Trump formally files appeal of $365 million verdict, does NOT post required bond

[jomar]

The banks weren’t scammed. They sided with Trump

So link us up with a middle of the road non-biased analysis that makes your point

and would do business with him again.

How do you know that? Some banks have stopped because trump

There was no victim.

Yes, we get that’s the rally cry

 

[Fuzzy1975]

You don't do what now????

I don’t base my opinions on emotion like you.

Adhominen is not an argument.

Poor Hillary, she's as pure as the driven snow!

Obama's goon squads spying, fraud FISAs, unwarranted criminal investigations, private conversations leaked, a biased media, a sham impeachment. The left sewed the seeds of hatred.

The assault on the capital was a culmination of 4 years of negative bullshit from the likes of Waters, Pelosi, Green, Schumer. And now dipshit Pelosi is trying to kick Trump in the ass as one last parting shot, acting like a thug standing over a dead body.

She will go down in history as the most vile speaker in american political history.

Then comes Clinton and he’s even more vile when it comes to having a moral spine.

At least I’m honest about Trump, unlike you where your hatred for Trump and your undying allegiance to the most corrupt version of the democrat party in decades distorts your objectivity. My two votes for Trump were more because of my distrust for Hillary and Biden, did lots of background research on both and found them both to be despicable individuals, especially Hillary.

And the other big middle finger to Nancy!

Well, in DC it's not about guilt or innocence, if you want to beat the system cover yourself with Hillary slyme and walk.

Sure you don't....*chuckles*

 

[Fuzzy1975]

I agree, a bank can use an outside specialist to evaluate real estate but again that’s the bank doing their own due diligence. The purchaser will do their own assessment along with the lender but in the final analysis the bank has the last say.

Agreed, the bank has the final say, but if you supply third party valuations, you are legally responsible for the accuracy of those documents. So if you claim the apartment is three times the size and worth three times the value knowingly, then you lied on those documents, and can be sued.

Period end of story.

Again don't believe me on how it works, try it. Phone up a bank, try and purchase or finance a multi million dollar building. I have, I'm not speaking from my ass like you seem to be. Banks are in the business of loaning money, not valuating properties.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

They ( the banks ) have their own internal assessment department and make decisions based on their own findings not the owners. All banks independently value/ assess outside of the owners assessment. Real estate value is what the market bears and banks take the current market conditions when making decisions.

What a surprise, another dodge….

 

[Bray123]

The banks weren’t scammed. They sided with Trump and would do business with him again. There was no victim.

The measurements were fraudulent, the banks were scammed whether Putin would continue to do business or otherwise.

 

[icanhelp1]

There were victims. Trump got loans and at better terms precisely because of his dis-honesty. Therefore both that money and the terms were unavailable to other would be borrowers because of his fraudulent actions. The "no victims" argument is bullshit.

Then just let government establish all prices and determine the value of everything. The banks made money, a profit and that’s what capitalism is all about.

 

[adrina]

 

[dkovic77]

You talk too much! You scribble a lot but nothing comes out.

I don’t base my opinions on emotion like you. It’s not about Trump it’s about wielding the power of justice in a fair and equitable manner. Equal protection under the law/ equal application of the law. Most legal charges against Trump are based on emotion and hatred for Trump not in law. If Trump wasn’t running these indictments would never have happened.

Adhominen is not an argument.

Or, your guy has more instances of breaking the law- this is just the tip of the iceberg. He has convinced even your keen trap of a mind that it is true.

Hence, your need to head back to elementary school. Enjoy recess!

Thanks again, as always. It’s been super fun.

 

[dkovic77]

View attachment 2323589

Can he inflate how many of those he has too?

 

[goldytheGoldfish]

Former one term President Donald Trump filed a formal appeal of the $365 million verdict against him this morning in federal court.

Is even one person, anywhere, surprised? Anyone?

 

[icanhelp1]

Or, your guy has more instances of breaking the law- this is just the tip of the iceberg. He has convinced even your keen trap of a mind that it is true.

Hence, your need to head back to elementary school. Enjoy recess!

Thanks again, as always. It’s been super fun.

You didn’t answer my question? As usual! I’ll ask again. Would Trump be in the middle of all these indictments if he wasn’t campaigning for Biden’s job? The answer is an emphatic no!! All these charges didn’t take shape till after he announced his bid for president.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

You didn’t answer my question? As usual! I’ll ask again. Would Trump be in the middle of all these indictments if he wasn’t campaigning for Biden’s job? The answer is an emphatic no!! All these charges didn’t take shape till after he announced his bid for president.

