|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On March 26 2024 09:23 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2024 07:25 Introvert wrote: The case is hardly so straightforward as people are making it out to be, both in the amount and in the underlying conduct. We'll see how it plays out, but I'm pretty sure the gov of NY had an interview a few weeks ago with a very wealthy fellow who was concerned about what the court did in this case and she reassured him it was just for Trump basically... so not really reassuring to everyone else. NY is, just like so many jurisdictions, adding or modifying rules to get Trump so... we shall see. It is absolutely straightforward. I’m a CPA with a background in audit. Manufacturing fraudulent financial statements and then using them to obtain loans is called fraud and it’s illegal. This is super cut and dry. There’s no jurisdiction in the world where what Trump did is legal. There are rules about this and he broke them. For example he claimed that a non controlling interest in a partnership was a kind of cash for the purpose of meeting liquidity requirements. Had the lenders needed that “cash” they would have found that it didn’t exist.
Nah, from what I've read by people who are lawyers (not CPAs) they normally wouldn't go after this. and I don't trust the AG since she basically ran on getting Trump and seems to almost gloat about it. Long story short, if the entities involve in the transaction don't think they were defrauded, it's normally hard to bring a case. This is an... unusual use of a particular NY statute. I could buy it might have even technically been illegal, but just like Trump doesn't deserve to be above the law he also isn't below it. That's really the problem with almost every case brought against him. They are clearly hits on him the politician rather than an attempt at justice. Shouldn't get special treatment or singled out. Here is the tweet version, if we're just going to say "trust me bro."
|
On March 26 2024 09:45 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2024 09:23 KwarK wrote:On March 26 2024 07:25 Introvert wrote: The case is hardly so straightforward as people are making it out to be, both in the amount and in the underlying conduct. We'll see how it plays out, but I'm pretty sure the gov of NY had an interview a few weeks ago with a very wealthy fellow who was concerned about what the court did in this case and she reassured him it was just for Trump basically... so not really reassuring to everyone else. NY is, just like so many jurisdictions, adding or modifying rules to get Trump so... we shall see. It is absolutely straightforward. I’m a CPA with a background in audit. Manufacturing fraudulent financial statements and then using them to obtain loans is called fraud and it’s illegal. This is super cut and dry. There’s no jurisdiction in the world where what Trump did is legal. There are rules about this and he broke them. For example he claimed that a non controlling interest in a partnership was a kind of cash for the purpose of meeting liquidity requirements. Had the lenders needed that “cash” they would have found that it didn’t exist. Nah, from what I've read by people who are lawyers (not CPAs) they normally wouldn't go after this. and I don't trust the AG since she basically ran on getting Trump and seems to almost gloat about it. Long story short, if the entities involve in the transaction don't think they were defrauded, it's normally hard to bring a case. This is an... unusual use of a particular NY statute. I could buy it might have even technically been illegal, but just like Trump doesn't deserve to be above the law he also isn't below it. That's really the problem with almost every case brought against him. They are clearly hits on him the politician rather than an attempt at justice. Shouldn't get special treatment or singled out. Here is the tweet version, if we're just going to say "trust me bro."
Does this include all the civil suits and all 4 court cases with 91 indictments? Do you believe that the federal election interference, Georgia election interference, classified documents, and hush money cases are all unjustified "hits" on him? If there are some exceptions (that are reasonable, in your opinion), which cases do you think are legitimate?
|
United States42228 Posts
On March 26 2024 09:45 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2024 09:23 KwarK wrote:On March 26 2024 07:25 Introvert wrote: The case is hardly so straightforward as people are making it out to be, both in the amount and in the underlying conduct. We'll see how it plays out, but I'm pretty sure the gov of NY had an interview a few weeks ago with a very wealthy fellow who was concerned about what the court did in this case and she reassured him it was just for Trump basically... so not really reassuring to everyone else. NY is, just like so many jurisdictions, adding or modifying rules to get Trump so... we shall see. It is absolutely straightforward. I’m a CPA with a background in audit. Manufacturing fraudulent financial statements and then using them to obtain loans is called fraud and it’s illegal. This is super cut and dry. There’s no jurisdiction in the world where what Trump did is legal. There are rules about this and he broke them. For example he claimed that a non controlling interest in a partnership was a kind of cash for the purpose of meeting liquidity requirements. Had the lenders needed that “cash” they would have found that it didn’t exist. Nah, from what I've read by people who are lawyers (not CPAs) they normally wouldn't go after this. and I don't trust the AG since she basically ran on getting Trump and seems to almost gloat about it. Long story short, if the entities involve in the transaction don't think they were defrauded, it's normally hard to bring a case. This is an... unusual use of a particular NY statute. I could buy it might have even technically been illegal, but just like Trump doesn't deserve to be above the law he also isn't below it. That's really the problem with almost every case brought against him. They are clearly hits on him the politician rather than an attempt at justice. Shouldn't get special treatment or singled out. Here is the tweet version, if we're just going to say "trust me bro." Cash has a definition. If you call a non controlling interest in a partnership “cash” then you are lying. If you call a non controlling interest in a partnership interest “cash” in order to obtain a loan then you are engaging in a fraudulent loan application.
