What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

The Case Against the President: Emoluments, Trump's Finances, Taxes & Foundation (1 Viewer)

Dickies

Footballguy
My GB NB clearly has me on ignore!!!
LOL I don't - but I was going to respond to the post above something along the lines of "If I ignored BB he prob wouldn't mind"
Sometimes when I pop in my notifications say 2 or 3 responses and I go down the list. Sometimes it says 18 responses :shock: and I miss some.
You frequently go out of way to at least partially concede a point I'm trying to make so I'm going to go way out on limb here and guess that you'll agree that Letitia Freaking James at least LOOKS biased against Trump.
I am genuinely :lmao: here.

Prosecutors appear "biased" against defendants on the time. Hell, I've had prosecutors tell me after an acquittal or a good plea bargain reached due to some evidentiary issues in my favor that my client(s) better not give them a reason to prosecute them again. There's nothing inherently unlawful about this "bias" if the evidence is then there.
I was going to say that if a prosecutor legitimately thinks a person committed a crime, and they charge them with that crime, they should be biased against that person.
 

Amused to Death

Footballguy
My GB NB clearly has me on ignore!!!
LOL I don't - but I was going to respond to the post above something along the lines of "If I ignored BB he prob wouldn't mind"
Sometimes when I pop in my notifications say 2 or 3 responses and I go down the list. Sometimes it says 18 responses :shock: and I miss some.
You frequently go out of way to at least partially concede a point I'm trying to make so I'm going to go way out on limb here and guess that you'll agree that Letitia Freaking James at least LOOKS biased against Trump.
I am genuinely :lmao: here.

Prosecutors appear "biased" against defendants on the time. Hell, I've had prosecutors tell me after an acquittal or a good plea bargain reached due to some evidentiary issues in my favor that my client(s) better not give them a reason to prosecute them again. There's nothing inherently unlawful about this "bias" if the evidence is then there.
I was going to say that if a prosecutor legitimately thinks a person committed a crime, and they charge them with that crime, they should be biased against that person.
Guys please...let's remember that Trump and the GOP were *completely* unbiased against Hillary during the 2016 campaign. Let's follow their lead, huh?
 

Amused to Death

Footballguy
fox news: "how dare they go after his children!" also fox news: "... and now back to hunter biden"

:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:
I wasn't going to mention it but since you brought up Fox News....

They posted the story about the DOJ winning the stay so they can resume using the classified docs last night after 11:00. By 9:00 this morning it was gone. Talk about burying a story...
 
My GB NB clearly has me on ignore!!!
LOL I don't - but I was going to respond to the post above something along the lines of "If I ignored BB he prob wouldn't mind"
Sometimes when I pop in my notifications say 2 or 3 responses and I go down the list. Sometimes it says 18 responses :shock: and I miss some.
You frequently go out of way to at least partially concede a point I'm trying to make so I'm going to go way out on limb here and guess that you'll agree that Letitia Freaking James at least LOOKS biased against Trump.
I am genuinely :lmao: here.

Prosecutors appear "biased" against defendants on the time. Hell, I've had prosecutors tell me after an acquittal or a good plea bargain reached due to some evidentiary issues in my favor that my client(s) better not give them a reason to prosecute them again. There's nothing inherently unlawful about this "bias" if the evidence is then there.
Sure but have you had a prosecutor lose their ever loving mind and run on a campaign of getting your client?
 

Genxersrule

Footballguy
My GB NB clearly has me on ignore!!!
LOL I don't - but I was going to respond to the post above something along the lines of "If I ignored BB he prob wouldn't mind"
Sometimes when I pop in my notifications say 2 or 3 responses and I go down the list. Sometimes it says 18 responses :shock: and I miss some.
You frequently go out of way to at least partially concede a point I'm trying to make so I'm going to go way out on limb here and guess that you'll agree that Letitia Freaking James at least LOOKS biased against Trump.
I am genuinely :lmao: here.

Prosecutors appear "biased" against defendants on the time. Hell, I've had prosecutors tell me after an acquittal or a good plea bargain reached due to some evidentiary issues in my favor that my client(s) better not give them a reason to prosecute them again. There's nothing inherently unlawful about this "bias" if the evidence is then there.
Sure but have you had a prosecutor lose their ever loving mind and run on a campaign of getting your client?
Ugh yes. Ever heard of Al Capone and Elliott Ness?
 