So then he did sexually assault Carol?

 

[dmallord]

You talk too much! You scribble a lot but nothing comes out.

I don’t base my opinions on emotion like you. It’s not about Trump it’s about wielding the power of justice in a fair and equitable manner. Equal protection under the law/ equal application of the law. Most legal charges against Trump are based on emotion and hatred for Trump not in law. If Trump wasn’t running these indictments would never have happened.

Adhominen [sic] is not an argument.

Trickey devil, ad hominem is exactly what you used in your deflection here. And badly done, I might add.

Your rhetorical strategy attacks this person's character, motives, and alleged hatred of Trump, making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. You purposefully avoid genuine debate by creating a personal attack as a totally irrelevant diversion.

If your opinions are not based on emotions, why do you frequently come across as yelling or resorting to accusing others of bias?

Deflection: "Most legal charges against Trump are based on emotion and hatred for Trump not in law."

The legal filings against Trump are voluminous. All of them have citations referencing laws - every single filing. It is up to a jury or judge to determine if the charges meet the applicable citations in similar cases.

If 'most are not' why then are you not addressing those that are as vocifously as you defending Trump's actions? If you believe in equal protection under the law, where are your 'convictions' about those other charges you allow that are not emotion- or hatred-based? You are mute about them.

Deflection: "If Trump wasn’t [sic] running these indictments would never have happened."

No one can argue this as provable; it's entirely opinion and just so much scribble. This a totally self-serving comment, a true political example of ad hominem. Pure speculation here, nothing but an opinion based upon your political belief that as candidate Trump this is the sole cause he is being charged for and not the actual charges of fraud, of voter manipulation, of insurrection, or sexual assault, or Top Secret document mishandling.

Many of your responses tend to accuse others as hating Trump, when they point out discrepancies between his numbers and the actual sizes? Someone says, as I have, Trump should not have said his Trump Tower penthouse was 30,000 square feet when it is 2,996 square feet. That wasn't a simple 'mistake' in his financial statement. He lied about it, and for what purpose?

Well, for financial gain, of course. That simple 1,000% inflated number was just one of many cited in these threads. Yet you do not acknowledge anywhere that he lied or should not have inflated the number. Instead you obfuscate the issue by saying 'everybody does it,' 'the bank didn't lose money,' and 'everybody hates Trump and is only doing this because he is running for office again.'

The AG in the NY case isn't prosecuting solely on one number error or at the bank's behest. It is on behalf of the People of New York over his actions that, in the States' view, have risen to the level of significant fraud. No one can find in filing statements, 'Hey Donald, I'm charging you because I hate you or because you are running for President.'

AGs file charges, based upon figures that can be quatitiatively verified. Those are found in the AG charges against Trump, and the Judge has concurred.

Trump's track record for escaping guilt or punishment of most charges against him is better than average over his lifetime. Hence an old title, 'Teflon Don.' However, the latest things he has bought upon himself seems to be more than troubling.

Not ad hominem

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Then just let government establish all prices and determine the value of everything. The banks made money, a profit and that’s what capitalism is all about.

The banks lost about 100 million in profit from Trump's lies. That he paid the load back on the terms granted is not the point.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Trickey devil, ad hominem is exactly what you used in your deflection here. And badly done, I might add.

Your rhetorical strategy attacks this person's character, motives, and alleged hatred of Trump, making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. You purposefully avoid genuine debate by creating a personal attack as a totally irrelevant diversion.

If your opinions are not based on emotions, why do you frequently come across as yelling or resorting to accusing others of bias?

Deflection: "Most legal charges against Trump are based on emotion and hatred for Trump not in law."

The legal filings against Trump are voluminous. All of them have citations referencing laws - every single filing. It is up to a jury or judge to determine if the charges meet the applicable citations in similar cases.

If 'most are not' why then are you not addressing those that are as vocifously as you defending Trump's actions? If you believe in equal protection under the law, where are your 'convictions' about those other charges you allow that are not emotion- or hatred-based? You are mute about them.

Deflection: "If Trump wasn’t [sic] running these indictments would never have happened."

