(03-19-2024 03:31 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Biden has $155 million cash in hand and just raked in a record $53 million in February. It's the Trump GOTV for the left effect. They have purchased media in swing states for late spring already approaching a $40 million spend...would likely correspond to when this case concludes.

Trump is struggling for donations, is spending more a month than he is bringing in and has @ $30 million on hand before expenses already realized....and after spending over $50 million in political donations for legal fees...so far. He's being bled dry.

Hillary Clinton + her proxies probably had a 3:1 spending advantage (against Trump + his proxies) in 2016. That, in addition to the media being in the tank for her and hating him. And that’s before Trump had ever been President.

Of course Biden will have an overwhelming edge in spending. And of course I’d rather have more money than less money. But still, I don’t believe the election will boil down to that. Biden might win or Trump might win, but I just don’t think it will come down to $$$.

Quote:Could be a lot of angry and confused souls around here on election night. The left set a huge bear trap that the right couldn't resist stomping in.

What is the bear trap? Nominating Trump? That’s not the result of any trap, that’s the result of Republicans simply wanting to vote for him.

(03-19-2024 03:31 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(03-19-2024 03:08 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-19-2024 11:50 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-19-2024 11:03 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I don't know if there is actual bias... but the facts you just presented certainly support that claim....

You know what else these "facts" could also support?

1. That he's guilty as ****.

Actually it has zero impact on guilt or innocence.... and a good judge would know this and make sure to avoid the 'appearance of bias'... which if you hadn't noticed, is a 'thing'.

Quote:2. This his attorney's are incompetent.

your favorite line... still demonstrably untrue.

Quote:3. That his requests are frivolous because he's been caught red-handed and doesn't really have a legal leg to stand on.

which is really just a combination of 1 and 2.

Quote:4. Some combination of 1-3.

IOW, the same story you've been telling for 7 years now with little to show for it.

(03-19-2024 11:57 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Based on common sense.

You assume all voters who would otherwise vote for Trump are as strong a supporter as you. They aren't.

You realize of course that I've never voted for Trump... That I probably won't vote for him this time either. If I do, it will be solely to vote AGAINST Biden's (really those pulling his strings) policies.

So much for THAT theory.

Quote:If he gets convicted, the massive $$ advantage that the democrats have is going to be singularly focused on him being a convicted felon. Not to change anyone's mind in trump's base. It will be to turn off the people who would vote for trump grudgingly since Biden is such a mess.

You really think undecided people give a rats ass about advertising? You think they haven't decided because they don't know enough about them? That might be the case if we didn't have 4 years of Trump and 3+ of Biden to know what we're in for.

Quote:And appearance of bias? You may give the electorate too much credit for critical thought.

I'm not doing that at all. It's vastly simpler to me. If you haven't yet ruled out Trump after two impeachments, claims of insurrection, hundreds of cases, 500+mm in awards and dozens of other lawsuits, then 'one more' isn't likely to make a difference.

So your common sense seems based on common misconceptions. No offense, but I don't think you understand 'undecided's' at all.

A perp walk after a felony conviction is going to change some minds. Enough that it will matter. Even in this stupid NY case. Say what you want about people but enough still hear convicted felon and get creeped out. And they would hear it nonstop for 5 months.

Biden has $155 million cash in hand and just raked in a record $53 million in February. It's the Trump GOTV for the left effect. They have purchased media in swing states for late spring already approaching a $40 million spend...would likely correspond to when this case concludes.

Trump is struggling for donations, is spending more a month than he is bringing in and has @ $30 million on hand before expenses already realized....and after spending over $50 million in political donations for legal fees...so far. He's being bled dry.

Could be a lot of angry and confused souls around here on election night. The left set a huge bear trap that the right couldn't resist stomping in.

"He's being bled dry"

That was the DOJ's game plan from the start. Tie him up in Court with all the legal fees. They did the same thing with people that were connected to Trump. Off the top of my head, Roger Stone was one and there was others.

I like how people judge the list of motions without bothering with any background.

