Trump INDICTED

[thegeneral 3,100]

28 minutes ago, RogerDodger said:

 

 

Alphas post memes

Do you share them on Facebook?

[thegeneral 3,100]

59 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

I remember someone cared enough to try and make a bet, and said "put your money where your mouth is" only to run away when it was accepted.  Remember that?

[RogerDodger 797]

59 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

I remember someone cared enough to try and make a bet, and said "put your money where your mouth is" only to run away when it was accepted.  Remember that?

What is another thing no one outside of you TDS/ Low T betas and drunk liberal housewives GAF?  Rage on.  

[RogerDodger 797]

1 hour ago, The Real timschochet said:

Rodger is just a big pu$$y. Why do you bother? 

Someone mentions drunk liberal housewife and Tim shows up. 

[shadrap 226]

14 hours ago, squistion said:

 

  14 hours ago, squistion said:

The lenders and insurers the Trump family business lied to about the value of their properties in order to secure more favorable terms.

ah okay, how were they damaged?  explain please.  this should be good.

 

Yo Squid, you ever come up with who & how people were damaged?   no quick talking points from your alt left twitter??

[Tree of Knowledge 1,799]

1 hour ago, shadrap said:

  14 hours ago, squistion said:

The lenders and insurers the Trump family business lied to about the value of their properties in order to secure more favorable terms.

ah okay, how were they damaged?  explain please.  this should be good.

 

Yo Squid, you ever come up with who & how people were damaged?   no quick talking points from your alt left twitter??

Kyle Griffin has a restraining order against Squidward 

[RogerDodger 797]

Of course

 

 

 

 

[squistion 2,108]

17 hours ago, shadrap said:

ah okay, how were they damaged?  explain please.  this should be good.

They wouldn't have made the loans or issued insurance if they hadn't been defrauded. 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,238]

7 minutes ago, squistion said:

They wouldn't have made the loans or issued insurance if they hadn't been defrauded. 

The loans they profited from? The question was how were they harmed. Try again. 

[squistion 2,108]

2 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

The loans they profited from? The question was how were they harmed. Try again. 

It still constituted fraud as the judge ruled. It is not a defense to fraud that person defrauded may have benefited from it.

When the judge makes the ruling on the damages I am sure he will go into the details of that.

And if Trump doesn't like the findings of the judge, then he should have requested a jury trial, that he opted not to do. 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,238]

7 minutes ago, squistion said:

It still constituted fraud as the judge ruled. It is not a defense to fraud that person defrauded may have benefited from it.

When the judge makes the ruling on the damages I am sure he will go into the details of that.

And if Trump doesn't like the findings of the judge, then he should have requested a jury trial, that he opted not to do. 

So not harmed.  Nice job. 

[squistion 2,108]

3 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

So not harmed.  Nice job. 

They may have been, but it not a valid defense, and if it were, Trump could have requested a jury trial and had his attorney's argue that he should be acquitted for that reason.

[MDC 7,275]

Keep going squition. He’s almost there.  

[Tree of Knowledge 1,799]

1 hour ago, RogerDodger said:

Of course

 

 

 

 

Should be disqualified.  Obviously, he has many Trump in prison fetish fantasies.   

[shadrap 226]

23 hours ago, squistion said:

They wouldn't have made the loans or issued insurance if they hadn't been defrauded. 

as usual your stance is predicated on your politics & in this instance is idiotic.  No surprise.  For your information any loan backed by property is appraised by the borrower & by the LENDER.  Lender found no problem with the appraisal, thus granted the loan.  Trump paid back the loan with interest.  anyone that sees this as anything more than a political hit job is severely deluded.

[Dozer FBG 325]

Ivanka Trump's testimony in Trump Organization fraud trial is complete.
 

The New York Attorney General's office rests its case.

Defense goes next…

[Dozer FBG 325]

Law&Crime Article by Brandi Buchman

Trump must tell court when he will invoke potentially risky, delay-ridden ‘advice of counsel’ defense: Judge

Highlights:

In a 3-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan ordered Trump to finally declare whether he intends to use an “advice of counsel” defense at his criminal trial in the nation’s capital no later than Jan. 15, 2024.
 

By invoking an advice of counsel defense, Trump would automatically waive attorney-client privilege for all of the communications concerning his defense. That means the government would then be entitled to additional discovery.

In her ruling Wednesday, Chutkan underlined that there are no local or federal criminal rules that require advance notice for the advice of counsel defense.