Zow

Footballguy
My GB NB clearly has me on ignore!!!
LOL I don't - but I was going to respond to the post above something along the lines of "If I ignored BB he prob wouldn't mind"
Sometimes when I pop in my notifications say 2 or 3 responses and I go down the list. Sometimes it says 18 responses :shock: and I miss some.
You frequently go out of way to at least partially concede a point I'm trying to make so I'm going to go way out on limb here and guess that you'll agree that Letitia Freaking James at least LOOKS biased against Trump.
I am genuinely :lmao: here.

Prosecutors appear "biased" against defendants on the time. Hell, I've had prosecutors tell me after an acquittal or a good plea bargain reached due to some evidentiary issues in my favor that my client(s) better not give them a reason to prosecute them again. There's nothing inherently unlawful about this "bias" if the evidence is then there.
Sure but have you had a prosecutor lose their ever loving mind and run on a campaign of getting your client?
Yes.
 
My GB NB clearly has me on ignore!!!
LOL I don't - but I was going to respond to the post above something along the lines of "If I ignored BB he prob wouldn't mind"
Sometimes when I pop in my notifications say 2 or 3 responses and I go down the list. Sometimes it says 18 responses :shock: and I miss some.
You frequently go out of way to at least partially concede a point I'm trying to make so I'm going to go way out on limb here and guess that you'll agree that Letitia Freaking James at least LOOKS biased against Trump.
I am genuinely :lmao: here.

Prosecutors appear "biased" against defendants on the time. Hell, I've had prosecutors tell me after an acquittal or a good plea bargain reached due to some evidentiary issues in my favor that my client(s) better not give them a reason to prosecute them again. There's nothing inherently unlawful about this "bias" if the evidence is then there.
Sure but have you had a prosecutor lose their ever loving mind and run on a campaign of getting your client?
Ugh yes. Ever heard of Al Capone and Elliott Ness?
:confused: Yes. Why?
 
My GB NB clearly has me on ignore!!!
LOL I don't - but I was going to respond to the post above something along the lines of "If I ignored BB he prob wouldn't mind"
Sometimes when I pop in my notifications say 2 or 3 responses and I go down the list. Sometimes it says 18 responses :shock: and I miss some.
You frequently go out of way to at least partially concede a point I'm trying to make so I'm going to go way out on limb here and guess that you'll agree that Letitia Freaking James at least LOOKS biased against Trump.
I am genuinely :lmao: here.

Prosecutors appear "biased" against defendants on the time. Hell, I've had prosecutors tell me after an acquittal or a good plea bargain reached due to some evidentiary issues in my favor that my client(s) better not give them a reason to prosecute them again. There's nothing inherently unlawful about this "bias" if the evidence is then there.
Sure but have you had a prosecutor lose their ever loving mind and run on a campaign of getting your client?
Yes.
:bs:
 

Sabertooth

Footballguy
This is another episode of just the weirdest pattern from the left. They think they have a case against Trump and then proceed in the worst possible way imaginable. The sham impeachments, the J6 show trial, and now . . . . Letitia Freaking James :lmao: AYFKM Is there anyone with LESS credibility when it comes to Trump? Like NO ONE could step up and say "Maybe we should let someone else take this. We'd like to at least APPEAR to be legit."
It has not mattered if it was a Trump appointed judge, or a republican secretary of state, or a life long conservative FBI director, or whoever else. Every single time, it is not Trump that matters to you all, it is who the other people are. At some point, aren't you all going to come to the realization that Trump is not a good person and a complete fraud?
Reminds me of when the Congresswoman from MI (I think) said "We're going to impeach the MFer" on day one. And when they impeached the MFer I pointed out that was the agenda from day one. Maybe the answer to the question "Why didn't they go with someone who's not so clearly tainted with a well documented bias against Trump" is simply there isn't anyone on the left who isn't.
Lol. Poor Donald Trump.
 

-fish-

Footballguy
Here's the Complaint.

