|
Murgos posted:The weaponization committee seems to have maybe found a prime example of political influence being used to weaponize the government functions to attack political opponents. It really is always projection, isn't it?
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 20:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 02:18 |
|
|
Murgos posted:The weaponization committee seems to have maybe found a prime example of political influence being used to weaponize the government functions to attack political opponents. The Grand Ol' Projection happens again
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 20:11
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:It really is always projection, isn't it? Even down to exact dollar amounts
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 20:56
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Trump can appear on 2024 primary ballot in Minnesota, state Supreme Court rules If Trump is in any position to win MN, it's a lost cause anyways.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 21:19
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Marvy. Fab. Far out.  Builds character
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2023 21:44
|
|
|
Jesus Christ, I keep saying that every accusation is a confession and even this manages to still surprise me with its boldness.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 01:59
|
|
|
Serious question here and something I've heard kicked around in RWM circles but: Isn't it the bank's responsibility to appraise and inspect poo poo when you're going for a loan? I'm just a regular peon who's never run for president or been rich but even when I borrowed $60,000 against my home, the lender sent their own appraiser and inspectors out and made ME prove my property taxes, steady income, insurance, my debts and just about everything else short of a blood and hair sample along with my first born child as collateral to secure the loving thing and it was a months long hassle that I never want to experience again. Is it as simple as "when you're rich you just get to value your assets at whatever amount you want" and the bank says "OK"? I don't get to tell the state what my home is worth when my property tax bill comes or the insurance company looks at it. And I sure as poo poo wasn't able to tell the mortgage company that my house was worth $900,000 either. They didn't take my work for it that the roof was sound. Seems to me that an argument can be made that Trump's lenders didn't do their due diligence but I don't pretend to know how this poo poo works either, especially for rich and powerful people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 03:15
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:I'm just a regular peon who's never run for president or been rich things are going to go differently for you than someone who has or is
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 03:18
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Serious question here and something I've heard kicked around in RWM circles but: Donald Trump gave fake documents to the bank's appraiser and had the money to make them convincingly fake. That's why it was fraud.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 03:35
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:
The whole reason this trial is happening is because Trump was required to be honest. That’s the basic fact of the case, so no there no arguments to be made that the lenders didn’t do their due diligence. Theoretically corporate executives can go to prison for lying on their statements whereas if you get a home loan you aren’t really eligible for because you lied convincingly on the paperwork that’s on the bank. Banks can require a full audit but think about a multibillion dollar multinational corporation’s actual assets and what checking them completely really means. That’s like a hundred million dollars just in labor and requires access to not only your books but your suppliers too. The worthless disclaimer Trump keeps trumpeting isn’t even his disclaimer, go read the court docs, it’s Mazars. What they are actually saying is “don’t blame us for garbage in garbage out, we’re just doing the math” they are relying on Trumps statements for their calculations which it says right after the disclaimer. Statements that the law requires be not straight fraud. “The banks needed to do their due diligence” isn’t what the law is here regardless of what the right wing media is looking you in the eye and saying to your face.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 03:37
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Serious question here and something I've heard kicked around in RWM circles but: Rules and policies are how rich people keep most everyone else not rich. When you're an insider in the racket the numbers don't really mean anything.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 03:39
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Serious question here and something I've heard kicked around in RWM circles but: The banks don't have access to all the inner secrets of the company they're lending money to. They depend on the company giving them an honest appraisal of its value, so the bank can then make their own decisions about giving the loan and at what interest rate. Misrepresenting the value of your company to is fraud. Cut and dried.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 04:00
|
|
|
Remember the old saying "If you owe $10,000 to the bank it's your problem, if you owe $100,000,000 to the bank it's their problem."