Donald J. Trump:

Exclusion of testimony of Michael Cohen — Denied Cohen is a first hand witness, kind of logical that this be denied
Exclusion of argument that Trump sought to improperly influence 2016 election — Denied
Exclusion of improper argument on the element of intent to defraud — Denied what exactly was the 'improper' issue? Might very well be improper
Exclusion of evidence and argument regarding "catch and kill scheme" — Denied Underlying background on trying to kill the story, seems highly relevant
Exclusion of testimony of/regarding Dino Sajudin — Denied testimony of a previous attempt to payoff to silence
Exclusion of testimony of/regarding Karen McDougal — Denied testimony of a previous payoff to silence
Exclusion of testimony of/regarding Stephanie Clifford (Stormy Daniels) — Denied, with the exception that of results of polygraph test taken by Clifford/Daniels are excluded testimony of *this* payoff to silence
Exclusion of evidence regarding "Access Hollywood" tape — Denied, with some limitations evidence of motive
Exclusion of arguments regarding FECA's ambit — Denied testimony on motive to structure payoff the way it was
Exclusion of evidence of third parties' (Cohen's) admissions of FECA violations — Granted with some limitations
Exclusion of evidence regarding AMI's books and records — Denied strawman buyer of stories with hush money
Exclusion of evidence and argument regarding Trump or his trust is an "enterprise" — Denied
Exclusion of Allen Weisselberg notes — Reserved testimony of a conspirator
Exclusion of evidence regarding Rudolph Giuliani — Moot
Exclusion of statements attributed to Trump — Denied statements made *by* Trump
Request that the People be required to disclose a realistic exhibit list — Court finds People have fulfilled their obligation.

Well, most of the above are simply Trump's attorneys trying to exclude anything and everything in and about the case.

Let's go on to the Government motions on Trump issues

Exclusion of testimony of (expert witness) Bradley Smith — Granted, with limited exceptions From the ruling -- "Here, it is abundantly clear that Smith does not posses personal knowledge regarding the underlying facts of the instant matter." Oopsie, thats a big one.
Exclusion of evidence regarding FEC dismissal of complaint — Granted
Exclusion of evidence regarding DOJ decision not to charge campaign violations — Granted This one and the above were grouped together -- From the judge "That the FEC dismissed the complaint against Defendant and the DOJ decided against prosecuting Defendant for potential FEC violations are probative of nothing." Ouch
Exclusion of evidence regarding selective prosecution or government misconduct — Moot
Exclusion of evidence regarding federal prosecutor's purported views of Michael Cohen's credibility — Granted Its called hearsay --
Exclusion of evidence regarding alleged reliance on advice of counsel/presence of counsel — Granted "However, Defendant has never asked this Court whether he would be permitted to [present an 'advice of counsel defense] (Tanq note: despite he has to give prior notice.) This Court now rules that Defendant may not offer, or even suggest, the defense of "presence-of-counsel." To allow, said defense in this matter would effectively permit the Defendant to invoke the very defense he has declared he will not rely upon, without the concomitant obligations that come with it."

Exclusion of evidence regarding legal defenses already rejected — Granted Kind of self explanatory
Motion to introduce potential Molineux evidence (evidence of uncharged crimes) — Granted in part, denied in part, reserved in part trump actually won all the points here. The denial is based on only if Trump opens the door

Looks like Ham was correct -- most people dont look at the 'facts'. And no, the set of rulings is *not* out of the norm.

And rath is correct as well. It is one-sided. Trump's motions seemingly were to try and exclude literally almost everything in the case, even relevant issues. Those got shot down.

The government oppositions seem to have hit that the expert had no grounding in facts, there was straight opinion hearsay evidence, that the issues with the FEC dont impact anything in the case, and that Trump tried to backdoor a defense he said he would not present, and if he were to present it he had to give clear notice prior to this point (along with waiving attorney client privilege for the opinion, and have to testify about his own state of mind on the attorney advice), and the judge shot that backdoor move down.