“But,” she wrote, “because waiting until trial to invoke the defense — and comply with the disclosure obligations it triggers — could cause disruption and delay…”

 

This judge is not F-ing around.

 

 

[Engorgeous George 2,274]

On 11/7/2023 at 8:55 AM, RogerDodger said:

Of course

 

 

 

 

Pretty spry for an old guy.  Not super "judicial" in my estimation, but not outside any boundaries if that is as far as it goes.

[Engorgeous George 2,274]

On 11/7/2023 at 10:26 AM, squistion said:

They may have been, but it not a valid defense, and if it were, Trump could have requested a jury trial and had his attorney's argue that he should be acquitted for that reason.

I was under the impression that this charge did not qualify for a jury.  I myself have not looked into that.  I will not be looking into it as new York is one of those jurisdictions which used to be called "Field code" states, like Louisianna.  Their procedural rules are a bit arcane and sometimes different from other states and i understqand researching provisions in N.Y. law can be tgricky for those unaccostumed to doing so which I certainly am.

 

I know the issue was bandied about a few weeks back by experts.  i did not follow that discussion.  If anyone has a definitive link I would appreciate it.

[thegeneral 3,100]

27 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

Pretty spry for an old guy.  Not super "judicial" in my estimation, but not outside any boundaries if that is as far as it goes.

Many Geeks love “researching” such sites!

[Hardcore troubadour 15,238]

43 minutes ago, Dozer FBG said:

Law&Crime Article by Brandi Buchman

Trump must tell court when he will invoke potentially risky, delay-ridden ‘advice of counsel’ defense: Judge

Highlights:

In a 3-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan ordered Trump to finally declare whether he intends to use an “advice of counsel” defense at his criminal trial in the nation’s capital no later than Jan. 15, 2024.
 

By invoking an advice of counsel defense, Trump would automatically waive attorney-client privilege for all of the communications concerning his defense. That means the government would then be entitled to additional discovery.

In her ruling Wednesday, Chutkan underlined that there are no local or federal criminal rules that require advance notice for the advice of counsel defense.

“But,” she wrote, “because waiting until trial to invoke the defense — and comply with the disclosure obligations it triggers — could cause disruption and delay…”

 

This judge is not F-ing around.

 

 

So she says an advance notice isn’t required but she’s going to require it. Now you know why this unqualified diversity hire gets many of her cases overturned.  

[Dozer FBG 325]

Politico Article by Kyle Cheney

Echoes of Jan. 6 committee as Jack Smith foreshadows plan to tie Trump to Capitol riot
 

And a thread on it…

Jack Smith has tipped his hand. The Jan. 6 violence won’t just be a side note at Donald Trump’s D.C. trial — it’s the heart of the case, the last desperate tool of a man bent on seizing power at any cost. 
 

There are risks, of course, with this strategy. Trump has long disclaimed responsibility for the violence and judges have repeatedly ruled that despite his lies and moral responsibility, he never explicitly told rioters to break the law.
 

But Smith plans to show at trial that Trump’s knowledge of the riot while it was ongoing — his stoking of an angry crowd and his post-Jan 6 whitewashing of its conduct — proves he intended to use the mob’s chaos to advance his conspiracies to stay in power.

[RLLD 4,192]

I might caution all of us to really consider the abuses of the DOJ with regard to Trump.  Keep in mind that all of these moves set something of a precedent.  Trump will eventually go away and not threaten the power of the elites.....but these legal manuevers could come back to haunt us later, as they happily extend them to even those who might peacefully object to the actions of the powerful.

If you cannot see just how dangerous these abuses of legal power are......then I guess you get what you deserve....

[IGotWorms 4,057]

30 minutes ago, RLLD said:

I might caution all of us to really consider the abuses of the DOJ with regard to Trump.  Keep in mind that all of these moves set something of a precedent.  Trump will eventually go away and not threaten the power of the elites.....but these legal manuevers could come back to haunt us later, as they happily extend them to even those who might peacefully object to the actions of the powerful.

If you cannot see just how dangerous these abuses of legal power are......then I guess you get what you deserve....

I agree, there’s definitely a lot of risk.

Same with the efforts to keep him off the ballot under the 14th amendment.

But he did try to overthrow the government when he lost a democratic election. It does not get much more serious than that. 

[RLLD 4,192]

2 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

I agree, there’s definitely a lot of risk.

Same with the efforts to keep him off the ballot under the 14th amendment.

