Department of Justice opens criminal investigation into NY AG Letitia James

[Meglamaniac 750]

2 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Of course you’d side with the guy that refuses to read 3 pages that will answer his questions and confirm I’m correct.

 

OK

[TimHauck 3,222]

19 minutes ago, Strike said:

Isn't the appeals process still going on in that case?

I will keep this post in mind for initial verdicts on future cases.

[SaintsInDome2006 551]

13 minutes ago, HellToupee said:

RE: The Letitia Peekaboo James Indictment

Wow, 250,000 followers & anonymous. Do you think this person is an American?

[SaintsInDome2006 551]

15 minutes ago, HellToupee said:

We will do to you what you did to us.

Eh actually James claimed Trump Org was using fraudulent valuation policies to the tune of tens of millions of dollars. Trump never faced jail time. - Halligan had claimed that James rented a home she had identified as a secondary property, worth maybe up to a few mortgage points, with a penalty of decades in jail.

[Tree of Knowledge 2,066]

29 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

Hold the phone. tim says she broke no laws.  None.  Even if the grand jury indicted her.   So which is it?

Tim probably commits the same type of fraud with his real estate.  

[Ron_Artest 2,030]

1 hour ago, Tree of Knowledge said:

Google it.  
 

Warning - They are real and they are sloppy.  

I did google it.  Racist.

[Tree of Knowledge 2,066]

18 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Wow, 250,000 followers & anonymous. Do you think this person is an American?

“We are all Anonymous”

[SaintsInDome2006 551]

Just now, Tree of Knowledge said:

Tim probably commits the same type of fraud with his real estate.  

Eh a lot of people including loan officers probably did, maybe millions. 

[SaintsInDome2006 551]

Just now, Tree of Knowledge said:

“We are all Anonymous”

Yes, clearly, with 250,000 followers who actually, yaknow, follow.

[Maximum Overkill 2,332]

1 minute ago, Ron_Artest said:

I did google it.  Racist.

How so? 

[SaintsInDome2006 551]

36 minutes ago, HellToupee said:

Federal laws are so complex and capacious that pretty much every one of us breaks a federal law every few months without knowing that we did.  

Huh. Like what? Is this like the mattress tag thing?

[TimHauck 3,222]

23 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Yes, clearly, with 250,000 followers who actually, yaknow, follow.

ChatGPT claims he was an Army veteran and lawyer, but not verified.

[nobody 2,851]

27 minutes ago, Ron_Artest said:

I did google it.  Racist.

Don't argue with Gutter on racist terms.  He's an expert from the decades he spent making racist jokes.

[Tree of Knowledge 2,066]

White women can have big sloppy h00ters.  That’s not a racist term.  

[HellToupee 2,102]

1 hour ago, Ron_Artest said:

I did google it.  Racist.

Liar

[jonnyutah 509]

2 hours ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Exactly. I buy property on the coast, I think I’ll go there, but then things change, I don’t use it after all, so I decide to rent it and I report the income. That’s a crime?

Yes

[SaintsInDome2006 551]

2 minutes ago, jonnyutah said:

Yes

Hypothetically if I call my mortgage guy and tell him I’d like to rent it is it still a crime?

[jonnyutah 509]

Just now, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Hypothetically if I call my mortgage guy and tell him I’d like to rent it is it still a crime?

Lol. 

You guys are hilarious. 

[Fnord 2,453]

4 minutes ago, jonnyutah said:

Yes

Got a link? This seems suspect, especially when you notice how many homes have listings on VRBO or AB&B. I personally know people that use their second properties exclusively for that purpose. I obviously don't have awareness of their financials, but I doubt they're all doing it illegally. 

[jonnyutah 509]

2 hours ago, TimHauck said:

It says she indicated zero personal use days on a tax form or forms.  It does not say what year or years that was.  According to the second home rider, all that matters is the first year.

What if it was for the first year?

 

 

[jonnyutah 509]

Just now, Fnord said:

Got a link? This seems suspect, especially when you notice how many homes have listings on VRBO or AB&B. I personally know people that use their second properties exclusively for that purpose. I obviously don't have awareness of their financials, but I doubt they're all doing it illegally. 