(03-19-2024 03:54 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(03-19-2024 03:31 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Biden has $155 million cash in hand and just raked in a record $53 million in February. It's the Trump GOTV for the left effect. They have purchased media in swing states for late spring already approaching a $40 million spend...would likely correspond to when this case concludes.

Trump is struggling for donations, is spending more a month than he is bringing in and has @ $30 million on hand before expenses already realized....and after spending over $50 million in political donations for legal fees...so far. He's being bled dry.

Hillary Clinton + her proxies probably had a 3:1 spending advantage (against Trump + his proxies) in 2016. That, in addition to the media being in the tank for her and hating him. And that’s before Trump had ever been President.

Of course Biden will have an overwhelming edge in spending. And of course I’d rather have more money than less money. But still, I don’t believe the election will boil down to that. Biden might win or Trump might win, but I just don’t think it will come down to $$$.

Quote:Could be a lot of angry and confused souls around here on election night. The left set a huge bear trap that the right couldn't resist stomping in.

What is the bear trap? Nominating Trump? That’s not the result of any trap, that’s the result of Republicans simply wanting to vote for him.

I'm simply going with ol' trusty tally ...

@>270EVsBlueBakedInn(406) and/or moo-moo-chelle (aka big mike) if all else fails by Aug. 22, 2024 ... (AM)

there are only 6-8 states that really matter ... take a wild guess where the donks are spending all their coin????????

you'd have to be a fk'n idiot to not realize such at a min....

that's where you spend EVERY FK'N DIME YA DIPSHITES!

(03-19-2024 03:31 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  A perp walk after a felony conviction is going to change some minds. Enough that it will matter. Even in this stupid NY case. Say what you want about people but enough still hear convicted felon and get creeped out. And they would hear it nonstop for 5 months.

Lol. I agree. His polling with black voters went up when he was paraded for a mug shot... and wasn't harmed anywhere else. People also look at the egregious (by anyone's standards) judgements against him and know or at least hope that there will be appeals... which also means that they know that even this charge will be appealed. Democrats have mostly spoiled the well for any 'creep' from such a conviction by these other 'convictions'.

Because if he's a convicted felon but still on the ballot, it all but SCREAMS that he is still eligible to be President... which most people will assume means that the conviction is not final.

Quote:Biden has $155 million cash in hand and just raked in a record $53 million in February. It's the Trump GOTV for the left effect. They have purchased media in swing states for late spring already approaching a $40 million spend...would likely correspond to when this case concludes.

I know people are spending record amounts, but the internet has changed how most people get their information. It doesn't take insane amounts of money to run a campaign anymore... except that there are lots of mouths to feed.

Quote:Trump is struggling for donations, is spending more a month than he is bringing in and has @ $30 million on hand before expenses already realized....and after spending over $50 million in political donations for legal fees...so far. He's being bled dry.

Lol.... I see you read the propaganda.

Quote:Could be a lot of angry and confused souls around here on election night.

Yes, I think you will be.... and the confusing part to me is why anyone would vote for a party over their own best interests.

I certainly understand that some leftists are just crazy and support this ridiculous agenda... It's how great societies collapse.... but what I don't understand is how ANYONE looks at Joe Biden and is inspired... and if it's not Joe, then who is running things?

Joe has a <40% approval rating which means that large swaths of his own party don't support him... and Kamala is even worse... and you somehow think that people who aren't inspired now will somehow BECOME so because he spends more money??

Voting is not really a binary choice for undecided voters. They can vote 3rd party or they can stay home. All that you say about Trump only inspires most of his voters. Biden's going to be spending all of his money trying to inspire his own base.

(03-19-2024 08:18 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Looks like Ham was correct -- most people dont look at the 'facts'. And no, the set of rulings is *not* out of the norm.

And rath is correct as well. It is one-sided. Trump's motions seemingly were to try and exclude literally almost everything in the case, even relevant issues. Those got shot down.

