CdnFox Posted October 13, 2025 Report Posted October 13, 2025 11 minutes ago, Shady said: Under the law it’s fraud. CIVIL fraud but yes. it's civil fraud. And that was a big deal when trump did it apperently. Now we see the left asking why anyone thinks it's important? This is a favorite game of the left. You see it again and again. They make a huge deal about something, then when it blows back on them or they're accused of the same thing they pull what has become known as the "why are we even talking about this" defense. Its trump: "HE COMMITTED FRAUD!!! IT"S HORRIBLE! HE"S A BAD PERSON WHO WAS TRYING TO TRICK THE BANK OUT OF MONEY!!! IF WE DON"T PUNISH HIM PEOPLE DO THIS ALL THE TIME AND IT"LL COST US ALL TRILLIONS!!! IT DOESN"T MATTER IF THERE WAS NO VICTIM, WE MUST PUNISH!!!! it's a democrat: " Meh. nobody was hurt. Why are we even talking about this? Is this the biggest problem we've got? 1 minute ago, LinkSoul60 said: For a Canadian who complains daily about the state of our country, you sure do step up in defence of the guy who's been trying to break our economy. Most would say that's being hypocritical... Why are we even talking about this? See how that works @Shady? Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
Shady Posted October 13, 2025 Report Posted October 13, 2025 9 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said: What do you mean exemption? Prosecutors allege she saved $18,933 ($600 per year) through this "misrepresentation", including by securing a lower interest rate. This will be thrown out of court, if it even gets there... For a Canadian who complains daily about the state of our country, you sure do step up in defence of the guy who's been trying to break our economy. Most would say that's being hypocritical... Why would it be thrown out of court? Where in the law does it say defrauding someone of $18,000+ is legal? Quote
LinkSoul60 Posted October 13, 2025 Report Posted October 13, 2025 Just now, Shady said: Why would it be thrown out of court? Where in the law does it say defrauding someone of $18,000+ is legal? Because it's a weak case, which is why the original prosecutor declined to press charges and Trumps' real estate lawyer was brought in. Why so defensive about a guy who's trying to break our economy? Quote
Shady Posted October 13, 2025 Report Posted October 13, 2025 2 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said: Because it's a weak case, which is why the original prosecutor declined to press charges and Trumps' real estate lawyer was brought in. Why so defensive about a guy who's trying to break our economy? Just show me where in the law that defrauding someone of $18,000+ is legal? Quote
LinkSoul60 Posted October 13, 2025 Report Posted October 13, 2025 Just now, Shady said: Just show me where in the law that defrauding someone of $18,000+ is legal? Let's see what the court says, if it even gets there... Why so defensive over a guy who's trying to break our economy? Quote
WestCanMan Posted October 13, 2025 Report Posted October 13, 2025 On 10/9/2025 at 7:46 PM, Hodad said: two embarrassingly thin indictments... What an utter embarrassment to this nation. Yeah, if there are less than 34 embarrassingly thin indictments it's just pure laziness. But tell us, Hodad, isn't a bit weird that a person who actually committed bank fraud charged another person with bank fraud, but thinks that their own bank fraud was ok? Which is it, Hodad? Should perpetrators of bank fraud be indicted or not? You were all for it before. Quote If the Cultist Narrative Network/Cultist Broadcasting Corporation gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, leftists would believe everything they typed. "I don't hate American's, I pointed out the literacy rate to Uncle Sam." - LinkSoul "It's just a parable about rocks and trees talking to muslims to help them kill Jews who are trying to hide. It's open to interpretation." - robobigot
robosmith Posted October 13, 2025 Report Posted October 13, 2025 29 minutes ago, Shady said: Under the law it’s fraud. There is no $18,000 exemption. Nobody is above the law remember? If you’re going to prosecute low level rarely prosecuted real estate violations, than don’t complain when it happens to you, hypocrite. There is no dollar amount exception under the law. It’s still fraud. You’re a hypocrite. The FACT is, deciding to prosecute VERY MUCH depends on the damage amount. As former FEDERAL DA Chris Christie said on This Week, the DoJ won't prosecute a case that's only worth $1000 because it's NOT WORTH THEIR TIME. YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND they have much bigger fish to FRY. That makes it VINDICTIVE PROSECUTION. And AGAIN, your AMATEUR LEGAL OPINION, MEANS NOTHING. Quote