No one can argue this as provable; it's entirely opinion and just so much scribble. This a totally self-serving comment, a true political example of ad hominem. Pure speculation here, nothing but an opinion based upon your political belief that as candidate Trump this is the sole cause he is being charged for and not the actual charges of fraud, of voter manipulation, of insurrection, or sexual assault, or Top Secret document mishandling.

Many of your responses tend to accuse others as hating Trump, when they point out discrepancies between his numbers and the actual sizes? Someone says, as I have, Trump should not have said his Trump Tower penthouse was 30,000 square feet when it is 2,996 square feet. That wasn't a simple 'mistake' in his financial statement. He lied about it, and for what purpose?

Well, for financial gain, of course. That simple 1,000% inflated number was just one of many cited in these threads. Yet you do not acknowledge anywhere that he lied or should not have inflated the number. Instead you obfuscate the issue by saying 'everybody does it,' 'the bank didn't lose money,' and 'everybody hates Trump and is only doing this because he is running for office again.'

The AG in the NY case isn't prosecuting solely on one number error or at the bank's behest. It is on behalf of the People of New York over his actions that, in the States' view, have risen to the level of significant fraud. No one can find in filing statements, 'Hey Donald, I'm charging you because I hate you or because you are running for President.'

AGs file charges, based upon figures that can be quatitiatively verified. Those are found in the AG charges against Trump, and the Judge has concurred.

Trump's track record for escaping guilt or punishment of most charges against him is better than average over his lifetime. Hence an old title, 'Teflon Don.' However, the latest things he has bought upon himself seems to be more than troubling.

Not ad hominem

Well done! I can't be bothered explaining it to him.

 

[icanhelp1]

Trickey devil, ad hominem is exactly what you used in your deflection here. And badly done, I might add.

Your rhetorical strategy attacks this person's character, motives, and alleged hatred of Trump, making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. You purposefully avoid genuine debate by creating a personal attack as a totally irrelevant diversion.

If your opinions are not based on emotions, why do you frequently come across as yelling or resorting to accusing others of bias?

Deflection: "Most legal charges against Trump are based on emotion and hatred for Trump not in law."

The legal filings against Trump are voluminous. All of them have citations referencing laws - every single filing. It is up to a jury or judge to determine if the charges meet the applicable citations in similar cases.

If 'most are not' why then are you not addressing those that are as vocifously as you defending Trump's actions? If you believe in equal protection under the law, where are your 'convictions' about those other charges you allow that are not emotion- or hatred-based? You are mute about them.

Deflection: "If Trump wasn’t [sic] running these indictments would never have happened."

No one can argue this as provable; it's entirely opinion and just so much scribble. This a totally self-serving comment, a true political example of ad hominem. Pure speculation here, nothing but an opinion based upon your political belief that as candidate Trump this is the sole cause he is being charged for and not the actual charges of fraud, of voter manipulation, of insurrection, or sexual assault, or Top Secret document mishandling.

Many of your responses tend to accuse others as hating Trump, when they point out discrepancies between his numbers and the actual sizes? Someone says, as I have, Trump should not have said his Trump Tower penthouse was 30,000 square feet when it is 2,996 square feet. That wasn't a simple 'mistake' in his financial statement. He lied about it, and for what purpose?

Well, for financial gain, of course. That simple 1,000% inflated number was just one of many cited in these threads. Yet you do not acknowledge anywhere that he lied or should not have inflated the number. Instead you obfuscate the issue by saying 'everybody does it,' 'the bank didn't lose money,' and 'everybody hates Trump and is only doing this because he is running for office again.'

The AG in the NY case isn't prosecuting solely on one number error or at the bank's behest. It is on behalf of the People of New York over his actions that, in the States' view, have risen to the level of significant fraud. No one can find in filing statements, 'Hey Donald, I'm charging you because I hate you or because you are running for President.'

AGs file charges, based upon figures that can be quatitiatively verified. Those are found in the AG charges against Trump, and the Judge has concurred.

Trump's track record for escaping guilt or punishment of most charges against him is better than average over his lifetime. Hence an old title, 'Teflon Don.' However, the latest things he has bought upon himself seems to be more than troubling.