Did your friends all lie and say it was primarily for their use as a second home? 

[TimHauck 3,222]

5 minutes ago, jonnyutah said:

Lol. 

You guys are hilarious. 

Actually the second home rider also includes a caveat that it’s not illegal if you get approval from your lender in writing (so no, @SaintsInDome2006, just a phone call would not suffice).

[seafoam1 3,338]

Liberals are so stupid. 

[TimHauck 3,222]

8 minutes ago, jonnyutah said:

What if it was for the first year?

 

 

If she rented it out for longer than 6 months of the first year, it looks like that would be breaking the law.

[Meglamaniac 750]

13 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

 that would be breaking the law.

 

 

[SaintsInDome2006 551]

26 minutes ago, jonnyutah said:

Lol. 

You guys are hilarious. 

I didn’t think it was that ridiculous. 1. The loan officer has to testify it would have made a difference if he’d known what you intend to use it for, then 2. Is it acceptable if the purpose you intended to use it for changes is it all right if you simply inform your bank. 

Seems to me this would be a pretty easy thing to have happen.

[SaintsInDome2006 551]

22 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Actually the second home rider also includes a caveat that it’s not illegal if you get approval from your lender in writing (so no, @SaintsInDome2006, just a phone call would not suffice).

Thank you.

[nobody 2,851]

Hot take: 

Did she break the law?  She probably did technically.

Is the only reason she's being prosecuted is that she went after Trump?  Yes.

The lawfare is the bigger issue.  The nuance in this case is this is the same thing she did to Trump (prosecute on a bunch of BS).  Now, I would be more inclined to sharpen the pitchforks to go after Trump if the idiots here weren't spouting off about 34 felonies when we all know it was BS to even prosecute him.

So where I'm kind of landing on this is, she maliciously prosecuted him.  Now he's behind a malicious prosecution of her, so meh, but the problem is trump will keep doing it no doubt.  Perhaps that's what needs to happen so people stop weaponizing the legal system?  I kind of think it is.  I'm not going to lose sleep over this instance of a bunch of jagbags screwing each other over though.  I'm more interested in the long term precedent and how we get this under control.  

So here's what I'd suggest. Let's all sit on our hands for this James prosecution.  She'll get off anyway since she's well connected.  It's really just an inconvenience (which is probably the point).

But, let's go find some email to either that siebert guy or the current gal where Trump is saying prosecute her because she's a meanie, and then we prosecute Trump's lacky for malicious prosecution.  Let's get James for that too.  And then there has to be some law about Trump abusing power that we can use to swat him on the nose with, too.

That will let these AGs know to cut the shìt.

[The Real timschochet 7,264]

2 minutes ago, nobody said:

Hot take: 

Did she break the law?  She probably did technically.

Is the only reason she's being prosecuted is that she went after Trump?  Yes.

The lawfare is the bigger issue.  The nuance in this case is this is the same thing she did to Trump (prosecute on a bunch of BS).  Now, I would be more inclined to sharpen the pitchforks to go after Trump if the idiots here weren't spouting off about 34 felonies when we all know it was BS to even prosecute him.

So where I'm kind of landing on this is, she maliciously prosecuted him.  Now he's behind a malicious prosecution of her, so meh, but the problem is trump will keep doing it no doubt.  Perhaps that's what needs to happen so people stop weaponizing the legal system?  I kind of think it is.  I'm not going to lose sleep over this instance of a bunch of jagbags screwing each other over though.  I'm more interested in the long term precedent and how we get this under control.  

So here's what I'd suggest. Let's all sit on our hands for this James prosecution.  She'll get off anyway since she's well connected.  It's really just an inconvenience (which is probably the point).

But, let's go find some email to either that siebert guy or the current gal where Trump is saying prosecute her because she's a meanie, and then we prosecute Trump's lacky for malicious prosecution.  Let's get James for that too.  And then there has to be some law about Trump abusing power that we can use to swat him on the nose with, too.

That will let these AGs know to cut the shìt.

You guys all seem to making the same argument: you know this is bogus, but hey tit for tat, right? And your last line predicts that this will lead to both sides refraining from lawfare. 

