Longwood50

3 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

The question in this fraud trial isn't guilt, its the penalty. But you do know Trump committed fraud, right?

Yes and Hillary Clinton destroyed emails under subpoena
Sandy Berger stole classified documents in his pants

Bill Clinton lied under oath

Hunter Biden lied on a federal form.

It is selective prosecution purely politically driven. 

1 hour ago, Danderman123 said:

Please do not response with a list of Biden's lies, most of those are petty or screw-ups, and not germane.

That is "your opinion"  The fact is that Trump may not be a perfect man.  However as I have repeatedly said, if it were not political, there would be no trial.  The banks did not bring forth any charges and to the best of my knowledge his obligations to the banks have been repaid as agreed. 

Using James Comey former head of the FBI when he let Hillary off the hook, he said NO REASONABLE PROSECUTOR WOULD BRING THE CASE. 

The crimes against Hillary were far more severe and far less subjective.  There is not once chance in a billion that Trump would be prosecuted if he was just an ordinary citizen.  

19 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Since you mention the law, here it is, Section 12 applies and has been applied

Since you mention the law,  tell me how the law applied to these. 

 

The FBI says it found 113 classified emails that were mishandled

 "Contrary to her sworn testimony, Secretary Clinton sent and received emails that were marked classified at the time." – James Comey FBI

Clinton's use of a private email system and a private server violated federal law, specifically 18 U.S. Code § 1924, regarding the unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or materials, as well as State Department protocols and procedures ...

The Clinton campaign previously had indicated that her personal emails were deleted before Clinton received a congressional subpoena on March 4, 2015. But the FBI said her emails were deleted “between March 25-31, 2015” — three weeks after the subpoena

Now who did the government choose to prosecute for a what they perceive as a boastful representation of asset value versus actions that clearly were willful violations of the law.

President Clinton admits he lied under oath about his affair with Monica Lewinsky in 2001

IRS criminal supervisory special agent Gary Shapley, told lawmakers that the Justice Department's tax division and the prosecutors handling the Biden probe viewed the deductions as "a slam dunk case" of tax fraud.

Biden also made $18,000 in wire payments to another woman, using coded language to conceal the purpose of the transaction. Another payment of $10,000, labeled as a "golf club member deposit," was actually for a sex club membership.

In April 2005, Berger pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material from the National Archives in Washington, D.C.

8 minutes ago, Cory1848 said:

If I have any technical questions about banking, I’ll come to you for sure. If I want a clear-eyed evaluation of political candidates, I’ll turn elsewhere.

The FBI says it found 113 classified emails that were mishandled

 "Contrary to her sworn testimony, Secretary Clinton sent and received emails that were marked classified at the time." – James Comey FBI

Clinton's use of a private email system and a private server violated federal law, specifically 18 U.S. Code § 1924, regarding the unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or materials, as well as State Department protocols and procedures ...

The Clinton campaign previously had indicated that her personal emails were deleted before Clinton received a congressional subpoena on March 4, 2015. But the FBI said her emails were deleted “between March 25-31, 2015” — three weeks after the subpoena

Now who did the government choose to prosecute for a what they perceive as a boastful representation of asset value versus actions that clearly were willful violations of the law.

President Clinton admits he lied under oath about his affair with Monica Lewinsky in 2001

IRS criminal supervisory special agent Gary Shapley, told lawmakers that the Justice Department's tax division and the prosecutors handling the Biden probe viewed the deductions as "a slam dunk case" of tax fraud.

Biden also made $18,000 in wire payments to another woman, using coded language to conceal the purpose of the transaction. Another payment of $10,000, labeled as a "golf club member deposit," was actually for a sex club membership.

In April 2005, Berger pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material from the National Archives in Washington, D.C.

Now tell me how the banks were so hurt by any falsification of Trumps net worth versus outright lying under oath, falsifying tax returns, and stuffing classified documents in your pants and how those were treated. 

If Trump was not in politics using Comey's words, no reasonable prosecutor would ever bring the case. 

Using Comey as an example, there was a woman who lied under oath and was sent to jail her name was Martha Stewart.  Guess who prosecuted her for lying.  None other than James Comey.  

This is all political.  You bring charges, no matter how far fetched or trivial and you keep your opponent bottled up in litigation. 

47 minutes ago, pomchop said:

You best stick to banking as you clearly do not understand the law. 

As I have previously stated.  This is a political witch hunt.  The "injured" party would be the bank.  They were not injured.  They also should be the one to bring the lawsuit claiming fraud.  They did not. 

Who did.  His political opponents. 

This is like the IRS finding a taxpayer paid all of his taxes but had innacurate information on the returns that didn't impact the taxes due, then claiming a false tax return. 

The underlying premise of a fraud is that it causes people to lose money.  A fraud with no victim not a crime.  The valuations are subjective and they were accepted by the bank.  

The government now coming in after the fact and second guessing the bank is purely weaponizing government. 

If the bank was injured due to any fabrication in my opinion that would be different. 

This really is no different than when Hunter Biden was charged with making false statements on a gun purchase.  Few if any are ever prosecuted.  Biden was targeted strictly because he was Biden.  Trump targeted strictly because he is Trump and he has political enemies.  

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Valuations are black and white records.

Yes they are.  And who made the valuations?  People don't appraise their own properties.  If Trump pledged assets 1. They had to be supported by outside valuations. 2. They had to be reviewed and approved by the banks lending officer.

Still bottom line. The valuations are irrelevant if the debt was repaid.  

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

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.

I suggest my 34 years as an executive officer for major banks including Bank of America is a bit broader than yours. 

