-27-2023 09:13 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  This law, like every other state AG enforcement action statute that exists in every other state, simply says the following:

If you lie or make material misrepresentations, and you do it in business, and you do it persistently --- the state can sue to shut you down. Period.

More, you have to prove it was 'material'.

In this case wholly incorrect. In normal, plain jane fraud -- yes. But you are inaccurate as what is being charged.
[/quote]

I responded specifically to what you claimed the law said... quoted above.... with emphasis on the PERIOD.... Implying that this was all that mattered. If you misrepresented the law or what all mattered, that's on you.

Quote:What is charged in NY Exec law 63(12). Not the normal fraud law for a private party. The fraud law that allows state enforcement action is used here.

NY Exec Law 63(12) requires "repeated fraudulent or illegal acts or otherwise demonstrate persistent fraud or illegality in the carrying on, conducting or transaction of business". That is --- a persistent, ongoing falsehoods or misrepresentations.

You have someone we both respect disagreeing rather on point to you that no fraud nor illegal acts exist. I'll just leave it there.

Quote:Again you repeat the mischaracterization of the requirements of the law in question.

Funny though... I used the exact words you used above to charcterize the requirements of the law in question... period. Seems you agreed that the word mattered until I used it.

Quote:No materiality per the statute, per the NY Supreme Court, and as stated in the decision on summary judgement in this case. Only need a persistent, ongoing usage of falsehoods and misrepresentations in business.

And yet I see 'Best Pizza in NY' signs all over town.

If that is truly what is required of the statute then I submit as I have before that it is a stupid law that serves no real purpose. Immaterial misrepresentations are just that... immaterial.... unimportant... irrelevant. You may as well sue him for saying that he's a good husband or great lover. Seriously, I can't believe that we're talking about even FINING someone for an immaterial misrepresentation.... or that ANY Republican would support such a law.

So maybe you're just telling me what the law says... and if so that's fine... now tell me why you would support enforcement of immaterial acts?- ESPECIALLY in light of your previous opinion that the state was right not to pursue Hillary for MATERIAL misrepresentations in a much more serious situation because she would put up a good fight (intent would be hard to prove).

Seriously... we're literally arguing here that immaterial misrepresentations for a NY businessman about the SF'age of a building, relied upon by nobody for any reason is a criminal offense, but material misrepresentations by the SOS about an unsecure email server with classified information on the internet and destruction of any evidence of any security breach is 'too tough'.... and you're a 'JETFL' Republican.

This country is ******.

(10-27-2023 12:45 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-27-2023 10:25 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-27-2023 09:13 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

Quote:This law, like every other state AG enforcement action statute that exists in every other state, simply says the following:

If you lie or make material misrepresentations, and you do it in business, and you do it persistently --- the state can sue to shut you down. Period.

More, you have to prove it was 'material'.

In this case wholly incorrect. In normal, plain jane fraud -- yes. But you are inaccurate as what is being charged.

I responded specifically to what you claimed the law said... quoted above.... with emphasis on the PERIOD.... Implying that this was all that mattered. If you misrepresented the law or what all mattered, that's on you.

"lie *OR* make material misrepresentations." The "OR" is important there, and was seemingly omitted in your comment which should have included the 'lie' that preceded it.

Lets stick with lie, or falsehood? Simply to make everything less contorted and we dont get balled up in a definitional dispute.

In short, all that is needed is persistent lies.

You *can* get popped for persistent material misresrepresentations, but the underlying issue in the present instance has been falsehoods.

Quote:

Quote:What is charged in NY Exec law 63(12). Not the normal fraud law for a private party. The fraud law that allows state enforcement action is used here.

NY Exec Law 63(12) requires "repeated fraudulent or illegal acts or otherwise demonstrate persistent fraud or illegality in the carrying on, conducting or transaction of business". That is --- a persistent, ongoing falsehoods or misrepresentations.

You have someone we both respect disagreeing rather on point to you that no fraud nor illegal acts exist. I'll just leave it there.

Maybe point out who and where, instead of being oblique. Ill be happy to respond to their comments that you seemingly use as a shield here.

Quote:

Quote:Again you repeat the mischaracterization of the requirements of the law in question.

Funny though... I used the exact words you used above to charcterize the requirements of the law in question... period. Seems you agreed that the word mattered until I used it.

Actually no -- you *didnt* use the exact words. The exact words are "lie *or* make a material misrepresentation". In heavily redacted version you would be correct, in terms of the full passage you are not.

Maybe we should just use the words of the statute above?

Quote:

Quote:No materiality per the statute, per the NY Supreme Court, and as stated in the decision on summary judgement in this case. Only need a persistent, ongoing usage of falsehoods and misrepresentations in business.

And yet I see 'Best Pizza in NY' signs all over town.

I dont necessarily see a lie or a material misrepresentation above.