Why are you stanning so hard for the guy who objectively commits fraud?
|
On March 26 2024 09:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2024 09:45 Introvert wrote:On March 26 2024 09:23 KwarK wrote:On March 26 2024 07:25 Introvert wrote: The case is hardly so straightforward as people are making it out to be, both in the amount and in the underlying conduct. We'll see how it plays out, but I'm pretty sure the gov of NY had an interview a few weeks ago with a very wealthy fellow who was concerned about what the court did in this case and she reassured him it was just for Trump basically... so not really reassuring to everyone else. NY is, just like so many jurisdictions, adding or modifying rules to get Trump so... we shall see. It is absolutely straightforward. I’m a CPA with a background in audit. Manufacturing fraudulent financial statements and then using them to obtain loans is called fraud and it’s illegal. This is super cut and dry. There’s no jurisdiction in the world where what Trump did is legal. There are rules about this and he broke them. For example he claimed that a non controlling interest in a partnership was a kind of cash for the purpose of meeting liquidity requirements. Had the lenders needed that “cash” they would have found that it didn’t exist. Nah, from what I've read by people who are lawyers (not CPAs) they normally wouldn't go after this. and I don't trust the AG since she basically ran on getting Trump and seems to almost gloat about it. Long story short, if the entities involve in the transaction don't think they were defrauded, it's normally hard to bring a case. This is an... unusual use of a particular NY statute. I could buy it might have even technically been illegal, but just like Trump doesn't deserve to be above the law he also isn't below it. That's really the problem with almost every case brought against him. They are clearly hits on him the politician rather than an attempt at justice. Shouldn't get special treatment or singled out. Here is the tweet version, if we're just going to say "trust me bro." Does this include all the civil suits and all 4 court cases with 91 indictments? Do you believe that the federal election interference, Georgia election interference, classified documents, and hush money cases are all unjustified "hits" on him? If there are some exceptions (that are reasonable, in your opinion), which cases do you think are legitimate?
They all have their own issues, the documents one is probably the most serious. But even then, plenty of high ranking officials knowingly had or mishandled docs and had nothing happen. And no, the fact that he refused to give them back is not good distinction, and it's not one that exists in the law. it's more about getting caught in the first place.
On March 26 2024 09:56 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2024 09:45 Introvert wrote:On March 26 2024 09:23 KwarK wrote:On March 26 2024 07:25 Introvert wrote: The case is hardly so straightforward as people are making it out to be, both in the amount and in the underlying conduct. We'll see how it plays out, but I'm pretty sure the gov of NY had an interview a few weeks ago with a very wealthy fellow who was concerned about what the court did in this case and she reassured him it was just for Trump basically... so not really reassuring to everyone else. NY is, just like so many jurisdictions, adding or modifying rules to get Trump so... we shall see. It is absolutely straightforward. I’m a CPA with a background in audit. Manufacturing fraudulent financial statements and then using them to obtain loans is called fraud and it’s illegal. This is super cut and dry. There’s no jurisdiction in the world where what Trump did is legal. There are rules about this and he broke them. For example he claimed that a non controlling interest in a partnership was a kind of cash for the purpose of meeting liquidity requirements. Had the lenders needed that “cash” they would have found that it didn’t exist. Nah, from what I've read by people who are lawyers (not CPAs) they normally wouldn't go after this. and I don't trust the AG since she basically ran on getting Trump and seems to almost gloat about it. Long story short, if the entities involve in the transaction don't think they were defrauded, it's normally hard to bring a case. This is an... unusual use of a particular NY statute. I could buy it might have even technically been illegal, but just like Trump doesn't deserve to be above the law he also isn't below it. That's really the problem with almost every case brought against him. They are clearly hits on him the politician rather than an attempt at justice. Shouldn't get special treatment or singled out. Here is the tweet version, if we're just going to say "trust me bro." Cash has a definition. If you call a non controlling interest in a partnership “cash” then you are lying. If you call a non controlling interest in a partnership interest “cash” in order to obtain a loan then you are engaging in a fraudulent loan application. Why are you stanning so hard for the guy who objectively commits fraud?
Except nobody made him a loan based on his own evaluation, and they were payed back. but that's besides the point. I am against lawfare, and I am alarmed by this recent spate of elected leaders, in particular Democrats, using the law in novel or often rare ways in a blatant attempt to sabotage their political opponents. The right is going to catch up here at some point, too. Then what? No one on the political left is capable of thinking of the future, as ironic as that is. But as the saying goes that I love to quote around here "Republicans act they will never gain power, and Democrats act like they will never lose it."
as an extra, here is an AP analysis (which admitted I can't speak to the accuracy of) about how Trump's case is... unusual. I have quoted most of the first half.
+ Show Spoiler +Within days, Donald Trump could potentially have his sprawling real estate business empire ordered “dissolved” for repeated misrepresentations on financial statements to lenders, adding him to a short list of scam marketers, con artists and others who have been hit with the ultimate punishment for violating New York’s powerful anti-fraud law.
An Associated Press analysis of nearly 70 years of civil cases under the law showed that such a penalty has only been imposed a dozen previous times, and Trump’s case stands apart in a significant way: It’s the only big business found that was threatened with a shutdown without a showing of obvious victims and major losses.
Lawyers for the state in Trump’s monthslong civil trial have argued that the principles of fair play in business alone are enough to justify a harsh penalty, but even they aren’t calling for the prospect of liquidation of his businesses and properties raised by a judge. And some legal experts worry that if the judge goes out of his way to punish the former president with that worst-case scenario, it could make it easier for courts to wipe out companies in the future.
“This is a basically a death penalty for a business,” said Columbia University law professor Eric Talley. “Is he getting his just desserts because of the fraud, or because people don’t like him?”
AP’s review of nearly 150 reported cases since New York’s “repeated fraud” statute was passed in 1956 showed that nearly every previous time a company was taken away, victims and losses were key factors. Customers had lost money or bought defective products or never received services ordered, leaving them cheated and angry.
What’s more, businesses were taken over almost always as a last resort to stop a fraud in progress and protect potential victims. They included a phony psychologist who sold dubious treatments, a fake lawyer who sold false claims he could get students into law school, and businessmen who marketed financial advice but instead swindled people out of their home deeds.