Respectfully Tanq... you're as much in the tank against Trump as anyone I know of is 'for' him... so you're hardly an unbiased arbiter.... and certainly not the 'undecided' voters that Rath is talking about with regard to these things.

My point has nothing to do with the arguments being presented, hence I didn't bother to look into them. If a judge grants everything that one side asks for and denies everything that the other does, right or wrong it creates an impression... and everyone should know that. Certainly these judges know these things... you often see it in their rulings. Some don't care... but some do. This plays in to Trump's argument that he is being targeted by a biased justice system, and though you might get convictions, many understand that such things are not always 'final'.... and the election is looming. You also know that an item being 'relevant' is not always the reason something might be challenged. It may be an improper way the completely relevant information was collected. There are I'm sure other ways/reasons... but those are the obvious ones I know about.

My point is that the appearance of biased judges... fair or not plays well with Trump's argument and against the left... ESPECIALLY when they come out (as they have) with these ridiculous assertions that Trump won't leave in 4 years if he is elected... that Trump supporters will go on armed rampages... that Trump will put his political enemies in Gitmo.... That he is calling for a 'blood bath'. These are MAINSTREAM MEDIA OUTLETS putting out some of these complete fabrications.

The 'blood bath' comment alone should cause any thinking person to shudder. The comment in context is about a blood bath for the American Auto Industry caused by massive Chinese Auto factories being built in Mexico with cheap, Mexican labor.... and if they can do it with cars, they can do it with other things as well. Any other context is a lie... and yet the mainstream media put that out there without context, even when challenged... repeatedly.

(03-20-2024 10:31 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Respectfully Tanq... you're as much in the tank against Trump as anyone I know of is 'for' him... so you're hardly an unbiased arbiter.... and certainly not the 'undecided' voters that Rath is talking about with regard to these things.

My point about the ignorant not bothering to look at the underlying issues seems to be followed above.

My point has nothing to do with the arguments being presented, hence I didn't bother to look into them. If a judge grants everything that one side asks for and denies everything that the other does, right or wrong it creates an impression... and everyone should know that. [/quote]

I agreed with above, and with your previous statement to that effect, Ham.

I actually read the motions and the response. They are pretty much plain jane when you realize what Trumps motions to exclude contain --- they pretty much pick up the *entire* case and and launch a motion to exclude to *anything* that they dont like.

Maybe read the ruling itself, before castigating me for an opinion on Trump. Or dont.

Quote:My point is that the appearance of biased judges... fair or not plays well with Trump's argument and against the left...

Again -- which I agreed with you.

Quote:ESPECIALLY when they come out (as they have) with these ridiculous assertions that Trump won't leave in 4 years if he is elected... that Trump supporters will go on armed rampages... that Trump will put his political enemies in Gitmo.... That he is calling for a 'blood bath'. These are MAINSTREAM MEDIA OUTLETS putting out some of these complete fabrications.

I thought we were talking about 'biased judges'. Now you throw in an entire gamut of other issues.

The issue at hand is Trump complaining about bias in the judiciary --- when one actually reads the underlying issues (instead of a wall of text) it is apparent in this case this is 'ginning' up an appearance of bias. His motions to exclude were asinine, at least to those that bother to look under the covers. Ive provided an annotation, if you wish to blurb them out I will leave you free to do that.

Someone must have said his name 3 times.

LMAO! Dude is trying to argue that there is no bias against Trump in the legal system!

Next, I guess he'll tell us there is no evidence bias against Trump in the media or social media or academia or anywhere else.

(03-20-2024 11:18 AM)oruvoice Wrote:  LMAO! Dude is trying to argue that there is no bias against Trump in the legal system!

Next, I guess he'll tell us there is no evidence bias against Trump in the media or social media or academia or anywhere else.

Just noting with facts that what is provided isnt an incident of bias. As opposed to your generalized comment above.

If you have an issue with the facts above, Im all ears.

As for media -- absolutely there is a bias against Trump in several outlets. No doubt. That isnt the question, nor is it the point I was making. But again, please feel free with the otherwise empty generalized comments. Looks good.