Even if I were to accept your argument that the prosecution of Trump was lawfare (and FTR I do not) it still doesn’t make what Trump is doing now justified, and it will absolutely NOT lead to better results. If anything both sides will engage in this even more than before. But what’s even worse is that it weakens the integrity of our judicial system, which has always been one of the things Americans can be most proud of. 

[jonnyutah 509]

7 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

I didn’t think it was that ridiculous. 1. The loan officer has to testify it would have made a difference if he’d known what you intend to use it for, then 2. Is it acceptable if the purpose you intended to use it for changes is it all right if you simply inform your bank. 

Seems to me this would be a pretty easy thing to have happen.

Lol.

Dude. Look where the house is. You think she was ever planning on living there at all? 

As far as the airbnb talk thats all ridiculous too. 

There isnt a single airbnb in the vicinity of this place. They are all on the coast. 

 

[nobody 2,851]

10 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

You guys all seem to making the same argument: you know this is bogus, but hey tit for tat, right? And your last line predicts that this will lead to both sides refraining from lawfare. 

Even if I were to accept your argument that the prosecution of Trump was lawfare (and FTR I do not) it still doesn’t make what Trump is doing now justified, and it will absolutely NOT lead to better results. If anything both sides will engage in this even more than before. But what’s even worse is that it weakens the integrity of our judicial system, which has always been one of the things Americans can be most proud of. 

Correct it doesn't make it justified.  That's why I would like to prosecute all of them for malicious prosecution and Trump for abuse of power.  

Maybe I should run for office.  My motto will be Cut the shìt.  No.  For real.  Cut the shìt.

Trump would have me in jail inside a month though.

[jonnyutah 509]

"hey honey, lets look for an airbnb in the ghetto for this weekend"

Said nobody ever. 

[nobody 2,851]

2 minutes ago, jonnyutah said:

Lol.

Dude. Look where the house is. You think she was ever planning on living there at all? 

As far as the airbnb talk thats all ridiculous too. 

There isnt a single airbnb in the vicinity of this place. They are all on the coast. 

 

It's illegal for a state AG to live in another state anyway isn't it?

[nobody 2,851]

They come at me with some dumb wokie BS.  Cut the shìt

They come at me with hatians eating pets.  Cut the shìt

Open borders?  Cut the shìt

Redistricting?  Cut the shìt

Lawfare? Cut the shìt

Censoring comics?  Cut the shìt

[jonnyutah 509]

Husband- "hear me out, lets buy a second home in Norfolk"

Wife- "Oh, yes, lets go look on the coast, it is beautiful in the fall"

Husband- "Ummm...I mean at Lafayette and Perrone"

Wife- "die"

 

[nobody 2,851]

But you guys get that while yes this is malicious prosecution, there is no way in hell they expect anything to come of this James case right?  The whole point is to put her in the spotlight and run her through the ringer which is obviously bad, but they are setting up the rules of the game board this way now which is the real reason not to support this nonsense.

Cut the shìt!

[TimHauck 3,222]

23 minutes ago, jonnyutah said:

Lol.

Dude. Look where the house is. You think she was ever planning on living there at all? 

As far as the airbnb talk thats all ridiculous too. 

There isnt a single airbnb in the vicinity of this place. They are all on the coast. 

 

It’s on the same street as a listed previous address of her niece that she later bought the other house for.   For that reason, very reasonable to believe that she stayed there.

[seafoam1 3,338]

Just now, TimHauck said:

It’s on the same street as a listed previous address of her niece that she later bought the other house for.   For that reason, very reasonable to believe that she stayed there.

[TimHauck 3,222]

27 minutes ago, jonnyutah said:

Lol.

Dude. Look where the house is. You think she was ever planning on living there at all? 

As far as the airbnb talk thats all ridiculous too. 

There isnt a single airbnb in the vicinity of this place. They are all on the coast. 

 

Maybe I missed but I don’t think anyone here was saying she used this house as an airbnb.  Nonetheless, this one looks to be at Lafayette and Perrone.

https://www.airbnb.com/l/QuMjxp1r
 

 

 

[The Real timschochet 7,264]

MSNBC reporting John Bolton will be indicted next week.