Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
The Sandbox - PittsburghThe Sandbox is a collection of off-topic discussions. Humorous threads, Sports talk, and a wide variety of other topics can be found here. If it's NOT an adult-themed topic, then it belongs here
'No one lost any money' as if nearly $200 million going into Trumps pockets off lies did not belong somewhere else. How exactly did Trump not benefit?
No money went into President Trump's pocket - that is false. If you believe otherwise, show us a paper trail of the money going into his pocket
Quote:
Originally Posted by DNinja69
Fact is Trump lied and committed fraud.
No he did not. Just because some deranged leftist judge in NY though that does not make it a fact. Trump provided documents giving his own estimated value of his properties to the bank - just like every other real estate developer does. Oh, and on each of those documents Trump provided were disclaimers "“Users of this financial statement should recognize that they might reach different conclusions about the financial condition of Donald J. Trump.” again, standard practice which is why all banks, including those in this case do their won calculations and estimates
No one was defrauded
No bank lost any money
No money went into Trump's pocket
Once again - This is just more fascist lawfare created by the Democrats to try to harm Trump in the 2024 election. It is clear to anyone paying attention
No one lost any money. Trump did not benefit. The judge is a leftist idiot who was willing to do anything simply to get Trump as part of the fascist Democrat's lawfare efforts
No one was defrauded
No bank lost any money
No money went into Trump's pocket
Once again - This is just more fascist lawfare created by the Democrats to try to harm Trump in the 2024 election. It is clear to anyone paying attention
No one lost any money. Trump did not benefit. The judge is a leftist idiot who was willing to do anything simply to get Trump as part of the fascist Democrat's lawfare efforts
Those are the ACTUAL FACTS
LOL!!! LOTS of money went into trump's pockets as a result of his decades of fraud. That's literally the entire point of this judgment. He defrauded the state of New York for hundreds of millions over 20+ years.
Christ on a cracker, and holy fuckin' shit already. He benefitted to the tune of hundreds of millions, by being a piece of shit fraudster.
The entire case revolves around Trump gaining favorable terms on loans resulting in higher financial gains.
Any argument otherwise is simply untrue.
We can banter about the motivations for the case
Yet again you continue to ignore that the banks did their own due diligence and determined the loan terms based on the banks estimates. So Trump did not gain favorable terms based on anything he did
And the banks were paid back in full, with interest and were happy to do business with Trump again
No one was harmed, no one benefited. That is the fact
And as to the motivations for the case - THAT is the whole subject of this thread. How the fascist Democrats at Senile Biden's behest have used lawfare with far left judges and attorneys in far left locations where a conservative could never receive a fair trial to try to harm Trump before the election because everyone knows Senile Biden can't beat Trump in a free and fair election
LOL!!! LOTS of money went into trump's pockets as a result of his decades of fraud. That's literally the entire point of this judgment. He defrauded the state of New York for hundreds of millions over 20+ years.
No money went into President Trump's pocket - that is false. If you believe otherwise, show us a paper trail of the money going into his pocket
The American people DO NOT want a two-tiered justice system weaponized against political opposition. We must stop the fascist Democrats and their illegal lawfare
They know that Donald Trump did a great job as president.
He secured our nation.
He built a thriving economy.
and that he will beat Senile Biden in a free and fair election this fall
'No one lost any money' as if nearly $200 million going into Trumps pockets off lies did not belong somewhere else. How exactly did Trump not benefit?
I already explained it to you. Please go back and read my post #55.
The people you claim SHOULD have pocketed this illusionary $200 million (or $150 million, or $355 million, or whatever your latest number is) testified at trial that they would NOT have charged Trump a higher interest rate or otherwise tightened their loan terms if his Statement of Financial Condition had not been arguably inflated.
So the so-called victims say they weren't victimized, yet you still cling to the corrupt prosecutor's ridiculous claim that Trump defrauded the banks and therefore owes huge, imaginary sums not to the so-called victims but to the State of New York?
You evidently haven't thought it all through.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DNinja69
Fact is Trump lied and committed fraud. Not my opinion. Documented facts.
Do you ever acknowledge the difference between an exaggeration and a lie? Did Judge Kangaroo lie and commit fraud when he said Mar-a-Largo is only worth $18 million? What penalty should be assessed against him?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DNinja69
The underlying argument against this case is basically 'umm but Hunter Biden'...
No, it's not. Why would anyone compare two cases that have almost nothing in common?
The only valid "whataboutism" argument here isn't about Hunter Biden. No, it's about every other New York real estate developer who told their lenders they are worth more than the banks believed. Why isn't Tish James prosecuting all of them too?
As Mr. Wonderful knows from real-world experience, every one of those real estate guys tells their banks their properties are worth "x". The banks always laugh. Then they start negotiating the actual loan terms.
You should go back and read Lusty's comments on page 4 of this thread to see why what you posted is meaningless
LOL!!! No, what everyone is posting here in defense of trump is what's meaningless. He lost the case. He's been convicted of fraud. Fact.
I'm sorry if some of you just can't accept that, but your resistance to reality doesn't change a goddamn thing about the documented FACT that trump has been found guilty of fraud.
This isn't "lawfare" (whatever that gibberish means), nor is it politically motivated. It's a convicted criminal being punished for one of his many crimes. And there's a lot more coming down the pike for him. He's going to need a helmet and a butt plug.
Let me correct the description a representative for Deutsche Bank testified they followed their own internal procedures and quite obviously they were more than willing to do business with Donald Trump. Certainly the execs in question are not going to testify they did not follow procedure and I would offer this quote from David Williams:
“I think we expect clients-provided information to be accurate. At the same time, it’s not an industry standard that these statements be audited. They’re largely reliant on the use of estimates,” Williams said, so bankers routinely “make some adjustments.”