This strikes me as extremely ambitious with more than a little grandstanding mixed in, but I wish her good luck in her pursuits.
She has Deutsche Bank and Alan Weisselberg cooperating. Trump Organization's CFO and its lender on over 200 transactions agree that the Trump crime syndicate committed fraud, and they have the receipts.

Why would Deutsche Bank "cooperate" in a civil fraud suit when they could just sue him themselves? If I were a lender, I'd much rather sue him myself rather than rely on the NY AG's office to recover funds and reimburse me.

I'm actually working on a case that has similar elements to this one.

1. If the valuation of certain properties were relevant to receive favorable interest rates, the financial institutions would do their own independent valuations of the properties.

2. Trump had a PWM account with Deutsche Bank so they would have done extensive due diligence on his financials, done compliance and AML checks and had extensive background checks run in order to open the account.

I suspect that once discovery is over for Deutsche Bank records, they'll find that any red flags that the AG noted in the Complaint were known to Deutsche Bank and they proceeded anyway.

It seems suspicious to me that the AG would bring this case for inflated valuations to get favorable interest rates on loans that are current.
If you read the complaint, Deutsche Bank became concerned about the false valuations based on the ongoing investigations of the Trump Organization by the OAG. They demanded backup/explanation and received nothing. Even if they did extensive due diligence, it wouldn't have uncovered the fact that the Trump Organization was lying to its own accountants, who in turn prepared the financial statements that the organization used to get loans.

If Deutsche Bank is uncomfortable with documentation from a loan applicant, then Deutsche bank is responsible to delay approval of the loan until such time that they receive comfort. It's called due diligence.
I understand that, but it misses the point, which is the question of why Deutsche Bank would cooperate with the AG. You may well be right that they knew or should have known that Trump's financials were fraudulent. That is certainly an argument that Trump's lawyers can try to make (and sounds very Trumpy--"You should have known our numbers were fake"). That doesn't really change anything about the AG's case, or why Deutsche Bank is cooperating.
 

-fish-

Footballguy
This is another episode of just the weirdest pattern from the left. They think they have a case against Trump and then proceed in the worst possible way imaginable. The sham impeachments, the J6 show trial, and now . . . . Letitia Freaking James :lmao: AYFKM Is there anyone with LESS credibility when it comes to Trump? Like NO ONE could step up and say "Maybe we should let someone else take this. We'd like to at least APPEAR to be legit."
It has not mattered if it was a Trump appointed judge, or a republican secretary of state, or a life long conservative FBI director, or whoever else. Every single time, it is not Trump that matters to you all, it is who the other people are. At some point, aren't you all going to come to the realization that Trump is not a good person and a complete fraud?
Reminds me of when the Congresswoman from MI (I think) said "We're going to impeach the MFer" on day one. And when they impeached the MFer I pointed out that was the agenda from day one. Maybe the answer to the question "Why didn't they go with someone who's not so clearly tainted with a well documented bias against Trump" is simply there isn't anyone on the left who isn't.
Well, luckily for trump et al (I suspect it will not be lucky though) the facts and evidence in the trial will speak for themselves. The motivation of whoever brings the case is irrelevant to a determination of the issues on the merits.

Your fixation on the motive for why Trump is attacked from all sides, usually cursorily explained with pure conjecture, gives away your bias. You never focus on the facts or evidence. Even when the evidence is damming and being given by republicans.
I disagree. In the J6 thread I stated that if he's guilty of treason, insurrection, etc he should be charged with that. But even if you were correct, it wouldn't be relevant. My observation was about the AG and this pattern by the left.
Of course...in doing so you try to limit it to treason or insurrection rather than the full scope of what is being discussed in that thread and by the committee.
You have it backwards. The left was claiming insurrection and is now broadening to anything they can dig up.
Now "the left" can see into the future, too. The investigations relating to this bank fraud began before Trump's attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
 
