Rebound

Trump will need a lot more money because he’s about to have half a billion in assets seized. But you didn’t address the fact that he’s paying his lawyers to tell a judge that he doesn’t have $485 million in cash, while simultaneously posting on social media that he does. Which is a very stupid thing for him to do.

Please remind us how many times Trump declared bankruptcy. Then explain why Deusch Bank defended him even though he defaulted on $40 million of loans with them. Perhaps it’s because Trump still owes them $340 million, and a massive fraud finding risks their ability to be repaid… especially if Donald is angry with them for testifying against him.

Turns out, the way a woman dresses and the way she looks does not justify rape. Luckily for you, her lawyer isn’t interested in suing you for defamation, cause the only asset you’ve got is that broken down pickup truck and the trailer home you live in.

Irrelevant. Because this little dick has only one legal defense strategy: DELAY. One they collect his money, he’s lost it because there is no defense to the fraud he committed. Attacking the judge and his law clerk and their families won’t win an appeal.

If Trump doesn’t post bond tomorrow, he forfeits appeal.

You must have gotten F’s in every class at school. Cause fleas have bigger attention spans than you.

Have you ever heard of a billionaire who can’t afford to pay property tax, so he turns his home into a country club and lives in it as a guest, while people drive in and out all day and night? Bill Gates, Elon Musk and Oprah don’t rent their mansions out to guests and run their home as a business so they can afford to pay their tax bill.

In a week when Trump and his lawyers told New York judges they were unable to obtain $485 million in bonds to appeal a fraud verdict (for exaggerating his wealth)… Trump claims yesterday that he has “almost $500 million in cash!” So he has to come up with the money by Monday, or NY seizes his assets… and while his lawyers are begging the judge for more time, Trump brags that he’s got the money! What a dope! Well, Leticia will be happy to hear this, and if Trump doesn’t post it as bond in a few days, she’ll seize that cash and save herself the trouble of putting Mar-a-Lago up for sale. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/22/trump-500-million-civil-fraud/

Mar-a-Lago has been deed restricted to operating as a private club, not as a private home, with a maximum of 500 members. Memberships cannot cost more than $200,000 initiation fee and annual dues $20,000. This limits annual income to $10 million per year. Additionally, the land has been granted a conservation easement to the National Trust for Historic Preservation, which prohibits any subdivision, ever. What is the valuation of a business which is capped at only $10 million in annual gross revenue?

Terrorism: the systematic use of terror So you see, we can all play ridiculous word games, and talk about the root meanings of words and quote Chaucer... we can say that words have no meaning because they are just a bunch of letters, right? OR we can admit that words have meaning, and using words with the intention of inciting violence or advocating violence or warfare is not protected speech. I believe that using words with the intention of inciting or advocating violence or warfare is not protected, and that screaming "We want Palestinian Intifada Now" over and over through a megaphone is an intention of inciting or advocating terrorism and it cannot be anything else.

Then I don't think you read my post. Someone asked whether there should be any limits to pro-Palestinian or pro-Hamas or anti-Israeli viewpoints on college campuses. My answer was, "Yes, I believe that proclaiming support for "Palestinian Intifiada Revolution" is advocacy of terrorism, because that is what Palestinian Intifada means. You replied with a dictionary definition of the word "Intifada," which is irrelevant to the discussion. The definition of "terror" can mean, "a person, especially a child, who causes trouble or annoyance." By THAT definition, there's nothing wrong with promoting terrorism, right? Cause it only means causing annoyance, and that's allowed. But... there's a very big difference between being annoying and blowing up pizza parlors filled with teenagers.

No. You're looking up the definition of a word in the dictionary, and hiding behind it. In the United States, it is illegal to fund terrorism and terrorist groups. Are you seriously going to say that if a group says they are "freedom fighters," that makes it legal to give them money? Because if I look up "freedom" and "fighter" in the dictionary, they don't say "Terrorist." Does that make it legal? No, it is not legal if the group is a still a terrorist group. If someone is waving a Palestinian flag and screaming into a bullhorn about Palestinian Intifada Revolution, what they are doing is calling for and supporting acts of terrorism against Jewish people. There is no ambiguity and no dictionary entries to hide behind. It is simple fact.