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 04:00
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Seems to me that an argument can be made that Trump's lenders didn't do their due diligence but I don't pretend to know how this poo poo works either, especially for rich and powerful people. Grab 'em by the purse strings. When you're a celebrity they let you do it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 04:51
|
|
|
I'm looking forward to Trump getting the idea that he can throw his lawyers under the bus only to sign whatever paperwork is required for this and blowing his own attorney client privilege https://www.salon.com/2023/11/09/puts-in-a-box-experts-say-chutkan-just-forced-to-put-up-or-shut-up-on-defense/
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 05:02
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Seems to me that an argument can be made that Trump's lenders didn't do their due diligence but I don't pretend to know how this poo poo works either, especially for rich and powerful people. This entire line has been (correctly! Repeatedly!) rejected by the courts. As ever, one can quickly and easily learn far more about the case by reading the primary documents than by listening to long-debunked horseshit on RWM. quote:Defendants repeat the erroneous argument that the complaint must be dismissed because OAG cannot demonstrate the requirements of a parens patriae action, which is one inthe public interest. Parens patriae is a common-law standing doctrine that permits the state to commence an action to protect a public interest, like the safety, health or welfare of its citizens." People v Grasso, 11NY3d 64, 72 at n 4 (2008 ). Invocation of such doctrine, or its requirements, is not necessary where, as here, the New York legislature has specifically empowered the Attorney General to bring such an action pursuant to Executive Law 63( 12) . People v Credit Suisse Sec. (USA) LLC, 31NY3d 622 , 633 (2018) ( itis undisputed that Executive Law 63( 12) gives the Attorney General standing to redress liabilities recognized elsewhere in the law, expanding the scope ofavailable remedies People v Trump Entrepreneur Initiative LLC, 137 AD3d 409, 417( 1st Dept2016) ( [E ] ven apart from prevailing authority, the language ofthe statute itself appears to authorize a cause ofaction; like similar statutes that authorize causes ofaction, §63( 12) defines the fraudulent conduct that it prohibits, authorizes the Attorney General to commence an action or proceeding to foreclose that conduct, and specifies the relief, including equitable relief, that the Attorney General may seek ) . In any event, even if compliance with the requirements of the parens patriae doctrine is necessary, which it is not, OAG has easily satisfied those requirements, as it is well-settled that "in varying contexts, courts have held that a state has a quasi-sovereign interest in protecting the integrity of the marketplace." The only place "how badly were banks harmed" comes up is disgorgment and that's from the opposite direction: How much did the Trumps fraudulently benefit from their lies? Obviously, there's no moral calculation that because the Trump benefit was $185m but would have only been $105m if the banks had done more, Trump keeps the extra $80m. In fact, from a case Trump repeatedly cited for reasons that escape me: quote:Where, as here, thereis a claim based on fraudulent activity, disgorgement may be availableas an equitable remedy, notwithstanding the absence of loss to individuals or independent claims for restitution. Disgorgement is distinct from the remedy of restitution because it focuses on the gain to the wrongdoer as opposed to the loss to the victim. Thus, disgorgement aims to deter wrongdoing by preventing the wrongdoer from retaining ill gotten gains from fraudulent conduct. Accordingly, the remedy of disgorgement does not require a showing or allegation of direct losses to consumers or the public; the source of the ill-gotten gains is immaterial
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 05:08
|
|
|
cr0y posted:I'm looking forward to Trump getting the idea that he can throw his lawyers under the bus only to sign whatever paperwork is required for this and blowing his own attorney client privilege Yeah, it would be pretty funny if he starts alleging that his attorney(s) helped with the fraud and gets their stuff discoverable under the crime-fraud exception.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 05:20
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Yeah, it would be pretty funny if he starts alleging that his attorney(s) helped with the fraud and gets their stuff discoverable under the crime-fraud exception. Maybe season 2(3? 4?) Of MAGA (My attorneys got attorneys)
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 05:31
|
|
|
Every time we've seen Trump unscripted from debates to interviews to anything else, he Gish Gallops. I don't think he is capable of turning it off, even if there are legal consequences.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 05:56
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:I'm just a regular peon who's never run for president or been rich but even when I borrowed $60,000 against my home, the lender sent their own appraiser and inspectors out and made ME prove my property taxes, steady income, insurance, my debts and just about everything else short of a blood and hair sample along with my first born child as collateral to secure the loving thing and it was a months long hassle that I never want to experience again. They are more likely to check what you say for you vs Rich Person/Company because: - The loan is a bigger fraction of your net worth. If Trump ends up with a $100m fraud judgement against him, the bank is fairly likely to get that money. If a person lies to get a $100k loan but only has house that's worth $50k, is deep in credit card debt, and unemployed, they probably don't have enough takeable stuff even if the bank gets a judgment - Lawsuits are expensive. Even if a hypothetical fraud case is a quick slam dunk, legal costs are probably going to eat most/all of that $100k. So the bank digs into things (especially if they can make the prospective lendee pay for it) beforehand for regular people, because they can't practically recover as much after the fact
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 06:35
|
|
|
Foxfire_ posted:They are more likely to check what you say for you vs Rich Person/Company because: Related: Accounting is also expensive when you're dealing at that scale. You've only got a handful of assets. Trump's assets are scattered across a hundred nested corporate entities, probably thousands of bank accounts, and in multiple countries. Checking your work will take an intern maybe an hour, while checking Trump's would require a dedicated team for weeks or months (and even then they probably couldn't be certain.) Since they're likely to get their money in case of a Trump default (since at minimum he holds a number of obvious real estate properties they could leverage against), the banks have no reason to spend time and money chasing down precise numbers when they've got good enough.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 07:26
|
|
|
Basically, a bank's incompetence does not permit the lendee to commit fraud. Walking naked on 5th Avenue does not give license for sexual assault.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 14:14
|
|
|
cr0y posted:I'm looking forward to Trump getting the idea that he can throw his lawyers under the bus only to sign whatever paperwork is required for this and blowing his own attorney client privilege So what stops him from just continuing to claim this while not actually using it in court
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 14:29
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:Basically, a bank's incompetence does not permit the lendee to commit fraud. Walking naked on 5th Avenue does not give license for sexual assault. This is an excellent summation. Just because I’m stupid doesn’t make it legal for you to defraud me. It just means I may not notice the fraud. But if the fraud is exposed then you still did the fraud and are liable for it. That the loan manger may have also defrauded his employer, the bank, by not performing appropriate due diligence and charging the appropriate fees is a second fraud, that doesn’t excuse the first.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 14:43
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 17:12
|
|
|
How'd they get that picture? I thought Trump wasn't there on Jan 6.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 17:53
|
|
|
I'm coming to clean up! Back this mess!