If you think abut it, Trump himself could say 'these are the BEST properties in the world' in his SFCs -- there wouldnt, nor shouldnt, be civil charges with that. And funnily, I see Trump say that every night now -- and no charges based on those.

Nor do I see commercial traffic in terms of 4 to 6 billion dollars.

Quote:If that is truly what is required of the statute then I submit as I have before that it is a stupid law that serves no real purpose. Immaterial misrepresentations are just that... immaterial.... unimportant... irrelevant. You may as well sue him for saying that he's a good husband or great lover. Seriously, I can't believe that we're talking about even FINING someone for an immaterial misrepresentation.... or that ANY Republican would support such a law.

I have zero problem with giving a state the ability to combat persistent, deep, fraud, affecting large amounts of commercial activity effected from a single actor. That is -- the point of the law, as embodied in the text, and in the legislative record. And has been fleshed out many, many times. That background is in the links I had PMed to you a while back.

The italicized denotes the problem with the 'pizza' issue as well.

Quote:Maybe you're just telling me what the law says... and if so that's fine... now tell me why you would support enforcement of immaterial acts?- ESPECIALLY in light of your previous opinion that the state was right not to pursue Hillary for MATERIAL misrepresentations in a much more serious situation because she would put up a good fight (intent would be hard to prove).

First, you are mixing and matching the idea of materiality across state enforcement fraud actions, and on the other hand depth of national security item, coupled with the aspect of lying to investigators.

Apples and bowling balls at the outset.

Second, you are no mixing up the elements for her 'documents' charge with that of an obstruction charge.

What precise item about Hillary are you referring to there? There is a 'documents' case that had an 'intent' issue. There was a possible obstruction case that didnt go anywhere for lack of actual facts of obstruction -- mainly because the folks that would have held the evidence for that were immunized to force their Grand Jury testimony, and that testimony wasnt what the feds thought it would be. That obstruction was her team destroying the emails and the disk.

What material misrepresentation charge was considered against Hillary? I dont think there was one as you posit above.

Quote:Seriously... we're literally arguing here that immaterial misrepresentations for a NY businessman about the SF'age of a building, relied upon by nobody for any reason is a criminal offense,

This isnt a criminal trial. It is a civil suit. And the issue isnt one or two lies or misrepresentations. The issue is a deep persistent pattern of them in business. That is -- conduct such as that in italics above.

Quote:but material misrepresentations by the SOS about an unsecure email server with classified information on the internet and destruction of any evidence of any security breach is 'too tough'.... and you're a 'JETFL' Republican.

First -- I dont think the issue with Hillary was 'material misrepresentations' Ham. Can you clarify?

As for Hillary, I had, and still have, zero problem with charging her. I still believe that the decision *not* to charge her for the improper storage is absolutely the wrong one. I say that is right in line with JETFL.

I do understand *why* there were no charges -- that is the level of effort necessary to smash through the intent for a 'documents' charge would have been a massive hurdle. And although I understand that rationale, I still think that calculus that was done wrong.

On the destruction issue, the simple fact is that there were no underlying facts *to* which they could charge. The Feds immunized the people who did those actions (that is the actual IT folks) to puncture their 5th amendment claims and force them in front of the grand jury, and their testimony in front of the grand jury only implicated themselves. No facts were left to support a Hillary charge on the destruction/ obstruction charge.

Can you expand on the "material misrepresentations by the SOS about an unsecure email server" -- I dont recall that being an issue. What material misrepresentations were at the crux af that? I dont remember that being an end issue.

Hillary kept a large amount of official information, some of it perhaps classified, some perhaps not, on a non-secure server in her house, and transmitted/received such information over uncovered circuits. That alone is per se a major violation of national security. We can debate the ins and outs of the applicable statutes until the cows come home, but Hillary clearly hazarded a substantial amount of sensitive information.

(10-27-2023 10:25 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  No materiality per the statute, per the NY Supreme Court, and as stated in the decision on summary judgement in this case. Only need a persistent, ongoing usage of falsehoods and misrepresentations in business.

My point is that in the context of negotiating a real estate loan or series of such loans, there were no falsehoods and misrepresentations, much less continuing use of them. The judge was not interested in providing a disinterested tribunal, his mission was to “get” Donald Trump.

(10-27-2023 03:25 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-27-2023 10:25 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  No materiality per the statute, per the NY Supreme Court, and as stated in the decision on summary judgement in this case. Only need a persistent, ongoing usage of falsehoods and misrepresentations in business.

My point is that in the context of negotiating a real estate loan or series of such loans, there were no falsehoods and misrepresentations, much less continuing use of them. The judge was not interested in providing a disinterested tribunal, his mission was to “get” Donald Trump.

What do you call false numbers on a financial statement presented to lenders? Aside from a 'lie', I cant think of much else to call them. You state unequivocally that there arent falsehoods.