But he did try to overthrow the government when he lost a democratic election. It does not get much more serious than that. 

I get that you believe that, and I alsdo understand that many others also share that belief.  But that is simply not true, now you have been sold this idea by the Democrats and their allies in the media because its politically useful.  But its just not true.

Now, if the elites can fabricate a reason and sell it and eliminate their political opponents in this manner, we really have a larger problem here. All of this, ALL of it...to include the eggregious legal activities has one goal.....to eliminate Trump as a candidate...and they really are not even trying to hide this....

So......do we allow a political party to do this to our electoral system?   Because now that the Democrats are doing it.....you can rest assured the door is now open for the Republicans to do it back to them.... abusing our systems to achieve politically-centric outcomes is losing....JMHO

[IGotWorms 4,057]

Just now, RLLD said:

I get that you believe that, and I alsdo understand that many others also share that belief.  But that is simply not true, now you have been sold this idea by the Democrats and their allies in the media because its politically useful.  But its just not true.

Now, if the elites can fabricate a reason and sell it and eliminate their political opponents in this manner, we really have a larger problem here. All of this, ALL of it...to include the eggregious legal activities has one goal.....to eliminate Trump as a candidate...and they really are not even trying to hide this....

So......do we allow a political party to do this to our electoral system?   Because now that the Democrats are doing it.....you can rest assured the door is now open for the Republicans to do it back to them.... abusing our systems to achieve politically-centric outcomes is losing....JMHO

Let’s pretend it was true, for argument’s sake.

What would be your opinion then on the prosecutions?

[RLLD 4,192]

2 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Let’s pretend it was true, for argument’s sake.

What would be your opinion then on the prosecutions?

They should proceed full bore, everything is on the table.  I care nothing about Trump, in fact....I might snicker a little if he does go to jail or whatever......what I care about is the unabashed abuse of our systems to do it....

[Mike Honcho 5,250]

On 11/7/2023 at 12:06 PM, Hardcore troubadour said:

The loans they profited from? The question was how were they harmed. Try again. 

Are you referring to the banks...their shareholders were harmed because the bank did not fully profit on the loans made to Trump. In addition anyone who was in competition to buy those properties was at a disadvantage if they could not get equal terms because of the fraud perpetrated by the Trump company and therefore lost out on the opportunity to profit from those properties.  

These laws and fines exist for reasons. Saying the loan was paid back, so it's all right is absurd.  

[RLLD 4,192]

4 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

Are you referring to the banks...their shareholders were harmed because the bank did not fully profit on the loans made to Trump. In addition anyone who was in competition to buy those properties was at a disadvantage if they could not get equal terms because of the fraud perpetrated by the Trump company and therefore lost out on the opportunity to profit from those properties.  

These laws and fines exist for reasons. Saying the loan was paid back, so it's all right is absurd.  

This is a salient point.  This is not the first time this issue has arisen, notably in New York.  So what was done to address this? Fines were levied, and that is it....nothing further.  Now, lets assume for a moment that your points about who was "hurt" are valid, and I am willing to allow that there is some merit to them.

The abuse of this system to eliminate a political opponent is something less than what we should aspire to be. 

[Mike Honcho 5,250]

2 minutes ago, RLLD said:

This is a salient point.  This is not the first time this issue has arisen, notably in New York.  So what was done to address this? Fines were levied, and that is it....nothing further.  Now, lets assume for a moment that your points about who was "hurt" are valid, and I am willing to allow that there is some merit to them.

The abuse of this system to eliminate a political opponent is something less than what we should aspire to be. 

Isn't he only facing fines, why is this a problem then? 

I disagree that it's an abuse of the system to eliminate a political opponent. He and his company have skirted the law for years, he's been involved in 3000+ lawsuits. He had to pay 25M in compensation for fraud due to Trump U. This day was always going to come based on his business practices he has engaged in for DECADES. It's only major news now because he was and is running for president---if not he would have already settled. 

[Engorgeous George 2,274]

20 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

Are you referring to the banks...their shareholders were harmed because the bank did not fully profit on the loans made to Trump. In addition anyone who was in competition to buy those properties was at a disadvantage if they could not get equal terms because of the fraud perpetrated by the Trump company and therefore lost out on the opportunity to profit from those properties.  

These laws and fines exist for reasons. Saying the loan was paid back, so it's all right is absurd.  