In Trump’s case, his company stopped sending exaggerated financial figures about his net worth to Deutsche Bank and others at least two years ago, but a court-appointed monitor noted that was only after he was sued and that other financial documents continued to contain errors and misrepresentations.
And though the bank offered Trump lower interest rates because he had agreed to personally guarantee the loans with his own money, it’s not clear how much better the rates were because of the inflated figures. The bank never complained, and it’s unclear how much it lost, if anything. Bank officials called to testify couldn’t say for sure if Trump’s personal statement of worth had any impact on the rates.
“This sets a horrible precedent,” said Adam Leitman Bailey, a New York real estate lawyer who once successfully sued a Trump condo building for misrepresenting sales to lure buyers.
Added University of Michigan law professor William Thomas, “Who suffered here? We haven’t seen a long list of victims.”
...
Notably, New York’s anti-fraud statute, known as Executive Law 63(12), is clear that a finding of fraud does not require intent to deceive or that anyone actually gets duped or loses money. The attorney general must only show “repeated fraudulent or illegal acts.”
But the AP analysis, based on a search of reported 63(12) cases in legal databases LexisNexis and Westlaw, found that victims and losses were factors when it came to deciding whether to take over a business.
A breast cancer nonprofit was shut down a dozen years ago, for instance, for using nearly all its $9 million in donations to pay for director salaries, perks and other expenses, instead of funding free mammograms, research and help for survivors.
A private equity firm faking big investment success was closed down after stealing millions of dollars from thousands of investors.
A mental health facility was shuttered for looting $4 million from public funds while neglecting patients.
There may be more dissolved companies than AP found. Legal experts caution that some 63(12) cases never show up in legal databases because they were settled, dropped or otherwise not reported.
Still, the only case the AP found of a business dissolved under the anti-fraud law without citing actual victims or losses was a relatively small company closed in 1972 for writing term papers for college students. In that case, the attorney general said the victim was “the integrity of the educational process.”
|
United States42228 Posts
The lenders testified that they relied upon his financials when offering the loan. This has all been litigated and settled. I’m not sure you’re really making an effort to be informed about it. The “fine” is literally just paying back his ill gotten gains, that’s it. The banks gave Trump a discount based on the value of his collateral and available liquidity. It turned out he lied about that, his loan was a lot riskier than he told the banks it was and should have been charged higher interest. NY is making him pay back the discount that he lied about qualifying for. Habba did not dispute the expert testimony, nor the bank’s testimony, nor the number they came up with. This is all settled.
Also your faux outrage at “lawfare”, even when it’s simple enforcement of regular laws, rings hollow when you’re stanning for the “lock her up” guy. There is one side that campaigns on a promise to commit lawfare and it’s yours. They’re also convicted criminals and so they’re being prosecuted as such. Not for their political beliefs but because defrauding lenders with fraudulent financial statements is, simply put, a crime. If Trump wasn’t a criminal then there wouldn’t be quite so many crimes that he openly confessed to having committed. The best way avoid prosecution for defrauding lenders with fabricated financial statements was is not to commit that specific crime.
|
On March 26 2024 12:50 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2024 09:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 26 2024 09:45 Introvert wrote:On March 26 2024 09:23 KwarK wrote:On March 26 2024 07:25 Introvert wrote: The case is hardly so straightforward as people are making it out to be, both in the amount and in the underlying conduct. We'll see how it plays out, but I'm pretty sure the gov of NY had an interview a few weeks ago with a very wealthy fellow who was concerned about what the court did in this case and she reassured him it was just for Trump basically... so not really reassuring to everyone else. NY is, just like so many jurisdictions, adding or modifying rules to get Trump so... we shall see. It is absolutely straightforward. I’m a CPA with a background in audit. Manufacturing fraudulent financial statements and then using them to obtain loans is called fraud and it’s illegal. This is super cut and dry. There’s no jurisdiction in the world where what Trump did is legal. There are rules about this and he broke them. For example he claimed that a non controlling interest in a partnership was a kind of cash for the purpose of meeting liquidity requirements. Had the lenders needed that “cash” they would have found that it didn’t exist. Nah, from what I've read by people who are lawyers (not CPAs) they normally wouldn't go after this. and I don't trust the AG since she basically ran on getting Trump and seems to almost gloat about it. Long story short, if the entities involve in the transaction don't think they were defrauded, it's normally hard to bring a case. This is an... unusual use of a particular NY statute. I could buy it might have even technically been illegal, but just like Trump doesn't deserve to be above the law he also isn't below it. That's really the problem with almost every case brought against him. They are clearly hits on him the politician rather than an attempt at justice. Shouldn't get special treatment or singled out. Here is the tweet version, if we're just going to say "trust me bro." Does this include all the civil suits and all 4 court cases with 91 indictments? Do you believe that the federal election interference, Georgia election interference, classified documents, and hush money cases are all unjustified "hits" on him? If there are some exceptions (that are reasonable, in your opinion), which cases do you think are legitimate? They all have their own issues, the documents one is probably the most serious. But even then, plenty of high ranking officials knowingly had or mishandled docs and had nothing happen. And no, the fact that he refused to give them back is not good distinction, and it's not one that exists in the law. it's more about getting caught in the first place. Show nested quote +On March 26 2024 09:56 KwarK wrote:On March 26 2024 09:45 Introvert wrote:On March 26 2024 09:23 KwarK wrote:On March 26 2024 07:25 Introvert wrote: The case is hardly so straightforward as people are making it out to be, both in the amount and in the underlying conduct. We'll see how it plays out, but I'm pretty sure the gov of NY had an interview a few weeks ago with a very wealthy fellow who was concerned about what the court did in this case and she reassured him it was just for Trump basically... so not really reassuring to everyone else. NY is, just like so many jurisdictions, adding or modifying rules to get Trump so... we shall see. It is absolutely