|
mobby_6kl posted:Did Trump say anything particularly stupid/incriminating? I followed it a bit and it seems he mostly just tried to dodge the questions and rambled about Scotland and beautiful deals. Apparently he's perjured the poo poo out of himself? https://twitter.com/DanAlexander21/status/1721566528070463827
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2023 22:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 19:46 |
|
|
Cimber posted:Apparently he's perjured the poo poo out of himself? Is that why during the trial he said "Forbes is owned by China"?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2023 22:35
|
|
|
Most likely we won't hear any REAL stories about his testimony for a few days while all the various new outlets review their own transcripts and find all the actually damaging parts. As far as I could glean from what I've read, Trump just continued to be the same untrustworthy narcissist he normally is and I'm doubtful that helped defend the case against him. Although, it's worth noting how well behaved he was regarding statements during lunch and in the courtroom that I'm 10000% sure he WANTED to make but bit his tongue. He's clearly taking this serious enough to actually kinda sorta listen to his attorney for once.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2023 23:04
|
|
|
Retro42 posted:Most likely we won't hear any REAL stories about his testimony for a few days while all the various new outlets review their own transcripts and find all the actually damaging parts. As far as I could glean from what I've read, Trump just continued to be the same untrustworthy narcissist he normally is and I'm doubtful that helped defend the case against him.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2023 23:15
|
|
|
There's one possibility I can see for why they'd call Trump to the stand, which is if Trump demands it because he can then have them ask friendly questions that let him pontificate freely. I can only imagine his reaction if he were to try that and then get slapped down for it by the judge again lol
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2023 23:16
|
|
|
Retro42 posted:Most likely we won't hear any REAL stories about his testimony for a few days while all the various new outlets review their own transcripts and find all the actually damaging parts. As far as I could glean from what I've read, Trump just continued to be the same untrustworthy narcissist he normally is and I'm doubtful that helped defend the case against him. One thing in that above Forbes Article that could be important is how in the last week Trump's last loan with Deutche Bank was paid off. As they are in the middle of a large investigation, this could be an attempt to clean up certain matters.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 00:45
|
|
|
I'm quite frankly just shocked that Trump didn't demand a cross just so he could talk about whatever was on that little paper the judge told him to put away.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 00:53
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:I'm quite frankly just shocked that Trump didn't demand a cross just so he could talk about whatever was on that little paper the judge told him to put away. Defense can apparently call him separately. I'm very curious if they've already filed a witness list.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 01:51
|
|
|
Intensely funny that Trump thinks he has some kind of stunning evidence that will have the judge reverse his decision and toss the case, but even funnier that he's so TV brained he thinks surprise evidence brought up on the fly by someone in the courtroom is a real thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 01:59
|
|
|
Intensely unfunny that most Americans believe the same thing and that's all that matters
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 02:14
|
|
|
Ms Adequate posted:Intensely funny that Trump thinks he has some kind of stunning evidence that will have the judge reverse his decision and toss the case, but even funnier that he's so TV brained he thinks surprise evidence brought up on the fly by someone in the courtroom is a real thing. The paper he had was the disclaimer in the estimates of his wealth, which he thought was hugely important for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 02:16
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:The paper he had was the disclaimer in the estimates of his wealth, which he thought was hugely important for some reason. He thinks that a small-text "but also all of this could be lies" disclaimer at the bottom means he's not liable for bank fraud.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 02:18
|
|
|
A strategy that most convicted fraudsters trot out at some point in their trial, I'm sure. I'm surprised the State hasn't explained by way of evidence that banks that loaned to him under false pretenses didn't have capital to subsequently lend out to other businesses who were operating in good faith. Hard to prove maybe, but easy to understand for the jury (that's the voters here)
negativeneil fucked around with this message at 02:21 on Nov 7, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 02:19
|
|
|