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 17:56
|
|
|
More like "I'm coming back to finish the job" amiright!
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 18:11
|
|
|
Just saw they call it "re-truthed" how freaking sad is that
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 18:32
|
|
|
Nervous posted:Verbing nouns is undeniably one of the greatest pleasures of the English language. It's like a linguistic playground where we can architect sentences that surprise and delight. But, of course, we wouldn't want the language to get too weirded out by all this verbing. After all, we must maintain some semblance of grammatical order, even as we playfully and creatively architect new linguistic forms. Romance languages noun adjectives, why can't we verb nouns?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 18:35
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Serious question here and something I've heard kicked around in RWM circles but the entire system is set up to be as lenient as possible, "gaap" is not law, it's suggestions. all of these documents have built in sway of hundreds of thousands of dollars. both sides have entire departments designed to nudge every law and rule. trump himself keeps screaming that the banks were willing to let him get away with it. everything was nice and calm and everyone was happy. it's just like the documents case all over again: trump had thousands of opportunities and years to either "correct" his "mistake" or, at the very least, not be so god drat obvious about it. instead trump was off by millions and billions while waving his dick at investigators. it's like going to a party and taking note that there's no sign saying you can't poo poo in the punchbowl. then later on getting really angry and confused as to why people are mad at you???
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 18:53
|
|
|
SamuraiFoochs posted:Seriously the fact that anyone even suggested that proves to me that people will be trying to come up with ways that It's All Going To Plan or Trump Will Be Fine (more out of cynicism and fear here tbh) until he's literally loving dead. so...you know...maybe lighten the gently caress up on the "ho ho ho you adorable doomers" talk
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 18:57
|
|
|
InsertPotPun posted:it's like going to a party and taking note that there's no sign saying you can't poo poo in the punchbowl. then later on getting really angry and confused as to why people are mad at you??? This is just a matter of scale. If it's just one party, it's a problem. If it's the entire planet, it's a hoax.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 19:04
|
|
|
Follow up bank diligence analogy: Suppose you're selling your car. If you're selling it to some random dude from Craigslist, you probably wont accept an ordinary check as payment because if it bounces after you've signed over the title and given them the car, you're going to have a problem. If you're selling it to Carmax, you probably will take an ordinary check. It's unlikely it's going to bounce, and they aren't going to suddenly vanish in the night. It's fraud/theft either way for the buyer to not pay you, but the amount of effort you put into checking the payment is different.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 23:25
|
|
|
Foxfire_ posted:Follow up bank diligence analogy:
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2023 02:22
|
|
|
Lammasu posted:Remember when Santos wrote a bad check to the Amish? Without looking into it, I have no idea whether this is true or a joke. Or both
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2023 02:37
|
|
|
Agents are GO! posted:Without looking into it, I have no idea whether this is true or a joke. What does your heart tell you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2023 04:30
|
|
|
To drink 4loko and listen to Limp Bizkit in the Taco Bell parking lot.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2023 04:33
|
|
|
Agents are GO! posted:Without looking into it, I have no idea whether this is true or a joke. Oh it's so much weirder than you imagine. The check was for puppies. And he wrote like 10 of them the same day to different people for a lot of puppies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2023 04:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 02:18 |
|
|
was... was he making a coat? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2023 05:09
|
|