Not ad hominem

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/01/14/new-yorks-civil-lawsuit-against-trump-is-unconstitutional/

New York State Attorney General Letitia James' lawsuit against Donald Trump is unconstitutional and unfair. James is demanding that Trump, his business, his two oldest sons, and two business partners give back $370 million that she says they obtained through fraud. James wants to permanently ban Trump from running a business in New York State. And, she has obtained a ruling from the judge trying the case to place all of Trump's New York businesses in receivership and sold with Trump getting only the cash from a forced fire sale. James' lawsuit alleges that Trump fraudulently inflated the value of his assets in annual net worth statements to banks to obtain savings on loan interest. It must be noted at the outset that no bank has complained that Trump committed fraud and that James is charging Trump an enormous and unconstitutional penalty for what is essentially a victimless crime.

The New York State law, as it is being applied to Trump, raises the same due process of law problem as is raised by a classic politically motivated Bill of Attainder. Historically, a Bill of Attainder was a legislative act that singled out a politically unpopular person for punishment. In Trump's case, a general and over-broad state law is being used against him in a hitherto unheard of way depriving him of property without due process of law. And, everyone on both sides of the aisle knows that it is all because New York has a lot of people, especially in the Democratic Party, who hate Trump. The victimless crime that James has charged Trump with is basically that he is a liar, and she does not like his political views. State Bills of Attainder are banned under Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution, and the Fifth Amendment provides that no person can be deprived of property without due process of law.

The Constitution does not allow banning people from running a business or putting all their assets in receivership and auctioning them off in a fire sale with the victim getting back the resulting cash. I am not aware of any precedent that supports what James is doing. The Constitution does not allow hitting Trump with a $370 million fine for a victimless crime, which almost certainly violates the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment. Putting Trump's assets in receivership and auctioning them off in a fire sale is a violation of the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause for which Trump must at a minimum receive just compensation. But, even then, private property can only be taken for "a public use", and there is no "public use" unless you hate Trump's politics and want to punish him as a result. And, at that point, you must confront the Bill of Attainder prohibition once again.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/01/14/new-yorks-civil-lawsuit-against-trump-is-unconstitutional/

lol then I guess Trump will prevail on appeal.

 

[icanhelp1]

lol then I guess Trump will prevail on appeal.

This and the appearance of impropriety. James campaigned on getting Trump, impropriety clear and simple.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

This and the appearance of impropriety. James campaigned on getting Trump, impropriety clear and simple.

Appearance of something isn't fact, nor automatically criminal.

Got a citation for James campaigned on it?

Let's for a moment agree that she did, what the difference between her campaign and Trump campaigning to get payback?

https://apnews.com/article/trump-re...an-democracy-5a8ec37b359fee85d0f0956139d79f51

 

[Bray123]

This and the appearance of impropriety. James campaigned on getting Trump, impropriety clear and simple.

If James campaigned on it, it's not allowed.

That's why Trump didn't build a wall and make Mexico pay.

 

[icanhelp1]

Appearance of something isn't fact, nor automatically criminal.

Got a citation for James campaigned on it?

Let's for a moment agree that she did, what the difference between her campaign and Trump campaigning to get payback?

https://apnews.com/article/trump-re...an-democracy-5a8ec37b359fee85d0f0956139d79f51

It’s abuse of power, James should be disbarred but unfortunately the BAR association is now a leftist organization suffering from TDS on steroids.. The judge’s sentencing guidelines are his concoction and unconstitutional.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

It’s abuse of power, James should be disbarred but unfortunately the BAR association is now a leftist organization suffering from TDS on steroids.. The judge’s sentencing guidelines are his concoction and unconstitutional.

So to paraphrase, it's ok for Trump, who if elected will be able to abuse power, but not for James because she chose to hold Trump accountable.

And you claim you don't carry water for Trump.......lmfao

 

[icanhelp1]

So to paraphrase, it's ok for Trump, who if elected will be able to abuse power, but not for James because she chose to hold Trump accountable.

And you claim you don't carry water for Trump.......lmfao

I carry water for the constitution and equal application of the law. I’ve said many times in past post that I personally don’t like Trump as a person but I agree with his policies, especially on border security. Biden on the other hand is an absolute fool.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Again I asked you, why it is not ok for James to campaign on prosecuting Trump, but it is ok for Trump to campaign on using his Presidential office if elected to take revenge?

I get why you're moving the goal posts, and I have to admit, it's almost as entertaining as I suspected it would be when I asked....

 

[Lazaran]

There were victims. Trump got loans and at better terms precisely because of his dis-honesty. Therefore both that money and the terms were unavailable to other would be borrowers because of his fraudulent actions. The "no victims" argument is bullshit.

I made this exact point in another thread a loooooong time ago.

No response from the usual suspects…