Chomper Higgot

It opinion pieces are…… wait for it….opinion pieces. I’m sure though feeding the ‘Trump is going to get away with it all’ angst sells copy.

You can’t draw that conclusion from my statements either. I simply corrected your misunderstanding on the matter. I’m sorry doing so caused such offense.

I wonder to what extent are these clergymen answerable Catholic Ecclesiastical Law. Do you surprise they still perform ‘Trial by Ordeal’?

When responding to my posts you might want to try sticking to what I actually said and not attribute your own fabricated statements to me: "Ah but you can lock people up people prior to trial". The above statement is not even close to ‘calling for prison’. Quite a bizarre conclusion with absolutely no justification.

Nice try Jonny. But the clue is in the BBC headline, absolutely nothing to do with Labour’s surging popularity.

Where did I even suggest I supported such a thing? I did not. Go easy on the coffee.

Very pro Government controlling citizens life choices.

You perhaps assume English Common Law is universal.

Well the current GOP certainly does.

Actually they always have been. Pre-atrial incarceration is a thing.

I’d be surprised if you had even heard of Mike Johnson before today, I suspect you’ve a bit of catching up to do. Oh and what triggered your totally off topic Antifa nonsense?

It’s rather fitting that a rightwing extremist should be handed the tail of the rabid GOP tiger. A Republican mess that will not be resolved by a guy with zero political capital in the party. He’s going to be eaten alive.

Having gone through life never facing any accountability then being put in the stand and schooled by a judge must of hurt. I advise the court not to accept a personal check for payment of the fine.

Performance art for an audience of one. With Trump getting a slap for running his mouth against a court clerk. Seeing Trump on the stand in front of a judge reading Trump the law must have been a wonderful sight.

AmericaFirstPolicy.com and Newsbusters bog. I’d like to think you were tying to have a laugh.

I’m rather looking forward to the laws relating to Bankruptcy coming into play sometime shortly after Trump is handed his penalty.

It think that comes under the statute of whataboutary.

Rather than keeping through hoops to try and get reality to fit your viewpoint, read the relevant law (the law applied in the case), in particular Section 12.

What matters is who submitted the ‘fraudulent’ valuations. Submitting a false valuation is Fraud, it becomes fraud at the very moment of submission, absolutely nothing to do with whether the loan is paid. The submissions have been ruled by the court as fraud.

Since you mention the law, here it is, Section 12 applies and has been applied: https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/executive-law/exc-sect-63/

Which has zero bearing on what Meadows’ lawyer chose to say and chose not to say.

Valuations are black and white records. Arithmetic is not subjective.

The financial system is the injured party, fraud undermines trust in and the credibility of the how finance functions and is governed. There is a difference between subjective error and criminally fraudulent valuation. The court has already determined criminal fraud. Sure this ought to be basic knowledge for a bank executive.

The wording of the statement by Meadows’ lawyer is interesting, not for what it says, but for what it doesn’t say. It’s a long way from a categorical denial that Meadows has cut an immunity deal. Why so reticent? If an immunity deal hasn’t been cut just say so. I’m sure Meadows doesn’t appreciate having a MAGA target pinned to his back by suspicion that he’s cooperating with Jack Smith against Trump.

One more By-Election should just about do it. https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2023/oct/24/labour-prepares-to-force-byelection-if-tory-mp-peter-bone-suspended