This is another episode of just the weirdest pattern from the left. They think they have a case against Trump and then proceed in the worst possible way imaginable. The sham impeachments, the J6 show trial, and now . . . . Letitia Freaking James :lmao: AYFKM Is there anyone with LESS credibility when it comes to Trump? Like NO ONE could step up and say "Maybe we should let someone else take this. We'd like to at least APPEAR to be legit."
It has not mattered if it was a Trump appointed judge, or a republican secretary of state, or a life long conservative FBI director, or whoever else. Every single time, it is not Trump that matters to you all, it is who the other people are. At some point, aren't you all going to come to the realization that Trump is not a good person and a complete fraud?
Reminds me of when the Congresswoman from MI (I think) said "We're going to impeach the MFer" on day one. And when they impeached the MFer I pointed out that was the agenda from day one. Maybe the answer to the question "Why didn't they go with someone who's not so clearly tainted with a well documented bias against Trump" is simply there isn't anyone on the left who isn't.
Well, luckily for trump et al (I suspect it will not be lucky though) the facts and evidence in the trial will speak for themselves. The motivation of whoever brings the case is irrelevant to a determination of the issues on the merits.

Your fixation on the motive for why Trump is attacked from all sides, usually cursorily explained with pure conjecture, gives away your bias. You never focus on the facts or evidence. Even when the evidence is damming and being given by republicans.
I disagree. In the J6 thread I stated that if he's guilty of treason, insurrection, etc he should be charged with that. But even if you were correct, it wouldn't be relevant. My observation was about the AG and this pattern by the left.
Of course...in doing so you try to limit it to treason or insurrection rather than the full scope of what is being discussed in that thread and by the committee.
You have it backwards. The left was claiming insurrection and is now broadening to anything they can dig up.
Now "the left" can see into the future, too. The investigations relating to this bank fraud began before Trump's attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
Yeah she's amazing.
 

Dickies

Footballguy
This is another episode of just the weirdest pattern from the left. They think they have a case against Trump and then proceed in the worst possible way imaginable. The sham impeachments, the J6 show trial, and now . . . . Letitia Freaking James :lmao: AYFKM Is there anyone with LESS credibility when it comes to Trump? Like NO ONE could step up and say "Maybe we should let someone else take this. We'd like to at least APPEAR to be legit."
It has not mattered if it was a Trump appointed judge, or a republican secretary of state, or a life long conservative FBI director, or whoever else. Every single time, it is not Trump that matters to you all, it is who the other people are. At some point, aren't you all going to come to the realization that Trump is not a good person and a complete fraud?
Reminds me of when the Congresswoman from MI (I think) said "We're going to impeach the MFer" on day one. And when they impeached the MFer I pointed out that was the agenda from day one. Maybe the answer to the question "Why didn't they go with someone who's not so clearly tainted with a well documented bias against Trump" is simply there isn't anyone on the left who isn't.
You should ask yourself the question "Why didn't they impeach him on day one?"
 
This is another episode of just the weirdest pattern from the left. They think they have a case against Trump and then proceed in the worst possible way imaginable. The sham impeachments, the J6 show trial, and now . . . . Letitia Freaking James :lmao: AYFKM Is there anyone with LESS credibility when it comes to Trump? Like NO ONE could step up and say "Maybe we should let someone else take this. We'd like to at least APPEAR to be legit."
It has not mattered if it was a Trump appointed judge, or a republican secretary of state, or a life long conservative FBI director, or whoever else. Every single time, it is not Trump that matters to you all, it is who the other people are. At some point, aren't you all going to come to the realization that Trump is not a good person and a complete fraud?
Reminds me of when the Congresswoman from MI (I think) said "We're going to impeach the MFer" on day one. And when they impeached the MFer I pointed out that was the agenda from day one. Maybe the answer to the question "Why didn't they go with someone who's not so clearly tainted with a well documented bias against Trump" is simply there isn't anyone on the left who isn't.
You should ask yourself the question "Why didn't they impeach him on day one?"
That would actually be a good question for you to ask yourself.
 

Snotbubbles

Footballguy
Here's the Complaint.

This strikes me as extremely ambitious with more than a little grandstanding mixed in, but I wish her good luck in her pursuits.
She has Deutsche Bank and Alan Weisselberg cooperating. Trump Organization's CFO and its lender on over 200 transactions agree that the Trump crime syndicate committed fraud, and they have the receipts.

Why would Deutsche Bank "cooperate" in a civil fraud suit when they could just sue him themselves? If I were a lender, I'd much rather sue him myself rather than rely on the NY AG's office to recover funds and reimburse me.