(03-20-2024 11:24 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-20-2024 11:18 AM)oruvoice Wrote:  LMAO! Dude is trying to argue that there is no bias against Trump in the legal system!

Next, I guess he'll tell us there is no evidence bias against Trump in the media or social media or academia or anywhere else.

Just noting with facts that what is provided isnt an incident of bias. As opposed to your pinhead empty generalized comment above.

If you have an issue with the facts above, Im all ears.

As for media -- absolutely there is a bias against Trump in several outlets. No doubt. That isnt the question, nor is it the point I was making. But again, please feel free with the otherwise empty generalized comments. Looks good.

Ah yes...just the facts. You only care about the facts!

(03-20-2024 10:58 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  Someone must have said his name 3 times.

LOL. That is funny.

(03-19-2024 10:03 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(03-19-2024 09:57 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Legally and financially, Trump will have to hope that the appellate courts are less hostile. And behind that, the US Supreme Court could have a say, too. But that’s a year or two, at least, down the road.

In terms of the presidential campaign, this doesn’t hurt him at all, and probably helps him a little.

It's not going to hurt the base. It's going to hurt with some independents and turnout for those who are not dyed in the wool.

So you don't think people outside of his base can see through this bull ?

(03-20-2024 10:42 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  My point about the ignorant not bothering to look at the underlying issues seems to be followed above.

Please say this again, more clearly as to your intent.

If you're talking about me, just because you think something is an issue doesn't mean that everyone does. If you're speaking of undecided voters, I don't think ALL undecided voters are ignorant.... and I think a whole lot of them think that the underlying issues are 'what does this mean to me' as opposed to 'what does this mean to the rule of law' or however you are couching your position.

Quote:I actually read the motions and the response. They are pretty much plain jane when you realize what Trumps motions to exclude contain --- they pretty much pick up the *entire* case and and launch a motion to exclude to *anything* that they dont like.

Maybe read the ruling itself, before castigating me for an opinion on Trump. Or dont.

WTF are you talking about here?

You not being 'unbiased' when it comes to Trump is hardly a castigation. It's just a fact. You are not REMOTELY undecided in the upcoming election in a way that advertising by Biden or a conviction or not of Trump would in any way impact.

Beyond that, it seems self-evident that being able to FACTUALLY claim that the judge gave 'them' everything they asked for and denied 'us' everything we asked for creates an APPEARANCE of bias (my argument), even if no such bias (your argument) exists.

You later said you agreed with this, so what is your complaint??

Quote:

Quote:ESPECIALLY when they come out (as they have) with these ridiculous assertions that Trump won't leave in 4 years if he is elected...

I thought we were talking about 'biased judges'. Now you throw in an entire gamut of other issues.

Nope... we're still talking about the subject that Rath and I were on... which is 'undecided voters' and how they would react to a conviction of Trump. 'Biased Judges' is just one of Trump's team's claims. Biased media is another. Rath implied that people who currently support Trump might be less inclined to do so if he were to be convicted. I see little/no evidence of that. Do you? The other side of that is that 'more advertising by Biden' would also move them, but as most people already have an opinion about bias in the media, whether paid or not... they will not IMO be swayed by 'more' of it.

Quote:The issue at hand is Trump complaining about bias in the judiciary --- when one actually reads the underlying issues (instead of a wall of text) it is apparent in this case this is 'ginning' up an appearance of bias. His motions to exclude were asinine, at least to those that bother to look under the covers. Ive provided an annotation, if you wish to blurb them out I will leave you free to do that.

Once again, perhaps YOUR issue... but the comments you are responding to deal with 'undecided voters'... which is why I pointed out that YOU are not one of those people.

YOU are not going to vote for Trump regardless of what happens. You are decided.

I am technically undecided. I will only vote for him if I think that Texas is in play for Biden... and a perp walk will not change my calculus at all... nor does 'an ADDITIONAL appearance of bias' nor any specific discovery to the contrary, because I've seen enough of it to demonstrate it, even if every single example is not a good one.