Here is one in particular: On the statements themselves, the same statements given to lenders a specific item notes that 'No property appraisals or valuations are given with any aspect of a Trump brand associated with them.'

The controller, assistant controller, and three insiders have all testified to such 'Trump brand inflation' being necessary for inclusion in the numbers that were reversed into.

Thats not a lie? Seriously? How do you square that with your unvarnished comment comment bolded above? It flies abjectly in the face of it....

Not to mention that continued year over year -- which then goes to your 'no continuing use' claim.

I am glad you think the judge is bent. I dont see a solid basis for that aside from your rather automatic statements, or being divorced from the actual facts in the acse, truth be told.

(10-27-2023 03:16 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Hillary kept a large amount of official information, some of it perhaps classified, some perhaps not, on a non-secure server in her house, and transmitted/received such information over uncovered circuits. That alone is per se a major violation of national security. We can debate the ins and outs of the applicable statutes until the cows come home, but Hillary clearly hazarded a substantial amount of sensitive information.

There is no opposition to the above from me.

(10-27-2023 05:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

Quote:Hillary kept a large amount of official information, some of it perhaps classified, some perhaps not, on a non-secure server in her house, and transmitted/received such information over uncovered circuits. That alone is per se a major violation of national security. We can debate the ins and outs of the applicable statutes until the cows come home, but Hillary clearly hazarded a substantial amount of sensitive information.

There is no opposition to the above from me.

Not to rehash all this again, but I believe this is vastly overselling the situation. IIRC, they only found like 4 things that were on her server that were deemed to have been classified. And further, I believe those items were not even considered classified at the time they were introduced on her server, but instead were later considered classified.

But it's been awhile, I could not be remembering it correctly.

(10-30-2023 07:02 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-27-2023 05:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

Quote:Hillary kept a large amount of official information, some of it perhaps classified, some perhaps not, on a non-secure server in her house, and transmitted/received such information over uncovered circuits. That alone is per se a major violation of national security. We can debate the ins and outs of the applicable statutes until the cows come home, but Hillary clearly hazarded a substantial amount of sensitive information.

There is no opposition to the above from me.

Not to rehash all this again, but I believe this is vastly overselling the situation. IIRC, they only found like 4 things that were on her server that were deemed to have been classified. And further, I believe those items were not even considered classified at the time they were introduced on her server, but instead were later considered classified.

But it's been awhile, I could not be remembering it correctly.

"In testimony before the House panel on July 7, Comey described several statements made by Clinton on the campaign trail about her use of the server as "not true."

Clinton was wrong when she said she never sent or received classified information over the server. "Our investigation found ... 110 [emails with then-classified information] that she either received or sent," he said."

"Asked whether Clinton's use of a personal server while secretary of state made some of America's secrets vulnerable to adversaries, Comey simply replied, "Yes.""(See 1st link below).

As someone who has actually had a Secret government clearance for several decades and has had security training each and every year during that time, I can tell you that it is strictly against the rules of handling classified data to EVER have it on an unsecured, unauthorized computer - which is exactly what Hillary knowingly did. There were additional rules that she also broke in her total mishandling of classified data.

AT A MINIMUM, she should have immediately lost her security clearance and NEVER again been approved to have another one. Without being able to have a security clearance she should have been unable to compete for the presidency since you have to have a top-level clearance to be president and she had shown herself to be unfit to share that kind of information with.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fbi-dire...d=41044927

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghph_361wa0

(10-30-2023 09:19 AM)ODU BBALL Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 07:02 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-27-2023 05:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

Quote:Hillary kept a large amount of official information, some of it perhaps classified, some perhaps not, on a non-secure server in her house, and transmitted/received such information over uncovered circuits. That alone is per se a major violation of national security. We can debate the ins and outs of the applicable statutes until the cows come home, but Hillary clearly hazarded a substantial amount of sensitive information.

There is no opposition to the above from me.

Not to rehash all this again, but I believe this is vastly overselling the situation. IIRC, they only found like 4 things that were on her server that were deemed to have been classified. And further, I believe those items were not even considered classified at the time they were introduced on her server, but instead were later considered classified.

But it's been awhile, I could not be remembering it correctly.

"In testimony before the House panel on July 7, Comey described several statements made by Clinton on the campaign trail about her use of the server as "not true."

Clinton was wrong when she said she never sent or received classified information over the server. "Our investigation found ... 110 [emails with then-classified information] that she either received or sent," he said."

"Asked whether Clinton's use of a personal server while secretary of state made some of America's secrets vulnerable to adversaries, Comey simply replied, "Yes.""(See 1st link below).

As someone who has actually had a Secret government clearance for several decades and has had security training each and every year during that time, I can tell you that it is strictly against the rules of handling classified data to EVER have it on an unsecured, unauthorized computer - which is exactly what Hillary knowingly did. There were additional rules that she also broke in her total mishandling of classified data.