straightforward. I’m a CPA with a background in audit. Manufacturing fraudulent financial statements and then using them to obtain loans is called fraud and it’s illegal. This is super cut and dry. There’s no jurisdiction in the world where what Trump did is legal. There are rules about this and he broke them. For example he claimed that a non controlling interest in a partnership was a kind of cash for the purpose of meeting liquidity requirements. Had the lenders needed that “cash” they would have found that it didn’t exist. Nah, from what I've read by people who are lawyers (not CPAs) they normally wouldn't go after this. and I don't trust the AG since she basically ran on getting Trump and seems to almost gloat about it. Long story short, if the entities involve in the transaction don't think they were defrauded, it's normally hard to bring a case. This is an... unusual use of a particular NY statute. I could buy it might have even technically been illegal, but just like Trump doesn't deserve to be above the law he also isn't below it. That's really the problem with almost every case brought against him. They are clearly hits on him the politician rather than an attempt at justice. Shouldn't get special treatment or singled out. Here is the tweet version, if we're just going to say "trust me bro." Cash has a definition. If you call a non controlling interest in a partnership “cash” then you are lying. If you call a non controlling interest in a partnership interest “cash” in order to obtain a loan then you are engaging in a fraudulent loan application. Why are you stanning so hard for the guy who objectively commits fraud? Except nobody made him a loan based on his own evaluation, and they were payed back. but that's besides the point. I am against lawfare, and I am alarmed by this recent spate of elected leaders, in particular Democrats, using the law in novel or often rare ways in a blatant attempt to sabotage their political opponents. The right is going to catch up here at some point, too. Then what? No one on the political left is capable of thinking of the future, as ironic as that is. But as the saying goes that I love to quote around here "Republicans act they will never gain power, and Democrats act like they will never lose it." as an extra, here is an AP analysis (which admitted I can't speak to the accuracy of) about how Trump's case is... unusual. I have quoted most of the first half. + Show Spoiler +Within days, Donald Trump could potentially have his sprawling real estate business empire ordered “dissolved” for repeated misrepresentations on financial statements to lenders, adding him to a short list of scam marketers, con artists and others who have been hit with the ultimate punishment for violating New York’s powerful anti-fraud law.
An Associated Press analysis of nearly 70 years of civil cases under the law showed that such a penalty has only been imposed a dozen previous times, and Trump’s case stands apart in a significant way: It’s the only big business found that was threatened with a shutdown without a showing of obvious victims and major losses.
Lawyers for the state in Trump’s monthslong civil trial have argued that the principles of fair play in business alone are enough to justify a harsh penalty, but even they aren’t calling for the prospect of liquidation of his businesses and properties raised by a judge. And some legal experts worry that if the judge goes out of his way to punish the former president with that worst-case scenario, it could make it easier for courts to wipe out companies in the future.
“This is a basically a death penalty for a business,” said Columbia University law professor Eric Talley. “Is he getting his just desserts because of the fraud, or because people don’t like him?”
AP’s review of nearly 150 reported cases since New York’s “repeated fraud” statute was passed in 1956 showed that nearly every previous time a company was taken away, victims and losses were key factors. Customers had lost money or bought defective products or never received services ordered, leaving them cheated and angry.
What’s more, businesses were taken over almost always as a last resort to stop a fraud in progress and protect potential victims. They included a phony psychologist who sold dubious treatments, a fake lawyer who sold false claims he could get students into law school, and businessmen who marketed financial advice but instead swindled people out of their home deeds.
In Trump’s case, his company stopped sending exaggerated financial figures about his net worth to Deutsche Bank and others at least two years ago, but a court-appointed monitor noted that was only after he was sued and that other financial documents continued to contain errors and misrepresentations.
And though the bank offered Trump lower interest rates because he had agreed to personally guarantee the loans with his own money, it’s not clear how much better the rates were because of the inflated figures. The bank never complained, and it’s unclear how much it lost, if anything. Bank officials called to testify couldn’t say for sure if Trump’s personal statement of worth had any impact on the rates.
“This sets a horrible precedent,” said Adam Leitman Bailey, a New York real estate lawyer who once successfully sued a Trump condo building for misrepresenting sales to lure buyers.
Added University of Michigan law professor William Thomas, “Who suffered here? We haven’t seen a long list of victims.”
...
Notably, New York’s anti-fraud statute, known as Executive Law 63(12), is clear that a finding of fraud does not require intent to deceive or that anyone actually gets duped or loses money. The attorney general must only show “repeated fraudulent or illegal acts.”
But the AP analysis, based on a search of reported 63(12) cases in legal databases LexisNexis and Westlaw, found that victims and losses were factors when it came to deciding whether to take over a business.
A breast cancer nonprofit was shut down a dozen years ago, for instance, for using nearly all its $9 million in donations to pay for director salaries, perks and other expenses, instead of funding free mammograms, research and help for survivors.
A private equity firm faking big investment success was closed down after stealing millions of dollars from thousands of investors.
A mental health facility was shuttered for looting $4 million from public funds while neglecting patients.
There may be more dissolved companies than AP found. Legal experts caution that some 63(12) cases never show up in legal databases because they were settled, dropped or otherwise not reported.
Still, the only case the AP found of a business dissolved under the anti-fraud law without citing actual victims or losses was a relatively small company closed in 1972 for writing term papers for college students. In that case, the attorney general said the victim was “the integrity of the educational process.” The problem is of course that this kind of scheme works until it doesn't. If Bernie Maddoff hadn't run into financial trouble and instead could have kept his Ponzi scheme going, would that not have been fraud? Clearly all his investors were happy. It was only when the 2008 crash happened and he was left without new "investors" that it became clear that it was simply a huge Ponzi scheme.