negativeneil posted:A strategy that most convicted fraudsters trot out at some point in their trial, I'm sure. I'm surprised the State hasn't explained by way of evidence that banks that loaned to him under false pretenses didn't have capital to subsequently lend out to other businesses who were operating in good faith. Hard to prove maybe, but easy to understand for the jury (that's the voters here) It has in a way. One of the witnesses for the state spent a ton of time talking about how if Trump Org had been valued properly and given appropriate rates based on risk the bank stood to earn something like $185Mil in additional interest.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 03:03
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Defense can apparently call him separately. I'm very curious if they've already filed a witness list. They could, but it's generally better to question a witness under cross if you can since you get a ton more flexibility on how you question them compared to when they are your witness. I mean either way the state would object to him trying to introduce new physical evidence on the stand anyway. They should only be able to "refresh" his recollection using evidence already in the record.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 03:22
|
|
|
Google Jeb Bush posted:He thinks that a small-text "but also all of this could be lies" disclaimer at the bottom means he's not liable for bank fraud. “Magic words” This buffoon was president. Finger on the button and he believes in magic words.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 04:32
|
|
|
I find it amazing how it's totally normal to be given audit reports and financial documents that contain non-reliance warnings. You request these documents to rely on them! No one reads these because they're looking for fiction.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 04:34
|
|
|
How much longer until he starts pulling Charles Manson strategies and has supporters rush into the courtroom with banners or something
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 05:04
|
|
|
Youremother posted:How much longer until he starts pulling Charles Manson strategies and has supporters rush into the courtroom with banners or something Given his cult, I'm a little surprised nobody is doing it on their own.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 05:29
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Given his cult, I'm a little surprised nobody is doing it on their own. He's surprised too. Highlights his hubris.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 06:10
|
|
|
In fairness, the last time people did do it "on their own," not a whole lot happened aside from making a mess, then about 24 months passed and they all started going to prison. That probably took a whole lot of wind out of those particular sails.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 07:28
|
|
|
The country’s more divided than ever!
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 07:34
|
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:I find it amazing how it's totally normal to be given audit reports and financial documents that contain non-reliance warnings. You request these documents to rely on them! No one reads these because they're looking for fiction. The law basically recognises this. There’s a minor good-faith mistake or restatements, you make them and it’s copacetic. You’re just lying out your rear end and then rely on the disclaimer to save you, you’re in trouble. The disclaimer is only of legal effect until it isn’t, basically; “hey, we’re all humans, don’t count on this to be perfect” is what they protect against, not intentional fraud.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 12:14
|
|
|
Jean-Paul Shartre posted:The law basically recognises this. There’s a minor good-faith mistake or restatements, you make them and it’s copacetic. You’re just lying out your rear end and then rely on the disclaimer to save you, you’re in trouble. The disclaimer is only of legal effect until it isn’t, basically; “hey, we’re all humans, don’t count on this to be perfect” is what they protect against, not intentional fraud.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 16:02
|
|
|
Kaiser Schnitzel posted:'Fraud vitiates everything it touches' is important for those disclaimers too. If you're committing fraud, no contract or disclaimer or anything matters anymore. But it's not fraud because I said I'm making poo poo up 
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 16:19
|
|
|
Kaiser Schnitzel posted:'Fraud vitiates everything it touches' is important for those disclaimers too. If you're committing fraud, no contract or disclaimer or anything matters anymore. That is...not actually true. The phrase became popular in the last couple of years as Trump's election overturning conspirators used it in their legal arguments, citing US v. Throckmorton, an 1878 land ownership SCOTUS ruling. But not only was that stupid because that isn't applicable to election law, the justice wasn't stating that as an ironclad fact about US law but was citing a legal treatise on the subject, and the court rejected it in that very case.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 16:20
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:But it's not fraud because I said I'm making poo poo up Maybe that was the logic behind Lev Parnas naming his "business venture" "Fraud Guarantee" "Can't arrest me for fraud if I'm completely up front about it!" 