AT A MINIMUM, she should have immediately lost her security clearance and NEVER again been approved to have another one. Without being able to have a security clearance she should have been unable to compete for the presidency since you have to have a top-level clearance to be president and she had shown herself to be unfit to share that kind of information with.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fbi-dire...d=41044927

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghph_361wa0

There's really no need. We saw a while ago that some people have absolutely no clue what classified docs are and the special handling instructions that accompany them. Some of that lack of knowledge is simple ignorance, but most is partisan nonsense.

(10-30-2023 07:02 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-27-2023 05:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

Quote:Hillary kept a large amount of official information, some of it perhaps classified, some perhaps not, on a non-secure server in her house, and transmitted/received such information over uncovered circuits. That alone is per se a major violation of national security. We can debate the ins and outs of the applicable statutes until the cows come home, but Hillary clearly hazarded a substantial amount of sensitive information.

There is no opposition to the above from me.

Not to rehash all this again, but I believe this is vastly overselling the situation. IIRC, they only found like 4 things that were on her server that were deemed to have been classified. And further, I believe those items were not even considered classified at the time they were introduced on her server, but instead were later considered classified.

But it's been awhile, I could not be remembering it correctly.

You wish Lackey boy. There were so many thing’s destroyed by Clinton it made Watergate and Nixon look like Amateurs.

(10-30-2023 09:24 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 09:19 AM)ODU BBALL Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 07:02 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-27-2023 05:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

Quote:Hillary kept a large amount of official information, some of it perhaps classified, some perhaps not, on a non-secure server in her house, and transmitted/received such information over uncovered circuits. That alone is per se a major violation of national security. We can debate the ins and outs of the applicable statutes until the cows come home, but Hillary clearly hazarded a substantial amount of sensitive information.

There is no opposition to the above from me.

Not to rehash all this again, but I believe this is vastly overselling the situation. IIRC, they only found like 4 things that were on her server that were deemed to have been classified. And further, I believe those items were not even considered classified at the time they were introduced on her server, but instead were later considered classified.

But it's been awhile, I could not be remembering it correctly.

"In testimony before the House panel on July 7, Comey described several statements made by Clinton on the campaign trail about her use of the server as "not true."

Clinton was wrong when she said she never sent or received classified information over the server. "Our investigation found ... 110 [emails with then-classified information] that she either received or sent," he said."

"Asked whether Clinton's use of a personal server while secretary of state made some of America's secrets vulnerable to adversaries, Comey simply replied, "Yes.""(See 1st link below).

As someone who has actually had a Secret government clearance for several decades and has had security training each and every year during that time, I can tell you that it is strictly against the rules of handling classified data to EVER have it on an unsecured, unauthorized computer - which is exactly what Hillary knowingly did. There were additional rules that she also broke in her total mishandling of classified data.

AT A MINIMUM, she should have immediately lost her security clearance and NEVER again been approved to have another one. Without being able to have a security clearance she should have been unable to compete for the presidency since you have to have a top-level clearance to be president and she had shown herself to be unfit to share that kind of information with.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fbi-dire...d=41044927

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghph_361wa0

There's really no need. We saw a while ago that some people have absolutely no clue what classified docs are and the special handling instructions that accompany them. Some of that lack of knowledge is simple ignorance, but most is partisan nonsense.

(10-30-2023 09:26 AM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(10-30-2023 07:02 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-27-2023 05:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

Quote:Hillary kept a large amount of official information, some of it perhaps classified, some perhaps not, on a non-secure server in her house, and transmitted/received such information over uncovered circuits. That alone is per se a major violation of national security. We can debate the ins and outs of the applicable statutes until the cows come home, but Hillary clearly hazarded a substantial amount of sensitive information.

There is no opposition to the above from me.

Not to rehash all this again, but I believe this is vastly overselling the situation. IIRC, they only found like 4 things that were on her server that were deemed to have been classified. And further, I believe those items were not even considered classified at the time they were introduced on her server, but instead were later considered classified.

But it's been awhile, I could not be remembering it correctly.

You wish Lackey boy. There were so many thing’s destroyed by Clinton it made Watergate and Nixon look like Amateurs.

Wish has nothing to do with it, BlueDrag boy. Clinton was completely wrong to use the server and never said otherwise. I only said that I agreed with the lack of a prosecution as I did not think it would have ended in anything other than an acquittal.

(10-27-2023 01:33 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Lets stick with lie, or falsehood? Simply to make everything less contorted and we dont get balled up in a definitional dispute.

In short, all that is needed is persistent lies.

You *can* get popped for persistent material misresrepresentations, but the underlying issue in the present instance has been falsehoods.

I have a comment/question on this later... but for now.. as I said... I don't think immaterial lies/misrepresentations are reasonable grounds for losing a business license... any more than a fidelity representation requirement might be.