Trump's fraud obviously isn't as bad as Maddoff's, but just because he was able to pay his lenders doesn't make it not-fraud. It just means he and his lenders were lucky enough to not run into the circumstance where his fraud blew up in his face, not that it wasn't fraudulent in the first place.
|
Horrible news out of Baltimore. Hope they can save as many people as possible, how does something like this even happen? Never hear about boats hitting bridges.
Apparently three cars and a few construction workers were on it at the time (1:30am)
|
United States24624 Posts
The bridge is not too far from me and I occasionally take it. I'm sure the NTSB report will be interesting. It's hard to say "how this happens" without knowing the basics of why the container ship crashed into the bridge. Here's an article for anyone interested. Ultimately, this just might be the type of awful accident that we accept as occasionally happening when you have places where large ships and bridges with vertical supports can co-exist. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/maryland-bridge-collapse-francis-scott-key-bridge-boat-baltimore-rcna145047
|
boat hits bridge. It happens from time to time. Normally not much happens but this time it was a container ship 3 football fields long. That has a considerable mass, and bridges tend not to be built to accommodate being rammed by a containership 3 football fields long.
|
|
On March 26 2024 12:50 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2024 09:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 26 2024 09:45 Introvert wrote:On March 26 2024 09:23 KwarK wrote:On March 26 2024 07:25 Introvert wrote: The case is hardly so straightforward as people are making it out to be, both in the amount and in the underlying conduct. We'll see how it plays out, but I'm pretty sure the gov of NY had an interview a few weeks ago with a very wealthy fellow who was concerned about what the court did in this case and she reassured him it was just for Trump basically... so not really reassuring to everyone else. NY is, just like so many jurisdictions, adding or modifying rules to get Trump so... we shall see. It is absolutely straightforward. I’m a CPA with a background in audit. Manufacturing fraudulent financial statements and then using them to obtain loans is called fraud and it’s illegal. This is super cut and dry. There’s no jurisdiction in the world where what Trump did is legal. There are rules about this and he broke them. For example he claimed that a non controlling interest in a partnership was a kind of cash for the purpose of meeting liquidity requirements. Had the lenders needed that “cash” they would have found that it didn’t exist. Nah, from what I've read by people who are lawyers (not CPAs) they normally wouldn't go after this. and I don't trust the AG since she basically ran on getting Trump and seems to almost gloat about it. Long story short, if the entities involve in the transaction don't think they were defrauded, it's normally hard to bring a case. This is an... unusual use of a particular NY statute. I could buy it might have even technically been illegal, but just like Trump doesn't deserve to be above the law he also isn't below it. That's really the problem with almost every case brought against him. They are clearly hits on him the politician rather than an attempt at justice. Shouldn't get special treatment or singled out. Here is the tweet version, if we're just going to say "trust me bro." Does this include all the civil suits and all 4 court cases with 91 indictments? Do you believe that the federal election interference, Georgia election interference, classified documents, and hush money cases are all unjustified "hits" on him? If there are some exceptions (that are reasonable, in your opinion), which cases do you think are legitimate? They all have their own issues, the documents one is probably the most serious. But even then, plenty of high ranking officials knowingly had or mishandled docs and had nothing happen. And no, the fact that he refused to give them back is not good distinction, and it's not one that exists in the law. it's more about getting caught in the first place. Show nested quote +On March 26 2024 09:56 KwarK wrote:On March 26 2024 09:45 Introvert wrote:On March 26 2024 09:23 KwarK wrote:On March 26 2024 07:25 Introvert wrote: The case is hardly so straightforward as people are making it out to be, both in the amount and in the underlying conduct. We'll see how it plays out, but I'm pretty sure the gov of NY had an interview a few weeks ago with a very wealthy fellow who was concerned about what the court did in this case and she reassured him it was just for Trump basically... so not really reassuring to everyone else. NY is, just like so many jurisdictions, adding or modifying rules to get Trump so... we shall see. It is absolutely straightforward. I’m a CPA with a background in audit. Manufacturing fraudulent financial statements and then using them to obtain loans is called fraud and it’s illegal. This is super cut and dry. There’s no jurisdiction in the world where what Trump did is legal. There are rules about this and he broke them. For example he claimed that a non controlling interest in a partnership was a kind of cash for the purpose of meeting liquidity requirements. Had the lenders needed that “cash” they would have found that it didn’t exist. Nah, from what I've read by people who are lawyers (not CPAs) they normally wouldn't go after this. and I don't trust the AG since she basically ran on getting Trump and seems to almost gloat about it. Long story short, if the entities involve in the transaction don't think they were defrauded, it's normally hard to bring a case. This is an... unusual use of a particular NY statute. I could buy it might have even technically been illegal, but just like Trump doesn't deserve to be above the law he also isn't below it. That's really the problem with almost every case brought against him. They are clearly hits on him the politician rather than an attempt at justice. Shouldn't get special treatment or singled out. Here is the tweet version, if we're just going to say "trust me bro." Cash has a definition. If you call a non controlling interest in a partnership “cash” then you are lying. If you call a non controlling interest in a partnership interest “cash” in order to obtain a loan then you are engaging in a fraudulent loan application. Why are you stanning so hard for the guy who objectively commits fraud? Except nobody made him a loan based on his own evaluation, and they were payed back. but that's besides the point. I am against lawfare, and I am alarmed by this recent spate of elected leaders, in particular Democrats, using the law in novel or often rare ways in a blatant attempt to sabotage their political opponents. The right is going to catch up here at some point, too. Then what? No one on the political left is capable of thinking of the future, as ironic as that is. But as the saying goes that I love to quote around here "Republicans act they will never gain power, and Democrats act like they will never lose it." as an extra, here is an AP analysis (which admitted I can't speak to the accuracy of) about how Trump's case is... unusual. I have quoted most of the first half. + Show Spoiler +Within days, Donald Trump could potentially have his sprawling real estate business empire ordered “dissolved” for repeated misrepresentations on financial statements to lenders, adding him to a short list of scam marketers, con artists and others who have been hit with the ultimate punishment for violating New York’s powerful anti-fraud law.