I'm actually working on a case that has similar elements to this one.

1. If the valuation of certain properties were relevant to receive favorable interest rates, the financial institutions would do their own independent valuations of the properties.

2. Trump had a PWM account with Deutsche Bank so they would have done extensive due diligence on his financials, done compliance and AML checks and had extensive background checks run in order to open the account.

I suspect that once discovery is over for Deutsche Bank records, they'll find that any red flags that the AG noted in the Complaint were known to Deutsche Bank and they proceeded anyway.

It seems suspicious to me that the AG would bring this case for inflated valuations to get favorable interest rates on loans that are current.
If you read the complaint, Deutsche Bank became concerned about the false valuations based on the ongoing investigations of the Trump Organization by the OAG. They demanded backup/explanation and received nothing. Even if they did extensive due diligence, it wouldn't have uncovered the fact that the Trump Organization was lying to its own accountants, who in turn prepared the financial statements that the organization used to get loans.

If Deutsche Bank is uncomfortable with documentation from a loan applicant, then Deutsche bank is responsible to delay approval of the loan until such time that they receive comfort. It's called due diligence.
I understand that, but it misses the point, which is the question of why Deutsche Bank would cooperate with the AG. You may well be right that they knew or should have known that Trump's financials were fraudulent. That is certainly an argument that Trump's lawyers can try to make (and sounds very Trumpy--"You should have known our numbers were fake"). That doesn't really change anything about the AG's case, or why Deutsche Bank is cooperating.

Why wouldn't they cooperate? What would be the reasoning for them to refuse to release their records or have their employees submit to depositions? I don't think they have any privilege to assert here. DB isn't an adverse party to the AG.

The argument the Trump lawyers would make is that if the real estate valuation of the properties were necessary and relevant to the approval of any loan then DB would/should have sought an independent valuations to verify the valuations Trump submitted. Another argument they'll make is that real estate valuations are merely estimates based on comps and that the Trump properties are unique either in location or amenities or some other factors and thus you can't use the comps that the AG wants to use.

Good luck to the NY AG, IMO she'll need it.
 

Zow

Footballguy
My GB NB clearly has me on ignore!!!
LOL I don't - but I was going to respond to the post above something along the lines of "If I ignored BB he prob wouldn't mind"
Sometimes when I pop in my notifications say 2 or 3 responses and I go down the list. Sometimes it says 18 responses :shock: and I miss some.
You frequently go out of way to at least partially concede a point I'm trying to make so I'm going to go way out on limb here and guess that you'll agree that Letitia Freaking James at least LOOKS biased against Trump.
I am genuinely :lmao: here.

Prosecutors appear "biased" against defendants on the time. Hell, I've had prosecutors tell me after an acquittal or a good plea bargain reached due to some evidentiary issues in my favor that my client(s) better not give them a reason to prosecute them again. There's nothing inherently unlawful about this "bias" if the evidence is then there.
Sure but have you had a prosecutor lose their ever loving mind and run on a campaign of getting your client?
Yes.
:bs:
I can't link it for obvious reasons. You're free to choose to believe what you want. :shrug:
 

SWC

Bromigo
so if deutschbank was loosey goosey with trump and looked the other way on shady numbers with him but played hardball with other debtors on numbers is that something that deutschbank could be sued or sanctioned over thanks guys take that to the bank bromigos
 

Desert_Power

Footballguy

(HULK)

(Smash)
wait. this is a civil case? lol. I know it was said earlier. "WE GOT HIM NOW"
Yeah, I'm kinda disappointed. Since they found tax documents that were subpoenaed during the raid that he claimed he didn't have and diligently searched for, they could charge him with obstruction, and I wish they would.
WOW, first I'm hearing of this.
Trump's been publicly saying it for weeks.

Those records were subpoenaed in this case and by Congress in their case and he didn't turn them over to either group. He's basically been publicly admitting his obstruction in his whining about what they took.
 

quick-hands

Footballguy
wait. this is a civil case? lol. I know it was said earlier. "WE GOT HIM NOW"
Yeah, I'm kinda disappointed. Since they found tax documents that were subpoenaed during the raid that he claimed he didn't have and diligently searched for, they could charge him with obstruction, and I wish they would.
WOW, first I'm hearing of this.
Trump's been publicly saying it for weeks.