This is a far more cogent articulation of the merit of the charges than has been put forth by Latetia James in the months since she charged.  I do not fully ascribed to the premise as the loans do not issue upon application, but upon review of the application by parties with a financial interests to do their due diligence on behalf of their shareholders, but it is some articulation of the rationale and you got my attention, and I am pretty thick-headed.

 

Now, it we can get you to explain to the Packers why turnovers and penalties are bad, and they bought it, that would be appreciated.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,238]

21 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

Are you referring to the banks...their shareholders were harmed because the bank did not fully profit on the loans made to Trump. In addition anyone who was in competition to buy those properties was at a disadvantage if they could not get equal terms because of the fraud perpetrated by the Trump company and therefore lost out on the opportunity to profit from those properties.  

These laws and fines exist for reasons. Saying the loan was paid back, so it's all right is absurd.  

Oh lord.  

[Hardcore troubadour 15,238]

7 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

Isn't he only facing fines, why is this a problem then? 

I disagree that it's an abuse of the system to eliminate a political opponent. He and his company have skirted the law for years, he's been involved in 3000+ lawsuits. He had to pay 25M in compensation for fraud due to Trump U. This day was always going to come based on his business practices he has engaged in for DECADES. It's only major news now because he was and is running for president---if not he would have already settled. 

How many lawsuits against Toll brothers? 

[RLLD 4,192]

5 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

Isn't he only facing fines, why is this a problem then? 

I disagree that it's an abuse of the system to eliminate a political opponent. He and his company have skirted the law for years, he's been involved in 3000+ lawsuits. He had to pay 25M in compensation for fraud due to Trump U. This day was always going to come based on his business practices he has engaged in for DECADES. It's only major news now because he was and is running for president---if not he would have already settled. 

No, he is facing more......

New York Attorney General Letitia James is pressing for penalties of up to $250 million and a permanent ban on all three Trumps owning companies in their home state, among other restrictions.

This is a nuclear option, it is intended to destroy him.  But in reality it is a threat, and if he were to stop pursuing political office....we would see this all go away.  This is all part of the larger effort to find some way to get him out of the race. It is PURELY political, and in fact that DA ran on this....she told everyone this was going to happen, before she was ever elected.....its not good....

[The Real timschochet 6,592]

2 hours ago, RLLD said:

I might caution all of us to really consider the abuses of the DOJ with regard to Trump.  

I would consider them if there were any. But there aren’t, 

[The Real timschochet 6,592]

1 hour ago, RLLD said:

No, he is facing more......

New York Attorney General Letitia James is pressing for penalties of up to $250 million and a permanent ban on all three Trumps owning companies in their home state, among other restrictions.

This is a nuclear option, it is intended to destroy him.  But in reality it is a threat, and if he were to stop pursuing political office....we would see this all go away.  This is all part of the larger effort to find some way to get him out of the race. It is PURELY political, and in fact that DA ran on this....she told everyone this was going to happen, before she was ever elected.....its not good....

No it’s not good, it’s great. 
Yes she ran on this, because Trump was escaping the law BECAUSE he was a politician. That was the abuse. Anybody else would be in prison. She refused to allow him to get away with it. It’s the exact opposite of what you’re saying. 

[The Real timschochet 6,592]

This whole thing about abuse of justice, weaponization of the DOJ is such crap. Nobody has been able to point to a single bit of evidence to back this up. In fact it’s the exact opposite: no one has ever gotten away with this stuff other than Trump. And he’s still treated like no other person facing charges. The way he talked to the judge the other day, so disrespectful. Anyone else would be sitting in jail right now for contempt. 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,238]

2 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

No it’s not good, it’s great. 
Yes she ran on this, because Trump was escaping the law BECAUSE he was a politician. That was the abuse. Anybody else would be in prison. She refused to allow him to get away with it. It’s the exact opposite of what you’re saying. 

These allegations predate his entry into politics, well before. You just say things.  

[The Real timschochet 6,592]

1 hour ago, RLLD said:

and if he were to stop pursuing political office....we would see this all go away. 

And this part is going to be proven false, because after Trump loses the election next year, these cases will continue, and he will be sent to prison. 

[Tree of Knowledge 1,799]

2 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

This whole thing about abuse of justice, weaponization of the DOJ is such crap. Nobody has been able to point to a single bit of evidence to back this up. In fact it’s the exact opposite: no one has ever gotten away with this stuff other than Trump. And he’s still treated like no other person facing charges. The way he talked to the judge the other day, so disrespectful. Anyone else would be sitting in jail right now for contempt. 

Cool story.  Now do Hunter laptop.