An Associated Press analysis of nearly 70 years of civil cases under the law showed that such a penalty has only been imposed a dozen previous times, and Trump’s case stands apart in a significant way: It’s the only big business found that was threatened with a shutdown without a showing of obvious victims and major losses.
Lawyers for the state in Trump’s monthslong civil trial have argued that the principles of fair play in business alone are enough to justify a harsh penalty, but even they aren’t calling for the prospect of liquidation of his businesses and properties raised by a judge. And some legal experts worry that if the judge goes out of his way to punish the former president with that worst-case scenario, it could make it easier for courts to wipe out companies in the future.
“This is a basically a death penalty for a business,” said Columbia University law professor Eric Talley. “Is he getting his just desserts because of the fraud, or because people don’t like him?”
AP’s review of nearly 150 reported cases since New York’s “repeated fraud” statute was passed in 1956 showed that nearly every previous time a company was taken away, victims and losses were key factors. Customers had lost money or bought defective products or never received services ordered, leaving them cheated and angry.
What’s more, businesses were taken over almost always as a last resort to stop a fraud in progress and protect potential victims. They included a phony psychologist who sold dubious treatments, a fake lawyer who sold false claims he could get students into law school, and businessmen who marketed financial advice but instead swindled people out of their home deeds.
In Trump’s case, his company stopped sending exaggerated financial figures about his net worth to Deutsche Bank and others at least two years ago, but a court-appointed monitor noted that was only after he was sued and that other financial documents continued to contain errors and misrepresentations.
And though the bank offered Trump lower interest rates because he had agreed to personally guarantee the loans with his own money, it’s not clear how much better the rates were because of the inflated figures. The bank never complained, and it’s unclear how much it lost, if anything. Bank officials called to testify couldn’t say for sure if Trump’s personal statement of worth had any impact on the rates.
“This sets a horrible precedent,” said Adam Leitman Bailey, a New York real estate lawyer who once successfully sued a Trump condo building for misrepresenting sales to lure buyers.
Added University of Michigan law professor William Thomas, “Who suffered here? We haven’t seen a long list of victims.”
...
Notably, New York’s anti-fraud statute, known as Executive Law 63(12), is clear that a finding of fraud does not require intent to deceive or that anyone actually gets duped or loses money. The attorney general must only show “repeated fraudulent or illegal acts.”
But the AP analysis, based on a search of reported 63(12) cases in legal databases LexisNexis and Westlaw, found that victims and losses were factors when it came to deciding whether to take over a business.
A breast cancer nonprofit was shut down a dozen years ago, for instance, for using nearly all its $9 million in donations to pay for director salaries, perks and other expenses, instead of funding free mammograms, research and help for survivors.
A private equity firm faking big investment success was closed down after stealing millions of dollars from thousands of investors.
A mental health facility was shuttered for looting $4 million from public funds while neglecting patients.
There may be more dissolved companies than AP found. Legal experts caution that some 63(12) cases never show up in legal databases because they were settled, dropped or otherwise not reported.
Still, the only case the AP found of a business dissolved under the anti-fraud law without citing actual victims or losses was a relatively small company closed in 1972 for writing term papers for college students. In that case, the attorney general said the victim was “the integrity of the educational process.”
Everytime Trump comes up with conservatives it plays out verbatum like the narcissists prayer. Its like a mental block where they cannot admit any wrongdoing or take any ownership for their actions.
A Narcissist's Prayer
That didn't happen.
And if it did, it wasn't that bad.
And if it was, that's not a big deal.
And if it is, that's not my fault.
And if it was, I didn't mean it.
And if I did...
You deserved it.
|
On March 26 2024 14:15 KwarK wrote: The lenders testified that they relied upon his financials when offering the loan. This has all been litigated and settled. I’m not sure you’re really making an effort to be informed about it. The “fine” is literally just paying back his ill gotten gains, that’s it. The banks gave Trump a discount based on the value of his collateral and available liquidity. It turned out he lied about that, his loan was a lot riskier than he told the banks it was and should have been charged higher interest. NY is making him pay back the discount that he lied about qualifying for. Habba did not dispute the expert testimony, nor the bank’s testimony, nor the number they came up with. This is all settled.
Also your faux outrage at “lawfare”, even when it’s simple enforcement of regular laws, rings hollow when you’re stanning for the “lock her up” guy. There is one side that campaigns on a promise to commit lawfare and it’s yours. They’re also convicted criminals and so they’re being prosecuted as such. Not for their political beliefs but because defrauding lenders with fraudulent financial statements is, simply put, a crime. If Trump wasn’t a criminal then there wouldn’t be quite so many crimes that he openly confessed to having committed. The best way avoid prosecution for defrauding lenders with fabricated financial statements was is not to commit that specific crime.
I have read a bit and I even quoted some of it to you, from lawyers not CPAs why may have a different perspective.