Those records were subpoenaed in this case and by Congress in their case and he didn't turn them over to either group. He's basically been publicly admitting his obstruction in his whining about what they took.
he will never wiggle off this hook. I'm sure the fine will be punishing .... like "1 million dollars".

Also I understand they have a special fbi agent Allen Parsons leading the investigation into this case and it's named the "Allen Parsons project".
 

Amused to Death

Footballguy
I’m curious to see how this plays out since he can’t just fall back on pleading the fifth hundreds of times
Nope, and the hundreds of times he did plead the fifth can now be used against him as an admission of guilt.
the fine will be devastating I'm sure.
Its not so much the fine, its the inability to do business in NY and the loss of licenses. Plus, good luck getting loans in the future. And the possibility that any outstanding loans get called.

Its essentially the business death sentence.
 

quick-hands

Footballguy
I’m curious to see how this plays out since he can’t just fall back on pleading the fifth hundreds of times
Nope, and the hundreds of times he did plead the fifth can now be used against him as an admission of guilt.
the fine will be devastating I'm sure.
Its not so much the fine, its the inability to do business in NY and the loss of licenses. Plus, good luck getting loans in the future. And the possibility that any outstanding loans get called.

Its essentially the business death sentence.
does trump only do business in New York? how many times has a civil conviction without a criminal prosecution end in banning? especially when loans have been repaid and everyone was made whole?

but it is the people's state of New York. so maybe you will get your pound of flesh.
 

Amused to Death

Footballguy
I’m curious to see how this plays out since he can’t just fall back on pleading the fifth hundreds of times
Nope, and the hundreds of times he did plead the fifth can now be used against him as an admission of guilt.
the fine will be devastating I'm sure.
Its not so much the fine, its the inability to do business in NY and the loss of licenses. Plus, good luck getting loans in the future. And the possibility that any outstanding loans get called.

Its essentially the business death sentence.
does trump only do business in New York? how many times has a civil conviction without a criminal prosecution end in banning? especially when loans have been repaid and everyone was made whole?

but it is the people's state of New York. so maybe you will get your pound of flesh.
In conjunction with the lawsuit, OAG has referred the matter to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for criminal investigation.
 

quick-hands

Footballguy
I’m curious to see how this plays out since he can’t just fall back on pleading the fifth hundreds of times
Nope, and the hundreds of times he did plead the fifth can now be used against him as an admission of guilt.
the fine will be devastating I'm sure.
Its not so much the fine, its the inability to do business in NY and the loss of licenses. Plus, good luck getting loans in the future. And the possibility that any outstanding loans get called.

Its essentially the business death sentence.
does trump only do business in New York? how many times has a civil conviction without a criminal prosecution end in banning? especially when loans have been repaid and everyone was made whole?

but it is the people's state of New York. so maybe you will get your pound of flesh.
In conjunction with the lawsuit, OAG has referred the matter to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for criminal investigation.
Looks like the eye in the sky has him now.
 

Amused to Death

Footballguy
I’m curious to see how this plays out since he can’t just fall back on pleading the fifth hundreds of times
Nope, and the hundreds of times he did plead the fifth can now be used against him as an admission of guilt.
the fine will be devastating I'm sure.
Its not so much the fine, its the inability to do business in NY and the loss of licenses. Plus, good luck getting loans in the future. And the possibility that any outstanding loans get called.

Its essentially the business death sentence.
does trump only do business in New York? how many times has a civil conviction without a criminal prosecution end in banning? especially when loans have been repaid and everyone was made whole?

but it is the people's state of New York. so maybe you will get your pound of flesh.
In conjunction with the lawsuit, OAG has referred the matter to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for criminal investigation.
Looks like the eye in the sky has him now.
I'm sure yesterday was not a good day for Donald and the Trump family. His former CFO has plead guilty to 15 felonies and is cooperating with the investigations.
 

quick-hands

Footballguy
I’m curious to see how this plays out since he can’t just fall back on pleading the fifth hundreds of times
Nope, and the hundreds of times he did plead the fifth can now be used against him as an admission of guilt.
the fine will be devastating I'm sure.
Its not so much the fine, its the inability to do business in NY and the loss of licenses. Plus, good luck getting loans in the future. And the possibility that any outstanding loans get called.