Largely reliant on the use of estimates = We use whatever figures that equate to making some money off Donald Trump. No shame in that its how business is done.
This same area of testimony also produced some numbers that indicate Trump grossly inflated his net worth:
"In 2019, for example, Trump’s financial statement listed his net worth at $5.8 billion, which the bank adjusted down to $2.5 billion."
I would also remind you via judges commentary:
“that the mere fact that lenders were happy doesn’t mean that the statute wasn’t violated.”
Now to the question of victims. Who owns Deutsche Bank?
When you look at the answer to that question and whether everyone who has an ownership stake in the bank gained or lost money as a result of loans that produced less interest payments than they would have if accurate financial information had been provided then the claim of no victim ends.
And yes the underlying embers to all of these 'Trump did nuffin wrong' claims is in fact based on this notion that one side gets away with unlawful activity and the other does not. You are correct this case is not about any other cases so let's focus on the lies and exaggerations (pretty much the same thing when truthful statements are required by law) involved.
Fact is Trump continues to claim that even his stated net worth is underestimated and wants to excuse any incorrect numbers as simple mistakes. He played the game a little loose and got himself caught dipping into the cookie jar. Asking him to pay back the excessive profit is fair and legal. How it is being conducted is political and vengeful. One does not change the reality of the other.
Back on the subject of this thread - a great summary of the fascist Democrat lawfare efforts
There are eerie commonalities in all these five court cases involving plaintiff E. Jean Carroll, Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg, New York Attorney General Letitia James, federal special counsel Jack Smith, and Fulton County district attorney Fani Willis.
One, they are either unapologetically left-wing or associated with liberal causes.
They filed their legal writs in big-city, left-wing America—Atlanta, New York, Washington—where liberal judges and jury pools predominate in a manner not characteristic of the country at large.
Two, they are overtly political.
Bragg, James, and Willis have either campaigned for office or raised campaign funds by promising to get or even destroy Donald Trump.
Carroll’s suit was funded by left-wing billionaire Reid Hoffman.
Smith sued to rush his court schedule in hopes of putting Trump on trial before the November election.
Three, there would not be any of these cases had Donald Trump not run for the presidency or not been a conservative.
Carroll’s suit bypassed statute of limitation restrictions by prompting the intervention of a left-wing New York legislator. He passed a special bill, allowing a one-year window to waive the statute of limitations for sexual assault claims from decades past.
Until Trump, no New York prosecutor like James had ever filed a civil suit against a business for allegedly overvaluing real estate assets to obtain loans that bank auditors approved and were paid back in full, on time, and with sizable interest profits to the lending institutions.
Alvin Bragg bootstrapped a Trump private non-disclosure agreement into a federal campaign violation in a desperate effort to find something on Trump.
Smith is also charging Trump with insurrectionary activity. But Trump had never been so charged with insurrection, much less convicted of it.
Willis strained to find a way to criminalize Trump’s complaints about his loss of Georgia in the 2020 national election. She finally came up with a racketeering charge, usually more applicable to mafiosi and **** cartels.
Four, in all these cases, the charges could have been equally applicable to fellow left-wing public figures and officials.
Joe Biden, like Trump, was accused of sexual assault decades earlier by former staffer Tara Reade. Yet Reade was torn apart by the media and the left for inconsistencies in her memory. By contrast, the wildly inconsistent and amnesiac E. Jean Carroll won $83 million from Trump.
Jack Smith created the precedent of charging former president Trump for unlawfully removing classified files to his private residence.
But the government simultaneously did not charge Joe Biden for similar offenses. Yet Biden had removed files not for two years but for more than 30. He stored them not in one location but several.
His rickety garage was a mess, not a secure family compound like Trump’s estate. Moreover, Biden did so while a senator and vice president, without any presidential authority to declassify almost any presidential document he wished.
Biden never came forward to report the crime for over thirty years—until Trump was charged. Indeed, he was caught on tape six years ago, admitting to his ghostwriter that he possessed classified files but never reported it.
Bragg might have noticed that both Hillary Clinton (fined $113,000) and Barack Obama (fined $350,000) broke campaign financing laws. Neither was subject to federal criminal charges by local prosecutors.
An array of left-wing celebrities, politicians, 2004 House Members, former Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), and failed Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams have all recently challenged elections. They sought either to delay or redo ballot counting or, on the federal level, to sidetrack electors to ignore popular votes in their respective states.
These lawfare cases are part of other efforts that were highly partisan and without merit. Recall the Trump “Russian collusion” hoax and the “Russian disinformation” laptop farce.
In another first, some blue states are suing to take Trump’s name off the ballot for “insurrection,” a crime for which he has never been charged.
Total up the deaths, damage, and length of the summer 2020 Antifa/BLM riots. Then compare the tally to the one-day January 6 riot.
The former proved far more lethal, long-lasting, and destructive. Yet very few of the 14,000 arrested rioters in 2020 were ever prosecuted, much less convicted.
By contrast, the Biden administration sought to jail hundreds for crimes allegedly committed on January 6, such as “illegal parading.”
We are entering a dangerous era in America.
Ideology and party affiliations increasingly determine guilt and punishment. Opponents are first targeted, and then laws are twisted and redefined to convict them.
The left is waging lawfare with the implicit message to silence political opponents: either keep quiet or suffer the consequences.
Fact of the matter is that if this non-crime was committed by any other person on the planet it would’ve never seen the light of day. The one and only reason charges were brought is to influence an election.