I know a few people who are truly undecided between Trump and Biden. Not many... but a few... and while not remotely ignorant, they have some pretty 'out there' priorities IMO. They literally like and hate some of both of these guys... and it doesn't seem to me (anecdotally) that either vindication OR conviction of Trump on any of these issues would change their calculus.

The only thing that I can see that would change their calculus would be the actual and final removal of either of them from the ballot.... not as in 'he's not on the ballot in Texas' but as in... If elected, he CAN not serve.

Tang is Tang. He has yet to be right anytime the issues exit the liberal bubble courts and I suspect that trend will continue---because Tang is all about his irrational anti-Trump "feewings".

The reality is this is an almost half a billion dollar fine that is completely out of whack for a case where there was nobody damaged, where the "fraud" is made up of representations that no lender actually relies on, where the "fraud" largely represents a difference of opinion rather than a true fraud, where the fraud represents pretty much the normal operation of the commercial lending industry, and where the law in question has never before been before used in this manner. The 8th Amendment of the US Constitution clearly states "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed" nor "unsual punishments inflicted". I suspect any reasonable normal person outside of Tang would admit the use of the law is unusual (since its not been used in this manner before) and the punishment is "excessive" as it could effectively completely destroy a business and financially ruin a person for a "fraud" in which no measurable damages occurred and nobody was harmed (in fact the alleged "victims" profited handsomely from the transaction).

Its unreasonable and unprecedented. It is a political prosecution----and everyone---including Tang knows it is. In fact, it appears the main reason the fine is so large was not because it reflects any actual damages inflicted (because there were no "victims" or "damages")----it was made this large so to make the crooked judgement difficult--if not impossible---to appeal out of the local liberal bubble court system. Its clearly imperative to those involved in this fiasco that this case remain inside the liberal bubble court system. Bottom line---if Trump were not a presidential candidate---no such unique use of this statue would have been undertaken. Everyone knows exactly what is going on here---which is why everyone knows it will fall apart once it exits the local liberal kangaroo court bubble and enters the mainstream world of legal precedent.

(03-20-2024 01:55 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  In fact, it appears the main reason the fine is so large was not because it reflects any actual damages inflicted (because there were no "victims" or "damages")----it was made this large so to make the crooked judgement difficult--if not impossible---to appeal out of the local liberal bubble court system.

This. I would say that on the surface, the same is true of the 'no rape' decision. I simply can't imagine how such damages were assessed, but I don't care enough to look more closely. I've heard people say and do vastly worse and be acquitted... so I don't know how you get there.

The NY fine though is egregious and seems intent on doing precisely what you allude to.... which SHOULD be criminal in and of itself, but NY has let it slide.

Seriously, I don't see how the supreme court doesn't reach the conclusion that a $400+myn 'fine' for something with a sophisticated fiduciary counter-party and no victims is not a clear violation of the Constitution.... and even that assumes that the facts support a conviction at all, which is dubious.

(03-20-2024 01:55 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Tang is Tang. He has yet to be right anytime the issues exit the liberal bubble courts and I suspect that trend will continue---because Tang is all about his irrational anti-Trump "feewings".

The reality is this is an almost half a billion dollar fine that is completely out of whack for a case where there was nobody damaged, where the "fraud" is made up of representations that no lender actually relies on, where the "fraud" largely represents a difference of opinion rather than a true fraud, where the fraud represents pretty much the normal operation of the commercial lending industry, and where the law in question has never before been before used in this manner. The 8th Amendment of the US Constitution clearly states "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed" nor "unsual punishments inflicted". I suspect any reasonable normal person outside of Tang would admit the use of the law is unusual (since its not been used in this manner before) and the punishment is "excessive" as it could effectively completely destroy a business and financially ruin a person for a "fraud" in which no measurable damages occurred and nobody was harmed (in fact the alleged "victims" profited handsomely from the transaction).