I understand that word is not in the statute. I think it is in the 'purpose' of laws. Laws should not have anything to do with preventing or discouraging immaterial acts.... for the very fact that they are immaterial.

Quote:Maybe point out who and where, instead of being oblique. Ill be happy to respond to their comments that you seemingly use as a shield here.

I used no shield... I'm just tired of arguing this point with you.

You haven't made your case with me... and I don't think Numbers agrees with you either.... having repeatedly said that he sees no fraud nor intent etc.... Numbers is the only person on here that we both know that I THINK you respect.

Quote:

Quote:If that is truly what is required of the statute then I submit as I have before that it is a stupid law that serves no real purpose. Immaterial misrepresentations are just that... immaterial.... unimportant... irrelevant. You may as well sue him for saying that he's a good husband or great lover. Seriously, I can't believe that we're talking about even FINING someone for an immaterial misrepresentation.... or that ANY Republican would support such a law.

I have zero problem with giving a state the ability to combat persistent, deep, fraud, affecting large amounts of commercial activity effected from a single actor. That is -- the point of the law, as embodied in the text, and in the legislative record. And has been fleshed out many, many times. That background is in the links I had PMed to you a while back.

The italicized denotes the problem with the 'pizza' issue as well.

Immaterial misrepresentations by the definition of the word don't effect anything... much less 'large amounts of commercial activity'. If they did, they would be material... they would have an effect. You can't have it both ways... and this 'lie or make material misrepresentations' to me isn't an 'either/or' but a clarification. Again, even lies should have to be material/pertinent to be actionable... as I alluded to with my 'fidelity' example.

And the ' best Pizza in town' (a euphemism, but one that is used) claim is specifically designed to get at least some customers, particularly from out of town to act.... either to accept the claim or to challenge it. It is absolutely designed to impact commercial activity in amounts large enough to matter to that business.... and there are hundreds if not thousands of businesses that do things like that. LOTS of activity. 500,000 slices per day in the city... and that is just to THAT claim. Best Coffee in town,... best prices in town... going out of business, lol...

Quote:

Quote:Seriously... we're literally arguing here that immaterial misrepresentations for a NY businessman about the SF'age of a building, relied upon by nobody for any reason is a criminal offense,

This isnt a criminal trial. It is a civil suit.

Civil, Criminal... I get the difference but to me this is violating a person's right to engage in business... which is what we more often do to criminals.... not those convicted of civil violations... who didn't lie on his loan documents... who didn't lie to his tenants... but apparently in the opinion of a judge, he has repeatedly lied about his holdings to a body with no regulatory purpose, other than to admit or deny licenses.

Honest question... has he been previously cited for these misrepresentations? Like you might be for speeding tickets or parking tickets that might lead to a suspension of your license or something? I don't mean accusations in the media or from pundits, but tickets and fines..... As I've repeatedly said, unlike you I'm not really arguing this case... you keep dragging me into it and then dismissing my opinions about the 'moral high ground' of the prosecution based on my lack of care about the specific facts of this case against Trump.... because I never get there.... and I have no dog in any fight to protect OR convict him.... but at least if he had a long history of not just accusations, but adjudications (including fines etc) for these lies, that would at least mean that there was some due process there. It doesn't give them moral high ground (because this wasn't part of my calculus... I'm just following you here) but it does eliminate one question I have.

If they have done so then while they still aren't material, at least they would have been following their own rules, even if they are bad rules. If instead these are just now being adjudicated, it makes the actions by them even MORE egregious.

You don't usually lose your license to do business for civil violations... even repeated ones without a direct connection between the accusation and your business... a victim of your business practices... as in Trump wouldn't likely lose his license for parking tickets....

I don't see a victim here... or in anything tied to these filings.

Again... 'Best Pizza in NY' hasn't cost anyone a license.

Quote:First -- I dont think the issue with Hillary was 'material misrepresentations' Ham. Can you clarify?

'I never used it for official business/no classified material was ever on the server.' That was a material misrepresentation... don't you think?

I don't know what you mean by 'the issue' with Hillary. If you're saying that the case against Hillary didn't have the same sort of 'it doesn't have to be material' clause, that just shows the foolhardiness of that line to me. Whether they actually charged her with that or not (I think they thought about 'obstruction' as a result of those comments) but the same law doesn't seem to exist... which only supports my belief that it is likely a bad law.

As I said, why do we care about immaterial misrepresentations in ANY context for ANY reason?

Quote:As for Hillary, I had, and still have, zero problem with charging her. I still believe that the decision *not* to charge her for the improper storage is absolutely the wrong one. I say that is right in line with JETFL.

And yet it didn't happen... and while you've repeatedly said that you disagree with it, the 'acceptance' of that reality vs the aggressive push back you give to anyone who notes the capricious enforcement that you seem to also see is MORE than palpable. It is thick. Literally a few comments about Hillary... mostly repeats.... but hundreds of pages and arguments with a number of people about Trump.

