All Things Trump: the story continues...

[Tero]

What would be more fun than "Ex-president Trump died in a freak accident on a boat with an electric motor."

[macdoc]

Yes please - grant the asshole his wish

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... event-iowa

[JimC]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-03/ ... /102926936

ust a few hours after addressing the media on his way into court, Mr Trump appeared before the cameras again.

He attacked the judge, a Democrat who was elected to the New York Supreme Court unopposed in 2015.

"We're going to be here for months with a judge that already made up his mind," Mr Trump said.

"It's ridiculous. He's a Democrat judge, he's an operative and it's ridiculous."

He's got a point, IMO (even though the hypocrisy is deep, since he had no qualms about stacking the Supremes with conservatives)

From the outside, it looks to many that justice in the US is deeply compromised by having clearly partisan judges and prosecutors, from either side, as well as the politicised mess of running elections...

[Tero]

Trump lawyers decided to not use a jury in this trial. Perhaps to then scream "this was unfair" at the end.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Trump lawyers decided to not use a jury in this trial. Perhaps to then scream "this was unfair" at the end.

You may be giving them too much credit, Tero. The judge had to point out to Ms. Habba, counsel for Trump, after she had been yelling at him about the fact that it was not a jury trial, that she didn't check the proper box or file the proper form to elect to have a jury trial. It could have been a calculated move though, as you say. MAGA and their fellow travellers will happily regurgitate the talking point regardless of its validity, and Trump's legal team could very well be playing a political game rather than trying to mount an effective defense.

[Cunt]

So I think I get the accusation...lemme see

Trump inflated the value of his property to secure a loan. The lender agreed to the value Trump picked, and they did the deal.

Now the gov't says it isn't worth that much.

Is there an easy way to tell which one is wrong? Can a current market value be compared to what the court is claiming as the value?

[Animavore]

Breakdown of rapist Trump's court case.

[Bob]

So I think I get the accusation...lemme see

Trump inflated the value of his property to secure a loan. The lender agreed to the value Trump picked, and they did the deal.

Now the gov't says it isn't worth that much.

Is there an easy way to tell which one is wrong? Can a current market value be compared to what the court is claiming as the value?

To quote Mark Blyth, you cannot have an illegal/irresponsible borrower without and illegal/irresponsible lender. It is pretty obvious that Trump is not a guy you want in power but the Democrats could not be making a bigger mistake. It is now an absolute certainty that the Republicans will go after every single Democrat president and veep, after they leave office, for the rest of time, as revenge. This is Banana Republic stuff and the Democrats are going to pay a bitter price for their pound of flesh.

[Cunt]

So I think I get the accusation...lemme see

Trump inflated the value of his property to secure a loan. The lender agreed to the value Trump picked, and they did the deal.

Now the gov't says it isn't worth that much.

Is there an easy way to tell which one is wrong? Can a current market value be compared to what the court is claiming as the value?

To quote Mark Blyth, you cannot have an illegal/irresponsible borrower without and illegal/irresponsible lender. It is pretty obvious that Trump is not a guy you want in power but the Democrats could not be making a bigger mistake. It is now an absolute certainty that the Republicans will go after every single Democrat president and veep, after they leave office, for the rest of time, as revenge. This is Banana Republic stuff and the Democrats are going to pay a bitter price for their pound of flesh.

They are going after the frontrunner in the upcoming election, not JUST an ex President.

51 former intelligence officials say it has all the hallmarks of a Russian op.

[Brian Peacock]

The scam goes like this. You buy/build an asset at $N. Get a clever accountant to value the asset at $N+X. Then when you sell the asset for less than the nominal value, even if you sell it for more than it cost, you have technically made a loss, and can write the difference off against tax.

[Cunt]

So he bought the property, and his clever accountant valued it higher?

Why would a bank go along with a fake valuation? Don't they have their own assessment?

[JimC]

So he bought the property, and his clever accountant valued it higher?

Why would a bank go along with a fake valuation? Don't they have their own assessment?

Try to answer your own questions, for once...

[Cunt]

So he bought the property, and his clever accountant valued it higher?

Why would a bank go along with a fake valuation? Don't they have their own assessment?

Try to answer your own questions, for once...

I will.

What is being offered by the current set of keystone cops:
Trump and his clever accountant valued the property MUCH higher than reasonable.

Then they borrowed from a bank, who sent their own clever property assessment team and agreed on the value of the asset.

These two then settled their loan, and are satisfied with the concluded business.

Why did they go along with Trumps evaluation? Because they agreed with it.

Now Ms. James, who campaigned promising to 'get Trump', disagrees wildly with both of those Florida real estate experts.



This time, they've GOT him!

[JimC]

The thing is, deliberately overvaluing property for the purpose of financial gain is fraud, and against the law. The over-valuing was not just a slight increase by accident, it was huge, and involved false declarations of things like the physical dimensions of property. Why the financial institutions accepted the valuation is not legally relevant. Perhaps they were simply lazy in their checking, or perhaps they turned a blind eye because they wanted Trump's future business. It will be interesting to see if any of the institutions which accepted the false valuations will have their own legal troubles...

Now you, and all the Trumpsters out there see this whole affair as just one more attack by Democrats. In an earlier post, I expressed the view that the overt partisan nature of the US political system, where judges, prosecutors and other officers of the law are avowedly Republican or Democrat, and often elected on that basis is a very dangerous situation, that makes accusations like this quite plausible. I'm pretty certain that your own country, Canada, shares a similar legal system with the UK and Australia, where a reasonable degree of separation exists between the legal system and party politics. I agree that this situation casts a pall of doubt over the motivations for various prosecutions of Trump, although all the accounts suggests his guilt is grounded in objective facts.

[Cunt]

The thing is, deliberately overvaluing property for the purpose of financial gain is fraud, and against the law. The over-valuing was not just a slight increase by accident, it was huge, and involved false declarations of things like the physical dimensions of property. Why the financial institutions accepted the valuation is not legally relevant. Perhaps they were simply lazy in their checking, or perhaps they turned a blind eye because they wanted Trump's future business. It will be interesting to see if any of the institutions which accepted the false valuations will have their own legal troubles...

Now you, and all the Trumpsters out there see this whole affair as just one more attack by Democrats. In an earlier post, I expressed the view that the overt partisan nature of the US political system, where judges, prosecutors and other officers of the law are avowedly Republican or Democrat, and often elected on that basis is a very dangerous situation, that makes accusations like this quite plausible. I'm pretty certain that your own country, Canada, shares a similar legal system with the UK and Australia, where a reasonable degree of separation exists between the legal system and party politics. I agree that this situation casts a pall of doubt over the motivations for various prosecutions of Trump, although all the accounts suggests his guilt is grounded in objective facts.

So we agree the difference is huge.

As to bias, I don't know what you catch, and what catches you. Heck, I barely know that about myself at times.

But I do know that 51 former intelligence officials carefully hinted that the Biden laptop was disinformation from Russia.

Noticed that most social media companies, news desks and their fans went along with it.

Then it came out that it was a total lie, and 51 former intelligence officials are forgotten, and those promoting the dishonest take are quietly moving on.

So I don't think the bank was wrong about their assessment. The difference IS huge enough though, that if it turns out that the justice system was wrong, the news won't bother focusing on it.

As to Canada's system being somehow fair or free of political bias. I guess you might think so. Especially if the times they are less than fair, don't get a lot of news coverage.