Its unreasonable and unprecedented. It is a political prosecution----and everyone---including Tang knows it is. In fact, it appears the main reason the fine is so large was not because it reflects any actual damages inflicted (because there were no "victims" or "damages")----it was made this large so to make the crooked judgement difficult--if not impossible---to appeal out of the local liberal bubble court system. Its clearly imperative to those involved in this fiasco that this case remain inside the liberal bubble court system. Bottom line---if Trump were not a presidential candidate---no such unique use of this statue would have been undertaken. Everyone knows exactly what is going on here---which is why everyone knows it will fall apart once it exits the local liberal kangaroo court bubble and enters the mainstream world of legal precedent.

Apparently you disagree with state enforcement actions. Or from the looks of it, simply dont have a clue about them, nor even the scope of judgement.

What will be your excuse if the NY 2d upholds it? More crying about a law you dont have a clue about?

(03-20-2024 03:46 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-20-2024 01:55 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  In fact, it appears the main reason the fine is so large was not because it reflects any actual damages inflicted (because there were no "victims" or "damages")----it was made this large so to make the crooked judgement difficult--if not impossible---to appeal out of the local liberal bubble court system.

This. I would say that on the surface, the same is true of the 'no rape' decision. I simply can't imagine how such damages were assessed, but I don't care enough to look more closely. I've heard people say and do vastly worse and be acquitted... so I don't know how you get there.

The NY fine though is egregious and seems intent on doing precisely what you allude to.... which SHOULD be criminal in and of itself, but NY has let it slide.

Seriously, I don't see how the supreme court doesn't reach the conclusion that a $400+myn 'fine' for something with a sophisticated fiduciary counter-party and no victims is not a clear violation of the Constitution.... and even that assumes that the facts support a conviction at all, which is dubious.

lol.

(03-20-2024 01:55 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Tang is Tang. He has yet to be right anytime the issues exit the liberal bubble courts and I suspect that trend will continue---because Tang is all about his irrational anti-Trump "feewings".

The reality is this is an almost half a billion dollar fine that is completely out of whack for a case where there was nobody damaged, where the "fraud" is made up of representations that no lender actually relies on, where the "fraud" largely represents a difference of opinion rather than a true fraud, where the fraud represents pretty much the normal operation of the commercial lending industry, and where the law in question has never before been before used in this manner. The 8th Amendment of the US Constitution clearly states "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed" nor "unsual punishments inflicted". I suspect any reasonable normal person outside of Tang would admit the use of the law is unusual (since its not been used in this manner before) and the punishment is "excessive" as it could effectively completely destroy a business and financially ruin a person for a "fraud" in which no measurable damages occurred and nobody was harmed (in fact the alleged "victims" profited handsomely from the transaction).

Its unreasonable and unprecedented. It is a political prosecution----and everyone---including Tang knows it is. In fact, it appears the main reason the fine is so large was not because it reflects any actual damages inflicted (because there were no "victims" or "damages")----it was made this large so to make the crooked judgement difficult--if not impossible---to appeal out of the local liberal bubble court system. Its clearly imperative to those involved in this fiasco that this case remain inside the liberal bubble court system. Bottom line---if Trump were not a presidential candidate---no such unique use of this statue would have been undertaken. Everyone knows exactly what is going on here---which is why everyone knows it will fall apart once it exits the local liberal kangaroo court bubble and enters the mainstream world of legal precedent.

Relax this just round one. Sokething for the low iq, redditards to jerk over

We are a few months from the screaming how did trump get away with it this time

Hang in there. There will be plenty of time for us to make fun of them.

(03-20-2024 04:31 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(03-20-2024 01:55 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Tang is Tang. He has yet to be right anytime the issues exit the liberal bubble courts and I suspect that trend will continue---because Tang is all about his irrational anti-Trump "feewings".