Shady Posted October 13, 2025 Report Posted October 13, 2025 Just now, robosmith said: The FACT is, deciding to prosecute VERY MUCH depends on the damage amount. As former FEDERAL DA Chris Christie said on This Week, the DoJ won't prosecute a case that's only worth $1000 because it's NOT WORTH THEIR TIME. YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND they have much bigger fish to FRY. That makes it VINDICTIVE PROSECUTION. And AGAIN, your AMATEUR LEGAL OPINION, MEANS NOTHING. There were no damages in Trumps case. Zero damages. All loans were paid back in full, on time. There are more damages in James’s case. 1 Quote
CdnFox Posted October 13, 2025 Report Posted October 13, 2025 Just now, robosmith said: The FACT is, deciding to prosecute VERY MUCH depends on the damage amount. You said it didn't matter if there was no damage. There was no damage in the trump case, how do you explain that? This is the problem with making it up as you go, very quickly you lose track of what you lied about previously Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
WestCanMan Posted October 13, 2025 Report Posted October 13, 2025 1 minute ago, LinkSoul60 said: Let's see what the court says, if it even gets there... Why so defensive over a guy who's trying to break our economy? Who is defending Carney? Is there someone else that's trying to destroy our economy that I'm unaware of? Quote If the Cultist Narrative Network/Cultist Broadcasting Corporation gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, leftists would believe everything they typed. "I don't hate American's, I pointed out the literacy rate to Uncle Sam." - LinkSoul "It's just a parable about rocks and trees talking to muslims to help them kill Jews who are trying to hide. It's open to interpretation." - robobigot
CdnFox Posted October 13, 2025 Report Posted October 13, 2025 Just now, Shady said: There were no damages in Trumps case. Zero damages. All loans were paid back in full, on time. There are more damages in James’s case. LOL posted at the same time, great minds and all that 1 Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
Shady Posted October 13, 2025 Report Posted October 13, 2025 2 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said: Let's see what the court says, if it even gets there... Why so defensive over a guy who's trying to break our economy? The only people truly responsible for breaking our economy are the Liberals. They have done more damage than Trump could ever dream of. And people like you have supported it. Just now, CdnFox said: LOL posted at the same time, great minds and all that These clowns still don’t understand how foolish they look. 1 Quote
WestCanMan Posted October 13, 2025 Report Posted October 13, 2025 2 minutes ago, robosmith said: The FACT is, deciding to prosecute VERY MUCH depends on the damage amount. As former FEDERAL DA Chris Christie said on This Week, the DoJ won't prosecute a case that's only worth $1000 because it's NOT WORTH THEIR TIME. YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND they have much bigger fish to FRY. That makes it VINDICTIVE PROSECUTION. And AGAIN, your AMATEUR LEGAL OPINION, MEANS NOTHING. You're underestimating the importance of getting actual criminals like Letitia out of the justice system. 1 Quote If the Cultist Narrative Network/Cultist Broadcasting Corporation gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, leftists would believe everything they typed. "I don't hate American's, I pointed out the literacy rate to Uncle Sam." - LinkSoul "It's just a parable about rocks and trees talking to muslims to help them kill Jews who are trying to hide. It's open to interpretation." - robobigot
robosmith Posted October 13, 2025 Report Posted October 13, 2025 21 minutes ago, Fluffypants said: Also Trump didn't commit fraud he put a disclaimer on the application stating that this was his opinion and to please do your own valuation. They did and the loans were based on that. Value is subjective but what Tish did wasnt. She lied about what the home was for. The judge found that Trump's disclaimer was WORTHLESS. And that YOU are IGNORANT. LMAO Quote Donald Trump included a disclaimer on his financial statements, arguing that it absolved him of responsibility for inaccuracies by advising lenders to perform their own due diligence. However, the judge in his civil fraud trial, Arthur Engoron, rejected this argument as "worthless," stating that the disclaimers did not insulate Trump from liability for making fraudulent claims. The disclaimer Source: The disclaimers were added by the Trump Organization's former accounting firm, Mazars USA LLP, and were included with financial statements sent to banks and insurance companies. Content: The disclaimers specified that the financial statements were not audited and that Mazars expressed "no opinion or provide[d] any assurance" on the accuracy of the valuations. They also stated that Donald J. Trump was responsible for the information provided. Trump's defense: Throughout his civil fraud trial, Trump claimed the disclaimers served as a "buyer beware" warning, suggesting that lenders were notified not to trust the valuations and should conduct their own independent verification. The court's ruling Fraudulent intent: In September 2023, Justice Engoron ruled that Trump and his co-defendants were liable for