But like I said, it might even be, in the abstract, illegal activity. But I'm not gullible or disingenuous enough to believe this is just regular law enforcement. This ties in to what I said a few days ago, Trump said lots of things but did he actually lock up Hillary for her "extreme carelessness"? No! But this administration actually is going after their opponents. And lawfare is not new, one example that comes to mind is former gov of VA Bob McDonnell who scared dems so much the feds went after him on a ludicrous bribery charge they ended up getting reversed by the supreme court 9-0. By the way you know who was a prosecutor on that case? Jack Smith. Pretty sure that's not the only time he's had a higher court undo his work either. So no, I'm going to say the side doing it worse than the side threatening it (which I always said was something that worries me). But you and many others are incapable of seeing this as anything besides "stanning" so I guess we are just well and truly screwed.
|
On March 26 2024 14:15 KwarK wrote: The lenders testified that they relied upon his financials when offering the loan. This has all been litigated and settled. I’m not sure you’re really making an effort to be informed about it. The “fine” is literally just paying back his ill gotten gains, that’s it. The banks gave Trump a discount based on the value of his collateral and available liquidity. It turned out he lied about that, his loan was a lot riskier than he told the banks it was and should have been charged higher interest. NY is making him pay back the discount that he lied about qualifying for. Habba did not dispute the expert testimony, nor the bank’s testimony, nor the number they came up with. This is all settled.
Also your faux outrage at “lawfare”, even when it’s simple enforcement of regular laws, rings hollow when you’re stanning for the “lock her up” guy. There is one side that campaigns on a promise to commit lawfare and it’s yours. They’re also convicted criminals and so they’re being prosecuted as such. Not for their political beliefs but because defrauding lenders with fraudulent financial statements is, simply put, a crime. If Trump wasn’t a criminal then there wouldn’t be quite so many crimes that he openly confessed to having committed. The best way avoid prosecution for defrauding lenders with fabricated financial statements was is not to commit that specific crime. Probably the most interesting thing to me in all this is just how locked and loaded Intro is for Trump already. I always figured he’d vote for him in 2024 but I thought we’d still be in a period of mourning for DeSantis or Haley, followed by several months of being very critical of Biden and just kinda quiet about Trump. Then as the conventions kick off and campaign season really gets under way, he’d start to buy a lot of the messaging and get a little more conventionally pro-Trump. But this is way ahead of schedule. I can’t help but wonder where Danglars is at on everything these days, too.
I know quite a few religious conservatives outside TL but they are all still in a NeverTrump mode, which makes them not particularly representative. I would have thought that group should be pretty demobilized right now. I mean, if you took them at face value, overturning Roe v. Wade was always their number one issue, and that’s done. They could be hoping for a national ban on abortion, and while it’s plausible they never cared about “states’ rights” I think most of them recognize that the tide has shifted and this is a moment to hold on their gains, not keep conquering further.
It doesn’t seem like gay marriage is going anywhere even if they win, and the other culture war issues to replace gay marriage and abortion just seem a lot less salient. I mean, how seriously can they really feel under threat from trans people and DEI and CRT? Meanwhile how can a religious conservative really give that much of a shit about Trump paying millions for defrauding banks or raping someone? Even if you like Trump and buy his hype, you’d probably figure he’s fabulously wealthy and can just pay it and move on, NBD.
What might be a strong motivator is if they think they’re on the cusp of a huge, SACR-style power grab. Overriding constitutional limits and establishing a theocratic regime certainly might appeal to some religious conservatives; one would have hoped not that many, but after the last 8 years I think we’re all hesitant to treat their collective conscience as a particularly strong foundation. But I still have trouble believing that very many rank-and-file voters are salivating over a Project 2025 takeover already; they’ve always been motivated by grievance and perceived threat more than by achieving a positive vision.
But obviously I don’t have my finger on the pulse here. Maybe Intro isn’t representative either, but if that crowd is already fully armed and ready to ride for the Trump cause, I don’t really understand why.
|
On March 26 2024 19:11 Gorsameth wrote: boat hits bridge. It happens from time to time. Normally not much happens but this time it was a container ship 3 football fields long. That has a considerable mass, and bridges tend not to be built to accommodate being rammed by a containership 3 football fields long.
this fallen bridge however is now effectively closing the port of baltimore. which, i don’t want to downplay the lives lost here either, what a terrible way to go.
edit; not just effectively. the port is officially closed.
|
On March 26 2024 20:49 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2024 16:25 zeo wrote: Horrible news out of Baltimore. Hope they can save as many people as possible, how does something like this even happen? Never hear about boats hitting bridges.
Apparently three cars and a few construction workers were on it at the time (1:30am) Unrelated but you are the only Serbian I even kind of know so I wanted to ask you about this big complex that Kushner is trying to build on the site of the old Serbian headquarters. From what I read it is pretty contentious as that was a symbol of NATO's bombing for a lot a people. It seems to me like the people who would normally like Trump as a US president would be against it and vice versa. Am I reading into it correctly? This is actually the first Im hearing about this. I know Trump wanted to build something there before he ran for president.
This is much more of a 'story' in foriegn media than in our own. Nothing has been signed yet but honestly its been standing like that for 25 years now. The state should be rebuilding it to its former condition. This month marks 25 years since the start of NATO agression so its always going to be a touchy subject.
Those that want to make money from it are talking about the investment being a bridge between Serbia and the US because Trump is 'different'. The pro-EU liberal opposition is selling the point that the government is spitting on the graves of thousands of dead civillians by building a hotel or whatnot there. Its been designated as a protected cutural site so you cant just build whatever you want there.
Its not the only building NATO bombed but its by far the most visible one left and prime real estate. Forcing an American (offshore) company to build a museum to NATO war crimes is an idea that no one has anything against, but an ugly hotel or apartment complex on top of it in the middle of the city... Eh.
Edit: just to be clear, its not really seen as a big deal here
|
On March 26 2024 22:21 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2024 14:15 KwarK wrote: The lenders testified that they relied upon his financials when offering the loan. This has all been litigated and settled. I’m not sure you’re really making an effort to be informed about it. The “fine” is literally just paying back his ill gotten gains, that’s it. The banks gave Trump a discount based on the value of his collateral and available liquidity. It turned out he lied about that, his loan was a lot riskier than he told the banks it was and should have been charged higher interest. NY is making him pay back the discount that he lied about qualifying for. Habba did not dispute the expert testimony, nor the bank’s testimony, nor the number they came up with. This is all settled.