As I've said... with all the charges levied against Trump and all the resources being brought to bear... even these supposedly 'innocent' over-reaches simply should not be necessary nor happen.... and yet they do... repeatedly... and still, he has mostly walked to this point.... certainly on all the 'biggies' which should be the ones that matter the most. Either it is all a crock as some think (not me, he is certainly guilty of some things) OR (my opinion) the laws have simply been written or amended or adjudicated in such a way that politicians will probably never face the justice that anyone else would.

JETFL isn't working.... and while I get that you have to start 'somewhere' in terms of changing this, there is no indication whatsoever that anyone has any intention of making this continue beyond Trump. You yourself seem to assert that the crime here has to be 4 billion dollars... hundreds of millions a year for Pizza isn't enough to even make them take the signs down.

If you want to JETFL and make a change, then convict all three (or more) Pence, Trump and Biden of documents charges... throw Hillary and even Powell into that as well and declare them ineligible for future office. Biden is done anyway, so too is likely Hillary and Powell... and Trump would be after this election, win or lose... Pence is a non-factor. Party doesn't matter... excuses don't matter. You mishandled documents... you pay the price. Simple. No crimes (necessarily) for that... but a statement that you can't get away with putting our nation's secrets at risk without consequence. If Trump isn't running, I'm betting that most of these other charges or at least the aggressive tactics taking place would fall by the wayside.

(10-27-2023 03:25 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-27-2023 10:25 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  No materiality per the statute, per the NY Supreme Court, and as stated in the decision on summary judgement in this case. Only need a persistent, ongoing usage of falsehoods and misrepresentations in business.

My point is that in the context of negotiating a real estate loan or series of such loans, there were no falsehoods and misrepresentations, much less continuing use of them. The judge was not interested in providing a disinterested tribunal, his mission was to “get” Donald Trump.

Be careful here numbers... lol. Funny though that Tanq didn't know whom I meant.

(10-30-2023 07:02 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-27-2023 05:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

Quote:Hillary kept a large amount of official information, some of it perhaps classified, some perhaps not, on a non-secure server in her house, and transmitted/received such information over uncovered circuits. That alone is per se a major violation of national security. We can debate the ins and outs of the applicable statutes until the cows come home, but Hillary clearly hazarded a substantial amount of sensitive information.

There is no opposition to the above from me.

Not to rehash all this again, but I believe this is vastly overselling the situation. IIRC, they only found like 4 things that were on her server that were deemed to have been classified. And further, I believe those items were not even considered classified at the time they were introduced on her server, but instead were later considered classified.

But it's been awhile, I could not be remembering it correctly.

I won't rehash it but you miss the point.

The whole premise of the Trump case here has nothing to do with whether or not there was a bad outcome from his actions... because there wasn't.... simply that his actions put that possibility in play. Hillary similarly put those possibilities in play(in violation of policy) quite frankly in an arena that is much more dangerous to the nation than a bank loan. The fact that she actually DID put those possibilities in play, and that her practices (again, in violation of policy) tended to cover up or make very difficult any means of determining if there WAS an actual breach is IMO vastly more important, more dangerous, more risky to the nation than a bank loan.... Yet despite this; despite actual proof of ANY classified information on an unsecure server in violation of policy, not to mention common sense and something that anyone in the private sector would at least be 'fired' for.... Nothing happened to her... the US decided not to proceed against her.... she didn't lose her job... she didn't lose her security clearance etc etc etc....

(10-30-2023 09:55 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Clinton was completely wrong to use the server and never said otherwise. I only said that I agreed with the lack of a prosecution as I did not think it would have ended in anything other than an acquittal.

Which is precisely the problem.

I've worked for a dozen firms where those activities would have AT LEAST gotten me a reprimand and some retraining if not being fired. If they were 'internal only' documents (classified), I'm sure it would have meant firing. Intent wouldn't even come into question.

Did you send ANY classified information across an unofficial server? If yes, then you're fired.... and you will probably never work in this industry again.... especially because you said 'no' but we found that this was a 'material misrepresentation'.

Period.

The big problem I have with THIS case against Trump is the code says some to the effect of "persistent fraud" and "misrepresentation". Yet Trump has never been CONVICTED of doing either in the State of NY. Wouldn't this law they are trying to bust Trump on have to refer to previous activity that Trump Inc. was found guilty of actually committing. I can understand that being the case. But to say, "I'm going to get Trump" and then digging into financial agreements with private businesses that never filed a complaint and trying to get him on that seems pretty nefarious. One would only assume the law has to refer to a LEGAL paper trail of incidences of guilt with victims.