Its essentially the business death sentence.
does trump only do business in New York? how many times has a civil conviction without a criminal prosecution end in banning? especially when loans have been repaid and everyone was made whole?

but it is the people's state of New York. so maybe you will get your pound of flesh.
In conjunction with the lawsuit, OAG has referred the matter to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for criminal investigation.
Looks like the eye in the sky has him now.
I'm sure yesterday was not a good day for Donald and the Trump family. His former CFO has plead guilty to 15 felonies and is cooperating with the investigations.
good news.....you got him
 
I’m curious to see how this plays out since he can’t just fall back on pleading the fifth hundreds of times
Nope, and the hundreds of times he did plead the fifth can now be used against him as an admission of guilt.
the fine will be devastating I'm sure.
Its not so much the fine, its the inability to do business in NY and the loss of licenses. Plus, good luck getting loans in the future. And the possibility that any outstanding loans get called.

Its essentially the business death sentence.
does trump only do business in New York? how many times has a civil conviction without a criminal prosecution end in banning? especially when loans have been repaid and everyone was made whole?.
They don't really care about any of that. They just don't want him to run in 24.
 

(HULK)

(Smash)
I’m curious to see how this plays out since he can’t just fall back on pleading the fifth hundreds of times
Nope, and the hundreds of times he did plead the fifth can now be used against him as an admission of guilt.
the fine will be devastating I'm sure.
Its not so much the fine, its the inability to do business in NY and the loss of licenses. Plus, good luck getting loans in the future. And the possibility that any outstanding loans get called.

Its essentially the business death sentence.
does trump only do business in New York? how many times has a civil conviction without a criminal prosecution end in banning? especially when loans have been repaid and everyone was made whole?.
They don't really care about any of that. They just don't want him to run in 24.
I've been very clear that I want him held accountable for his crimes so that they are not repeated.
 

quick-hands

Footballguy
I’m curious to see how this plays out since he can’t just fall back on pleading the fifth hundreds of times
Nope, and the hundreds of times he did plead the fifth can now be used against him as an admission of guilt.
the fine will be devastating I'm sure.
Its not so much the fine, its the inability to do business in NY and the loss of licenses. Plus, good luck getting loans in the future. And the possibility that any outstanding loans get called.

Its essentially the business death sentence.
does trump only do business in New York? how many times has a civil conviction without a criminal prosecution end in banning? especially when loans have been repaid and everyone was made whole?.
They don't really care about any of that. They just don't want him to run in 24.
I've been very clear that I want him held accountable for his crimes so that they are not repeated.
you mean civil infractions?
 

(HULK)

(Smash)
I’m curious to see how this plays out since he can’t just fall back on pleading the fifth hundreds of times
Nope, and the hundreds of times he did plead the fifth can now be used against him as an admission of guilt.
the fine will be devastating I'm sure.
Its not so much the fine, its the inability to do business in NY and the loss of licenses. Plus, good luck getting loans in the future. And the possibility that any outstanding loans get called.

Its essentially the business death sentence.
does trump only do business in New York? how many times has a civil conviction without a criminal prosecution end in banning? especially when loans have been repaid and everyone was made whole?.
They don't really care about any of that. They just don't want him to run in 24.
I've been very clear that I want him held accountable for his crimes so that they are not repeated.
you mean civil infractions?
No, I'm referring to crimes other threads are tracking. My main beef is breaking laws to attempt to overturn the 2020 election, and that's followed by the mishandling of state secrets. Both deserve hard prison time.
 

2Squirrels1Nut

Footballguy
wait. this is a civil case? lol. I know it was said earlier. "WE GOT HIM NOW"
Yeah, I'm kinda disappointed. Since they found tax documents that were subpoenaed during the raid that he claimed he didn't have and diligently searched for, they could charge him with obstruction, and I wish they would.
WOW, first I'm hearing of this.
Trump's been publicly saying it for weeks.