fraud, concluding that the financial statements contained fraudulent valuations. He determined that the disclaimers did not negate the years-long pattern of intentionally inflated asset valuations. Lender testimony: A Deutsche Bank official, David Haigh, testified that the financial statements were key to securing favorable loans. He said he had no reason to doubt their validity at the time, and the bank would not have approved the loans without the personal guarantees that Trump's stated wealth provided. Purpose of disclaimers: According to a former Manhattan prosecutor, John Moscow, disclaimers are intended for minor adjustments, not to exonerate lies on documents intended to be used by lenders. He noted, "The whole point in this case is that the document as a whole was an attempt to get the bank to believe the numbers were essentially correct". Appeals court: While a New York appeals court later reduced the monetary penalty in August 2025, it did not overturn the underlying fraud verdict related to the falsified financial statements Quote
LinkSoul60 Posted October 13, 2025 Report Posted October 13, 2025 1 minute ago, Shady said: The only people truly responsible for breaking our economy are the Liberals. They have done more damage than Trump could ever dream of. And people like you have supported it. Why so defensive over a guy who's trying to break our economy? Quote
robosmith Posted October 13, 2025 Report Posted October 13, 2025 1 minute ago, WestCanMan said: You're underestimating the importance of getting actual criminals like Letitia out of the justice system. And AGAIN, your AMATEUR LEGAL OPINION, MEANS NOTHING. Quote
Shady Posted October 13, 2025 Report Posted October 13, 2025 Just now, LinkSoul60 said: Why so defensive over a guy who's trying to break our economy? I see that you’ve finally moved on from your ridiculous position. Quote
CdnFox Posted October 13, 2025 Report Posted October 13, 2025 (edited) 4 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said: Why so defensive over a guy who's trying to break our economy? Why are we even talking about this? 2 minutes ago, Shady said: I see that you’ve finally moved on from your ridiculous position. See? Edited October 13, 2025 by CdnFox Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
LinkSoul60 Posted October 13, 2025 Report Posted October 13, 2025 1 minute ago, Shady said: I see that you’ve finally moved on from your ridiculous position. She was charged, not convicted... and I've said let it go to court (if it even does) to see what happens. Nothing ridiculous about that at all. Why so defensive over a guy who's trying to break our economy? Quote
Shady Posted October 13, 2025 Report Posted October 13, 2025 1 minute ago, LinkSoul60 said: She was charged, not convicted... and I've said let it go to court (if it even does) to see what happens. Nothing ridiculous about that at all. Why so defensive over a guy who's trying to break our economy? Why so defensive of the New York AG? 1 Quote
CdnFox Posted October 13, 2025 Report Posted October 13, 2025 Just now, LinkSoul60 said: She was charged, not convicted... and I've said let it go to court (if it even does) to see what happens. Nothing ridiculous about that at all. Why so defensive over a guy who's trying to break our economy? Why are we even talking about this? This is going to go on for a bit @Shady He's not going to want to address your point any more. Quote "That which doesn't kill me... Had better start running."
LinkSoul60 Posted October 13, 2025 Report Posted October 13, 2025 Just now, Shady said: Why so defensive of the New York AG? What don't you understand about... 'She was charged, not convicted... and I've said let it go to court (if it even does) to see what happens'? Why do you refuse to answer why you're so defensive of a guy who's trying to break our economy? Quote
LinkSoul60 Posted October 13, 2025 Report Posted October 13, 2025 9 minutes ago, Shady said: Why so defensive of the New York AG? Why do you refuse to answer why you're so defensive of a guy who's trying to break our economy? Quote
Shady Posted October 13, 2025 Report Posted October 13, 2025 Just now, LinkSoul60 said: Why do you refuse to answer why you're so defensive of a guy who's trying to break our economy? Why are you so defensive of the New York AG? Especially when she’s being charged with a similar crime that you supported Trump being charged with? I don’t get it. Quote
LinkSoul60 Posted October 13, 2025 Report Posted October 13, 2025 1 minute ago, Shady said: Why are you so defensive of the New York AG? Especially when she’s being charged with a similar crime that you supported Trump being charged with? I don’t get it. For the last time.... What don't you understand about... 'She was charged, not convicted... and I've said let it go to court (if it even does) to see what happens'? If you view that as being defensive so be it. Answer the question Shady... Why are you so defensive over a guy who is trying to break our economy? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.