(10-30-2023 10:32 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  The big problem I have with THIS case against Trump is the code says some to the effect of "persistent fraud" and "misrepresentation". Yet Trump has never been CONVICTED of doing either in the State of NY. Wouldn't this law they are trying to bust Trump on have to refer to previous activity that Trump Inc. was found guilty of actually committing. I can understand that being the case. But to say, "I'm going to get Trump" and then digging into financial agreements with private businesses that never filed a complaint and trying to get him on that seems pretty nefarious. One would only assume the law has to refer to a LEGAL paper trail of incidences of guilt with victims.

Again, that is not a direct quote. She didn't say "GET" trump. Only to investigate him I believe.

And Cohen's testimony to congress opened that door for her to walk through.

Also, why would a past conviction be necessary to investigate other crimes?

(10-30-2023 10:00 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-27-2023 01:33 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Lets stick with lie, or falsehood? Simply to make everything less contorted and we dont get balled up in a definitional dispute.

In short, all that is needed is persistent lies.

You *can* get popped for persistent material misresrepresentations, but the underlying issue in the present instance has been falsehoods.

I have a comment/question on this later... but for now.. as I said... I don't think immaterial lies/misrepresentations are reasonable grounds for losing a business license... any more than a fidelity representation requirement might be.

I understand that word is not in the statute. I think it is in the 'purpose' of laws. Laws should not have anything to do with preventing or discouraging immaterial acts.... for the very fact that they are immaterial.

Quote:Maybe point out who and where, instead of being oblique. Ill be happy to respond to their comments that you seemingly use as a shield here.

I used no shield... I'm just tired of arguing this point with you.

You haven't made your case with me... and I don't think Numbers agrees with you either.... having repeatedly said that he sees no fraud nor intent etc.... Numbers is the only person on here that we both know that I THINK you respect.

Quote:

Quote:If that is truly what is required of the statute then I submit as I have before that it is a stupid law that serves no real purpose. Immaterial misrepresentations are just that... immaterial.... unimportant... irrelevant. You may as well sue him for saying that he's a good husband or great lover. Seriously, I can't believe that we're talking about even FINING someone for an immaterial misrepresentation.... or that ANY Republican would support such a law.

I have zero problem with giving a state the ability to combat persistent, deep, fraud, affecting large amounts of commercial activity effected from a single actor. That is -- the point of the law, as embodied in the text, and in the legislative record. And has been fleshed out many, many times. That background is in the links I had PMed to you a while back.

The italicized denotes the problem with the 'pizza' issue as well.

Immaterial misrepresentations by the definition of the word don't effect anything... much less 'large amounts of commercial activity'. If they did, they would be material... they would have an effect. You can't have it both ways... and this 'lie or make material misrepresentations' to me isn't an 'either/or' but a clarification. Again, even lies should have to be material/pertinent to be actionable... as I alluded to with my 'fidelity' example.

And the ' best Pizza in town' (a euphemism, but one that is used) claim is specifically designed to get at least some customers, particularly from out of town to act.... either to accept the claim or to challenge it. It is absolutely designed to impact commercial activity in amounts large enough to matter to that business.... and there are hundreds if not thousands of businesses that do things like that. LOTS of activity. 500,000 slices per day in the city... and that is just to THAT claim. Best Coffee in town,... best prices in town... going out of business, lol...

Quote:

Quote:Seriously... we're literally arguing here that immaterial misrepresentations for a NY businessman about the SF'age of a building, relied upon by nobody for any reason is a criminal offense,

This isnt a criminal trial. It is a civil suit.

Civil, Criminal... I get the difference but to me this is violating a person's right to engage in business... which is what we more often do to criminals.... not those convicted of civil violations... who didn't lie on his loan documents... who didn't lie to his tenants... but apparently in the opinion of a judge, he has repeatedly lied about his holdings to a body with no regulatory purpose, other than to admit or deny licenses.

Honest question... has he been previously cited for these misrepresentations? Like you might be for speeding tickets or parking tickets that might lead to a suspension of your license or something? I don't mean accusations in the media or from pundits, but tickets and fines..... As I've repeatedly said, unlike you I'm not really arguing this case... you keep dragging me into it and then dismissing my opinions about the 'moral high ground' of the prosecution based on my lack of care about the specific facts of this case against Trump.... because I never get there.... and I have no dog in any fight to protect OR convict him.... but at least if he had a long history of not just accusations, but adjudications (including fines etc) for these lies, that would at least mean that there was some due process there. It doesn't give them moral high ground (because this wasn't part of my calculus... I'm just following you here) but it does eliminate one question I have.

If they have done so then while they still aren't material, at least they would have been following their own rules, even if they are bad rules. If instead these are just now being adjudicated, it makes the actions by them even MORE egregious.

You don't usually lose your license to do business for civil violations... even repeated ones without a direct connection between the accusation and your business... a victim of your business practices... as in Trump wouldn't likely lose his license for parking tickets....

I don't see a victim here... or in anything tied to these filings.