The one thing you don't deny: Donald Trump broke the law. He didn't break the fraud law once, he broke it continually, many dozens of times, for over a decade. He didn't break the law by an arguable or defendable amount. The judge wrote that a 20% discrepancy in valuation was defensible. But the valuations were inflated by over 300%, after accounting for the premium value of the Trump name and all the other factors. I don't accept your argument that lying to banks is a necessity of doing business in New York and "all real estate moguls do that." The State of New York passed a law called Adult Survivors Act, which was modeled on their prior law, the Child Victims Act. Over 3,000 lawsuits were filed under the Adult Survivors Act, so, no, it was not "just so E. Jean Carroll could sue Donald Trump." What's more, of the $88.5 million verdicts awarded to E. Jean Carroll, just $2 million was related to the fact that Donald Trump raped her. The lion's share of that verdict, by far, stemmed from the fact that, after Trump lost $5 million to Carroll, he continued to defame her. So the jury said to themselves, "Huh, I guess a $5 million verdict isn't big enough punishment to make him stop defaming this woman, so we need to award a much larger verdict." Now, Trump continues to defame E. Jean Carroll, and if she sues him a third time, the jury will most likely say to themselves, "Huh, I guess $88.3 million isn't enough punishment to make him stop defaming this woman, so we need to award a much larger verdict." This is what happens to repeat criminals. The second punishment is far harsher than the first, and the third is harsher still. Your problem is this: You aren't asking yourself the simple question of "What the F*CK is wrong with Donald Trump that he would defame a woman the day after he loses a defamation lawsuit?", and instead and instead of blaming the criminal, you're blaming the legislature, judge, jury, and the victim.

It is a FACT that Trump defaulted on loans to Deusche Bank. It is also FACT that Trump wields enormous political power, and Deusche, for many reasons, may not want to take the stand and say, “Yup, we’re a bunch of dummies who were fooled by Donald Trump.” But what matters here is that it is ILLEGAL to fraudulently state your worth on loan applications. Can you GET THAT THROUGH YOUR SKULL? It is ILLEGAL to lie on those forms. That’s the law, Trump broke it. And not over any sort of reasonably arguable amount. All the Trump employees were asked about how they apply generally accepted accounted principles (none of them knew) and what their processes were for assessing the values of these properties (Donald told us and we wrote that down.) If they said that they evaluate the properties by comparing to other comparable properties which recently sold and adjusting in a reasonable fashion, they’d have been fine. But they had no defense for their egregious lies and now their CFO is going to jail AGAIN, this time on Felony perjury for lying on the witness stand in this case. Why can’t you understand that it has been proven over and over again that this guy is a fraud and a criminal? Wake up! You are brain washed. EVERYTHING about this case is laid out in public record. You can read all of the facts for yourself. The Trump Organization lied repeatedly, over a period exceeding a decade, not by 20% but by hundreds of percents, in stating the value of Trump’s assets. It is not legal to do this, for good reason. Finally: The man who said he’s worth ten billion dollars and has “$400 million cash on hand” cannot get w BOND for $485 million. It’s because he cannot put up $485 million in assets to the bonding agencies to guarantee repayment.

This isn’t a thread about Joe Biden. It is about Paul Manafort. The REPUBLICAN US SENATE said that he is a “grave US national security threat.” So why should a Grave Security Threat have a highly senior job in the Republican Party?

If Biden had been caught selling classified documents, I would want him to be prosecuted for it. Because I don’t belong to a cult, and I’m sane enough to know that there are many, many people qualified for the job of President, not just one person.

What about the Antifa rioters who went to jail for rioting, looting, burning buildings? Are they political prisoners, or convicted criminals?

No, it is definitely not correct to describe the first Palestinian intifada as non-violent. The Swastika comparison is not equivalent but the comparison is the meaning of the word or symbol. If someone waves a Nazi flag and claims it’s merely an ancient Chinese symbol, they are lying. And if a protester screams for Palestinian intifada revolution, they are calling for a terrorism campaign, not a “resistance.”

So Trump will “end Marxism” by seizing private assets and using it to create a national university which will teach only subjects permitted by the national government leader? What is more Marxist than that?

No, there is absolutely no ambiguity to it whatsoever… when it is used to describe Palestinian fighting. The Palestinians have TWICE staged murderous “intifadas” which murdered thousands of Israeli civilians. By the same token, you could say there is ambiguity in the swastika, but not when it’s flown as a flag in the Nazi colors or worn as an armband.

DC Weekly certainly hates Israel plenty.

In a university, logic and fact usually win. But there is one particular expression in use today which concerns me, and that is when protesters call for “intifada revolution,” because the Palestinian intifada campaigns were terrorist suicide bombing campaigns which murdered thousands. This phrase is promotion of terrorism directed at civilian minorities and I don’t believe the First Amendment protects it.

Yes, the law says that in order to appeal a civil judgement, you must post a bond of the judgement amount, either cash or as a surety bond. The criminal Trump stated that he had $400 million in cash before he said he didn’t. Your thirty days complaint is nonsense, because Trump knew he lost this trial months and months ago and he knew the plaintiffs were asking for $350 million. So he had about six months to secure the money if he wanted to appeal, not 30 days. This is fair because Trump lost. Filing an appeal delays receipt of funds by the plaintiff and causes the plaintiff to spend even more money to obtain the relief they are entitled to. That’s why the law is written that way. There have been even larger lawsuits which went to appeal.

The right-wingers sure are quiet about Trump being too poor to get his bond, after he said under oath that he had the cash.