Also your faux outrage at “lawfare”, even when it’s simple enforcement of regular laws, rings hollow when you’re stanning for the “lock her up” guy. There is one side that campaigns on a promise to commit lawfare and it’s yours. They’re also convicted criminals and so they’re being prosecuted as such. Not for their political beliefs but because defrauding lenders with fraudulent financial statements is, simply put, a crime. If Trump wasn’t a criminal then there wouldn’t be quite so many crimes that he openly confessed to having committed. The best way avoid prosecution for defrauding lenders with fabricated financial statements was is not to commit that specific crime. I have read a bit and I even quoted some of it to you, from lawyers not CPAs why may have a different perspective. But like I said, it might even be, in the abstract, illegal activity. But I'm not gullible or disingenuous enough to believe this is just regular law enforcement. This ties in to what I said a few days ago, Trump said lots of things but did he actually lock up Hillary for her "extreme carelessness"? No! But this administration actually is going after their opponents. And lawfare is not new, one example that comes to mind is former gov of VA Bob McDonnell who scared dems so much the feds went after him on a ludicrous bribery charge they ended up getting reversed by the supreme court 9-0. By the way you know who was a prosecutor on that case? Jack Smith. Pretty sure that's not the only time he's had a higher court undo his work either. So no, I'm going to say the side doing it worse than the side threatening it (which I always said was something that worries me). But you and many others are incapable of seeing this as anything besides "stanning" so I guess we are just well and truly screwed.
Hold on. Hillary Clinton was investigated and absolved of any criminal wrongdoing. The fact that Trump made a campaign promise of imprisoning Hillary Clinton, yet failed to do so and broke his promise, is not a positive for Trump. It's not Trump showing compassion or reasonableness or bipartisanship or giving Democrats the benefit of the doubt or being the bigger person or giving Hillary a pass. Trump was just stupid and incompetent and incorrectly tried to jail someone who didn't commit crimes.
And that's exactly what's happening right now with the laughable attempt at impeaching Joe Biden. Just because Republicans fail at digging up crimes against their opponents (Clinton, Biden, etc.) doesn't mean they have any moral high ground compared to Democrats when Trump is actually found to be civilly liable (and potentially criminally guilty).
|
United States42228 Posts
On March 26 2024 22:21 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2024 14:15 KwarK wrote: The lenders testified that they relied upon his financials when offering the loan. This has all been litigated and settled. I’m not sure you’re really making an effort to be informed about it. The “fine” is literally just paying back his ill gotten gains, that’s it. The banks gave Trump a discount based on the value of his collateral and available liquidity. It turned out he lied about that, his loan was a lot riskier than he told the banks it was and should have been charged higher interest. NY is making him pay back the discount that he lied about qualifying for. Habba did not dispute the expert testimony, nor the bank’s testimony, nor the number they came up with. This is all settled.
Also your faux outrage at “lawfare”, even when it’s simple enforcement of regular laws, rings hollow when you’re stanning for the “lock her up” guy. There is one side that campaigns on a promise to commit lawfare and it’s yours. They’re also convicted criminals and so they’re being prosecuted as such. Not for their political beliefs but because defrauding lenders with fraudulent financial statements is, simply put, a crime. If Trump wasn’t a criminal then there wouldn’t be quite so many crimes that he openly confessed to having committed. The best way avoid prosecution for defrauding lenders with fabricated financial statements was is not to commit that specific crime. I have read a bit and I even quoted some of it to you, from lawyers not CPAs why may have a different perspective. But like I said, it might even be, in the abstract, illegal activity. But I'm not gullible or disingenuous enough to believe this is just regular law enforcement. This ties in to what I said a few days ago, Trump said lots of things but did he actually lock up Hillary for her "extreme carelessness"? No! But this administration actually is going after their opponents. And lawfare is not new, one example that comes to mind is former gov of VA Bob McDonnell who scared dems so much the feds went after him on a ludicrous bribery charge they ended up getting reversed by the supreme court 9-0. By the way you know who was a prosecutor on that case? Jack Smith. Pretty sure that's not the only time he's had a higher court undo his work either. So no, I'm going to say the side doing it worse than the side threatening it (which I always said was something that worries me). But you and many others are incapable of seeing this as anything besides "stanning" so I guess we are just well and truly screwed. “It might be illegal”? Manufacturing fraudulent financial statements to obtain loans is definitely illegal. The fact that they successfully prosecuted him for the crime might be a clue there.
Hillary escaped Trump’s lawfare by virtue of being innocent.
I took a look at the Bob McDonnell case and it seems pretty cut and dry that he did it. A businessman gave him and his family a series of extremely expensive gifts and McDonnell gave that businessman government contracts that would not normally have been given. The way to avoid the appearance of impropriety in these situations is to not accept lavish gifts from people lobbying you. Failing that you should disclose the gifts and conflict and be recused out of any decision relating to them. He failed to do that, he took the money and he gave the contract. That wouldn’t be allowed in my profession, I can’t consider bids while taking kickbacks and if I received “gifts” I would be required to not be on the selection committee.
Also I’m not going to worry too much about what SCOTUS think is bribery given the last few years of disclosure about Thomas being on the payroll of billionaire neo-Nazis.
|
|
On March 26 2024 16:25 zeo wrote: Horrible news out of Baltimore. Hope they can save as many people as possible, how does something like this even happen? Never hear about boats hitting bridges.
Apparently three cars and a few construction workers were on it at the time (1:30am)
This is best explanation and analysis i found so far.
+ Show Spoiler +
The ship lost power while steering towards the bridge. When they managed to get it back on, it was too late to stop or correct the course. I don't think there's a bridge in the world that would withstand a collision with a giant like that.
|
|
|
|
|