The reality is this is an almost half a billion dollar fine that is completely out of whack for a case where there was nobody damaged, where the "fraud" is made up of representations that no lender actually relies on, where the "fraud" largely represents a difference of opinion rather than a true fraud, where the fraud represents pretty much the normal operation of the commercial lending industry, and where the law in question has never before been before used in this manner. The 8th Amendment of the US Constitution clearly states "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed" nor "unsual punishments inflicted". I suspect any reasonable normal person outside of Tang would admit the use of the law is unusual (since its not been used in this manner before) and the punishment is "excessive" as it could effectively completely destroy a business and financially ruin a person for a "fraud" in which no measurable damages occurred and nobody was harmed (in fact the alleged "victims" profited handsomely from the transaction).

Its unreasonable and unprecedented. It is a political prosecution----and everyone---including Tang knows it is. In fact, it appears the main reason the fine is so large was not because it reflects any actual damages inflicted (because there were no "victims" or "damages")----it was made this large so to make the crooked judgement difficult--if not impossible---to appeal out of the local liberal bubble court system. Its clearly imperative to those involved in this fiasco that this case remain inside the liberal bubble court system. Bottom line---if Trump were not a presidential candidate---no such unique use of this statue would have been undertaken. Everyone knows exactly what is going on here---which is why everyone knows it will fall apart once it exits the local liberal kangaroo court bubble and enters the mainstream world of legal precedent.

Relax this just round one. Sokething for the low iq, redditards to jerk over

We are a few months from the screaming how did trump get away with it this time

Hang in there. There will be plenty of time for us to make fun of them.

(03-20-2024 04:25 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-20-2024 01:55 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Tang is Tang. He has yet to be right anytime the issues exit the liberal bubble courts and I suspect that trend will continue---because Tang is all about his irrational anti-Trump "feewings".

The reality is this is an almost half a billion dollar fine that is completely out of whack for a case where there was nobody damaged, where the "fraud" is made up of representations that no lender actually relies on, where the "fraud" largely represents a difference of opinion rather than a true fraud, where the fraud represents pretty much the normal operation of the commercial lending industry, and where the law in question has never before been before used in this manner. The 8th Amendment of the US Constitution clearly states "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed" nor "unsual punishments inflicted". I suspect any reasonable normal person outside of Tang would admit the use of the law is unusual (since its not been used in this manner before) and the punishment is "excessive" as it could effectively completely destroy a business and financially ruin a person for a "fraud" in which no measurable damages occurred and nobody was harmed (in fact the alleged "victims" profited handsomely from the transaction).

Its unreasonable and unprecedented. It is a political prosecution----and everyone---including Tang knows it is. In fact, it appears the main reason the fine is so large was not because it reflects any actual damages inflicted (because there were no "victims" or "damages")----it was made this large so to make the crooked judgement difficult--if not impossible---to appeal out of the local liberal bubble court system. Its clearly imperative to those involved in this fiasco that this case remain inside the liberal bubble court system. Bottom line---if Trump were not a presidential candidate---no such unique use of this statue would have been undertaken. Everyone knows exactly what is going on here---which is why everyone knows it will fall apart once it exits the local liberal kangaroo court bubble and enters the mainstream world of legal precedent.

Apparently you disagree with state enforcement actions. Or from the looks of it, simply dont have a clue about them, nor even the scope of judgement.

What will be your excuse if the NY 2d upholds it? More crying about a law you dont have a clue about?

Where has this "enforcement" effort been before now? Where are the piles of research the AG has performed over the years in their aggressive and exhaustive enforcement effort to make sure no real estate companies have higher opinions of their collateral value than the NY AG's office (I mean, who knew the NY AG's office were experts in Florida oceanfront property values?). Anyway---I'll wait while you find all those prior real estate company collateral cases and look up the real estate company collateral valuation cases that are currently under investigation by the steely eyed AG bent on making sure every "T" is crossed in the NY lending industry---Or I can save you the trouble and you can just admit no other such cases exist in NY.

Despite your feeble effort to to pretend this is about some sort of high minded "state enforcement" effort to protect the citizens of New York---we all know this is merely a corrupt bastardization of the legal process designed to interfere with an election. You're bright enough to connect the dots---as is anyone with any sense of self awareness.