Basic Law  an "injured party" brings action.  If anyone was injured it was the banks.  That would be who the "false statements" were make to.  Did the banks bring the action or did Trumps' political enemies. 

Now if I say I own a piece of property and I did not own it.  That is fraud.  If I place a value of $10 million on it and years later you claim it was only worth $5 million and I committed fraud that is purely subjective. 

This is purely a case of poltiical vindictiveness.  No bank brought any claims of not being paid by Trump and being injured by his financial statements. 

This is Stalinist. 

12 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

Boy, talk about false equivalence.  The OJ trial was decided by a jury, much more fallible and/or biased.  This is a bench trial and the judge is by-the-book.

No my statement was that "courts" are not infallible. 

Take the most recent case with Roe V Wade.  The Supreme Court ruled that the prior Supreme Court was wrong.  

Judges are human and have biases.  Go to a different judge and you would get a different opinion. 

1 minute ago, Berkshire said:

As for your last sentence, let's say you embezzled money from your bank.  And you took that money to go play the ponies and your horse actually won.  Even if you put that money back, you're still guilty of embezzlement. 

That is a false equivalent.  A loan obligation is a promise to pay back period.  So long as the debtor pays back to the lender, the underlying collateral is not an issue. 

As to the Judge.  Yes and you could just as easily gone to another judge who would rule that it was not fraud.  One only has to look at the OJ Simpson trial to know that the courts are hardly infallible or biased. 

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

That the loan payments are made has no bearing on the matter.

Making false statements is a crime. However the loan payments do have a bearing on it.  Where is the injury to the bank?  

If Trump was not being persecuted because he is hated by the left, the bank which ostensibly is the injured party would not be bringing the action.  This is purely political BS.  

The bank if the financial statements were false is also guilty of not performing its duty to verify. 

If you pull virtually any financial statement from any loan you can argue that it is not 100% accurate.  As to valuations of buildings.  They are all "subjective"  The valuation can only be established at the time of sale.  Further, valuations fluctuate wildly from period to period.  

When I was doing assessing valuations for accounts back in the 1980's huge blocks of real estate we deemed as worthy of "holding" for future appreciation.  In truth we couldn't give those buildings away Texas oil crashed and building valuations were a joke because no one wanted them at any price.  Today, those same buildings are worth hundreds of milllions.  So did we  the bankers make a mistake in calling those buildings worthwhile holdings.  Pure subjectivity.  

2 minutes ago, Tug said:

Back when Trump managed to bankrupt 2 casinos the banks made a decision to continue to fund him on the premise that it was cheaper to keep him than bankrupt him he’s a fraud pure and simple he is what he is 

As I said, to the best of my knowledge none of the valuations being argued over today involve any loans not being repaid. 

As to the banks actions, did you ever hear of Chapter 11 bankruptcy.  Creditors often find it preferable to continue to fund a struggling organization to get some repayment versus siezing assets. 

One way or another, the bank and as said, I was a bank executive for many years, you do not take customers financial statements at face value.  If you loan money against a home, it has an appraisal.  If you loan against business assets, they are appraised.  If you loan against a car, it has a blue book value. 

This is such BS.  I am a former bank executive.  When financial statements are sent in to a bank for a loan they have to be accompanied by appraisals.  

You don't loan money against a building unless it is appraised typically by bonifide cash flow reports that supports it valuation. 

I personally have bought businesses and financed them.  I was required to get the value of the business appraised and submitted as part of my application for the loan. 

Do you really believe if someone, anyone walked into a bank and said, hey look I have properties worth $10 billion dollars that the bank would not question the validity of them and take them the valuation at face value. 

Another point, to the best of my knowledge any of the loans that are being questioned are not in default.  So irrespective of what those properties are worth how is the bank harmed.  It loaned money and is getting it paid back. 

3 hours ago, RanongCat said:

I doubt  many would argue against that.

But the IDF have not "hunted down" . They have relied on non discriminatory air bombardment of civilians .

A couple of points.  Is it those civilians who harbored Hamas and provided the location from where the missles were launched. 

Also, Hamas has shielded itself in Mosques, schools, hospitals, surrounding themselves with civilians in an attempt to evade being fired upon. 

Would you prefer Israel send in ground troops and have those civilians be human shields.  

War is an ugly business.  At one time opposing armies wore uniforms and faced each other head on in battle.  No longer.  Everything today is a form of guerrila warefare where the enemy surrounds and cloaks themselves. 

7 minutes ago, Brickleberry said:

It was the British who started all of this. What the hell were they thinking, giving away the Arab's land?

It all depends on what date you select to determine whose land it is.  For 9,000 years BC the Jews occupied the land.  An act of WAR changed that when Rome banished the Jews.  The land was not claimed until 1517 when the Ottomans waged war and claimed it.  So again an Act of War changed the ownership of the Land.  That lasted for exactly 400 years until 1917.  The Ottomans backed the Germans in WW1.  Guess what, the Germans lost and Britain obtained the land again as An Act Of War.  So the British have more right to the land than the Ottomans since both obtained the land via a spoil of war and the British more recently than the Ottomans. 

In my opinion the Jews have allowed the Palestinians to occupy that land and unlike the Romans did not level and banish them from the territory.  However, when you start to have a population within that group that includes those that would launch 700 missles into Israel, I don't think it is an uncalled response to hunt down kill all those involved and destroy their weapons of war. 

One can point over centuries to maps being withdrawn and territories belonging to one country versus another.  From a long term historical standpoint the land was Jewish.  From a near term standpoint the Land was ceded to the Jews.  Only for the period from 1517 to 1917 was the land Arab property.  

3 minutes ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

True. But it is an artform here in Thailand

Churchill might disagree with you.