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 16:20
|
|
|
Jean-Paul Shartre posted:The law basically recognises this. There’s a minor good-faith mistake or restatements, you make them and it’s copacetic. You’re just lying out your rear end and then rely on the disclaimer to save you, you’re in trouble. The disclaimer is only of legal effect until it isn’t, basically; “hey, we’re all humans, don’t count on this to be perfect” is what they protect against, not intentional fraud. so yes, if the disclaimers said what trump claims they say, it still wouldn't hold up in court, but this is trump so he's also lying about what the disclaimers actually say e: Eric Cantonese posted:I find it amazing how it's totally normal to be given audit reports and financial documents that contain non-reliance warnings. You request these documents to rely on them! No one reads these because they're looking for fiction. point I'm trying to make here is... this is a little bit on the banks. If you work at the bank and you have a nine-figure lending client, and you ask that client for audited and complete financial statements, and they come back with "hmmm how about some compiled personal balance sheets instead?", that's a fuckin' big ol' red flag that you, mr. bank vice president, chose to ignore. that should absolutely not get trump off the hook for deliberately inflating values, but there is some truth to the accountants and the banks willfully sticking their heads in the sand in order to ignore trump's obvious lies and continue doing business e2: to be absolutely clear, i am saying that i would be fine with hammering the accountants and the bankers too, not just the trumps. they are not naive waifs who were clueless about the trumps' corruption, many of them absolutely knew or suspected and just treated it as the cost of doing business. if the accountants were smart then it might be difficult to prove that they knew this was bullshit, but they're not complete idiots, they can tell when clients are full of poo poo Blotto_Otter fucked around with this message at 17:34 on Nov 7, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 17:10
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:That is...not actually true. The phrase became popular in the last couple of years as Trump's election overturning conspirators used it in their legal arguments, citing US v. Throckmorton, an 1878 land ownership SCOTUS ruling. But not only was that stupid because that isn't applicable to election law, the justice wasn't stating that as an ironclad fact about US law but was citing a legal treatise on the subject, and the court rejected it in that very case. Oh huh. I hadn't actually heard it in that context. The context I had heard it used in was a plaintiff's lawyer explaining why a contract that said 'you won't sue us' didn't matter because the company was engaged in fraud so the terms of the contract didn't matter anymore, and that seemed applicable to this case. But IANAL.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 17:42
|
|
|
“How can they charge me with armed robbery? My gun was just a toy!”
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 17:48
|
|
|
Scratch Monkey posted:“How can they charge me with armed robbery? My gun was just a toy!” "I'm not here to rob anybody, but if someone wanted to put money in this bag I'm holding, then I'm sure everything will be fine. I disclaim this firearm I have in my hand and am pointing at you."
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 18:23
|
|
|
Rudy, you're the best https://twitter.com/santiagomayer_/status/1721892517678137454
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 19:26
|
|
|
Man that was a great day on pre-Elon twitter. Watching it dawn on everyone why the PC was where it was....pure posting joy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 19:33
|
|
|
OgNar posted:Rudy, you're the best truly a never 4get day
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 19:33
|
|
|
OgNar posted:Rudy, you're the best It's even got it's own Wikipedia page. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Seasons_Total_Landscaping_press_conference
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 20:09
|
|
|
OgNar posted:Rudy, you're the best The hazard diamond isn't for what's inside the building. 'Intense or continued but not chronic exposure could cause temporary incapacitation or possible residual injury' yeah that sounds about right.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 23:50
|
|
|
Jean-Paul Shartre posted:The law basically recognises this. There’s a minor good-faith mistake or restatements, you make them and it’s copacetic. You’re just lying out your rear end and then rely on the disclaimer to save you, you’re in trouble. The disclaimer is only of legal effect until it isn’t, basically; “hey, we’re all humans, don’t count on this to be perfect” is what they protect against, not intentional fraud. The other thing they disclaim against is garbage in, garbage out. If you hire a 3rd party accounting firm to audit some company's books, they're going to include a disclaimer that they're starting from assuming some things reported are real. They're not going to go do things like physically check that the a warehouse contains what the inventory spreadsheet says, or whether your list of customer invoices are complete fabrications
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 04:47
|
|
|
So let's say there are no delays in the DC case and it starts early March. Let's say it goes 6-8 weeks and Trump is found guilty. If he appeals instantly, what does that look like? Is he detained pending appeal? How long would the appeal process take?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 05:41
|
|
|
Foxfire_ posted:If you hire a 3rd party accounting firm to audit some company's books.... They're not going to go do things like physically check that the a warehouse contains what the inventory spreadsheet says, or whether your list of customer invoices are complete fabrications
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 07:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 19:46 |
|
|
Blotto_Otter posted:they absolutely do this in a financial statement audit. (But most things that accountants do are not actually an "audit", because actual audits are onerous and expensive because they involve doing things like sending an intern out to a warehouse over in Tulsa to count spools of wire or some poo poo.) I've been the guy pulling poo poo down and counting hundreds of shift levers or grab handles in front of the auditor and CFO. It's annoying, but it definitely happens and like clockwork on whatever schedule the contracts or government wants. Then your count is off by two hundred from what it should be and you just wish you'd called in that day. Last few times were remote with the auditor being walked around in a tablet thanks to COVID.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 08:04
|
|