Again... 'Best Pizza in NY' hasn't cost anyone a license.

Quote:First -- I dont think the issue with Hillary was 'material misrepresentations' Ham. Can you clarify?

'I never used it for official business/no classified material was ever on the server.' That was a material misrepresentation... don't you think?

I don't know what you mean by 'the issue' with Hillary. If you're saying that the case against Hillary didn't have the same sort of 'it doesn't have to be material' clause, that just shows the foolhardiness of that line to me. Whether they actually charged her with that or not (I think they thought about 'obstruction' as a result of those comments) but the same law doesn't seem to exist... which only supports my belief that it is likely a bad law.

As I said, why do we care about immaterial misrepresentations in ANY context for ANY reason?

Quote:As for Hillary, I had, and still have, zero problem with charging her. I still believe that the decision *not* to charge her for the improper storage is absolutely the wrong one. I say that is right in line with JETFL.

And yet it didn't happen... and while you've repeatedly said that you disagree with it, the 'acceptance' of that reality vs the aggressive push back you give to anyone who notes the capricious enforcement that you seem to also see is MORE than palpable. It is thick. Literally a few comments about Hillary... mostly repeats.... but hundreds of pages and arguments with a number of people about Trump.

As I've said... with all the charges levied against Trump and all the resources being brought to bear... even these supposedly 'innocent' over-reaches simply should not be necessary nor happen.... and yet they do... repeatedly... and still, he has mostly walked to this point.... certainly on all the 'biggies' which should be the ones that matter the most. Either it is all a crock as some think (not me, he is certainly guilty of some things) OR (my opinion) the laws have simply been written or amended or adjudicated in such a way that politicians will probably never face the justice that anyone else would.

JETFL isn't working.... and while I get that you have to start 'somewhere' in terms of changing this, there is no indication whatsoever that anyone has any intention of making this continue beyond Trump. You yourself seem to assert that the crime here has to be 4 billion dollars... hundreds of millions a year for Pizza isn't enough to even make them take the signs down.

If you want to JETFL and make a change, then convict all three (or more) Pence, Trump and Biden of documents charges... throw Hillary and even Powell into that as well and declare them ineligible for future office. Biden is done anyway, so too is likely Hillary and Powell... and Trump would be after this election, win or lose... Pence is a non-factor. Party doesn't matter... excuses don't matter. You mishandled documents... you pay the price. Simple. No crimes (necessarily) for that... but a statement that you can't get away with putting our nation's secrets at risk without consequence. If Trump isn't running, I'm betting that most of these other charges or at least the aggressive tactics taking place would fall by the wayside.

(10-27-2023 03:25 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-27-2023 10:25 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  No materiality per the statute, per the NY Supreme Court, and as stated in the decision on summary judgement in this case. Only need a persistent, ongoing usage of falsehoods and misrepresentations in business.

My point is that in the context of negotiating a real estate loan or series of such loans, there were no falsehoods and misrepresentations, much less continuing use of them. The judge was not interested in providing a disinterested tribunal, his mission was to “get” Donald Trump.

Be careful here numbers... lol. Funny though that Tanq didn't know whom I meant.

(10-30-2023 07:02 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-27-2023 05:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

Quote:Hillary kept a large amount of official information, some of it perhaps classified, some perhaps not, on a non-secure server in her house, and transmitted/received such information over uncovered circuits. That alone is per se a major violation of national security. We can debate the ins and outs of the applicable statutes until the cows come home, but Hillary clearly hazarded a substantial amount of sensitive information.

There is no opposition to the above from me.

Not to rehash all this again, but I believe this is vastly overselling the situation. IIRC, they only found like 4 things that were on her server that were deemed to have been classified. And further, I believe those items were not even considered classified at the time they were introduced on her server, but instead were later considered classified.

But it's been awhile, I could not be remembering it correctly.

I won't rehash it but you miss the point.

The whole premise of the Trump case here has nothing to do with whether or not there was a bad outcome from his actions... because there wasn't.... simply that his actions put that possibility in play. Hillary similarly put those possibilities in play(in violation of policy) quite frankly in an arena that is much more dangerous to the nation than a bank loan. The fact that she actually DID put those possibilities in play, and that her practices (again, in violation of policy) tended to cover up or make very difficult any means of determining if there WAS an actual breach is IMO vastly more important, more dangerous, more risky to the nation than a bank loan.... Yet despite this; despite actual proof of ANY classified information on an unsecure server in violation of policy, not to mention common sense and something that anyone in the private sector would at least be 'fired' for.... Nothing happened to her... the US decided not to proceed against her.... she didn't lose her job... she didn't lose her security clearance etc etc etc....

Fact over Fiction. You will never get those Blue Koolaid drinkers to acknowledge this. Those lackeys will carry the water to their grave.

Speaking of facts, she resigned as SOS on February 1, 2013. Kind of hard for her to lose her job years later.