Those records were subpoenaed in this case and by Congress in their case and he didn't turn them over to either group. He's basically been publicly admitting his obstruction in his whining about what they took.
Yes, I read where the case was dismissed against him because he said he didn't have the files. That they recovered them would be a huge deal if it were anyone other than Trump. Serious jail time huge deal.
 

quick-hands

Footballguy
wait. this is a civil case? lol. I know it was said earlier. "WE GOT HIM NOW"
Yeah, I'm kinda disappointed. Since they found tax documents that were subpoenaed during the raid that he claimed he didn't have and diligently searched for, they could charge him with obstruction, and I wish they would.
WOW, first I'm hearing of this.
Trump's been publicly saying it for weeks.

Those records were subpoenaed in this case and by Congress in their case and he didn't turn them over to either group. He's basically been publicly admitting his obstruction in his whining about what they took.
Yes, I read where the case was dismissed against him because he said he didn't have the files. That they recovered them would be a huge deal if it were anyone other than Trump. Serious jail time huge deal.
they....got....him



now???
 

Genxersrule

Footballguy
TDS.
Its a convenient excuse to never hold him accountable for anything.
It’s more doing whatever it takes to find anything. The country is going to hell, but Trump.
So ignore Trump because years of wasteful spending, money printing, tax cuts for the rich, a pandemic, and Putin's folly have finally started to have an impact on the economy?

Bro, sometimes the economy sucks and you just have to ride it out. At least everyone has jobs. The economy can't be perfect 100% of the time.

Tell me that at least you're happy that this president isn't constantly cry tweeting and putting pressure on the Fed to not raise rates. That Biden is letting the pain come even though many uninformed folks will blame him for the bad economic times. The former president would have NEVER let that happen.
 
Last edited:

sho nuff

Footballguy
TDS.
Its a convenient excuse to never hold him accountable for anything.
It’s more doing whatever it takes to find anything. The country is going to hell, but Trump.
He is part of the reason why it is...or a personification of it...
Its really just a nonsense way of avoiding talking about his many legal and moral issues without ever having to admit he was that bad. Just claim everyone else is delusional.
 

FairWarning

Footballguy
TDS.
Its a convenient excuse to never hold him accountable for anything.
It’s more doing whatever it takes to find anything. The country is going to hell, but Trump.
So ignore Trump because years of wasteful spending, money printing, tax cuts for the rich, a pandemic, and Putin's folly have finally started to have an impact on the economy?

Bro, sometimes the economy sucks and you just have to ride it out. At least everyone has jobs. The economy can't be perfect 100% of the time.

Tell me that at least you're happy that this president isn't constantly cry tweeting and putting pressure on the Fed to not raise rates. That Biden is letting the pain come even though many uninformed folks will blame him for the bad economic times. The former president would have NEVER let that happen.
TDS.
Its a convenient excuse to never hold him accountable for anything.
It’s more doing whatever it takes to find anything. The country is going to hell, but Trump.
He is part of the reason why it is...or a personification of it...
Its really just a nonsense way of avoiding talking about his many legal and moral issues without ever having to admit he was that bad. Just claim everyone else is delusional.
Everyone else - including trump is delusional.

Back to what was taken out of his house.
 

2Squirrels1Nut

Footballguy

FairWarning

Footballguy
TDS.
Its a convenient excuse to never hold him accountable for anything.
It’s more doing whatever it takes to find anything. The country is going to hell, but Trump.
Country IS going to hell -- the Trump cult is a large part of the problem.

How is that trillion dollar tax handout for the richest people in the country going? Still paying for themselves? Oh, I forgot, that's different
I think we have determined that it wasn’t just for the 1% ers. It’s working as well as wiping out student loan debt to people making $100k.
 

JIslander

Footballguy
TDS.
Its a convenient excuse to never hold him accountable for anything.
It’s more doing whatever it takes to find anything. The country is going to hell, but Trump.
Country IS going to hell -- the Trump cult is a large part of the problem.
Can’t disagree. How is this affecting our day to day life though?
Well, Democracy stability aside, for starters, if you're a young woman, Trumps 3 SCOTUS picks and RvW has greatly impacted many day to day.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top