7 hours ago, jimmybcool said:

This is going to be fun.  😄

 

Some of you seem blind to the simple fact she signed loan agreements declaring the purchase as her primary residence.  In a state she never lived in.  This is called fraud.  How much she benefited from this or who is prosecuting won't matter.  The documents are there for the world to see.  

 

I mean maybe she will claim it was her primary residence.  But...... does she already have another mortgage filed claimed as primary.  

 

I despise the use of lawfare in politics but honestly if you all can't see how she and other democrats opened that pandoras box and TOLD THE WORLD they would do so in campaign promises..... well denial isn't just a river in Egypt.

 

Live by the sword.  

 

 

There are a lot of nice words in your post.

 

Do you have any proof or verifiable links to back them up that perhaps you forgot to add?

8 hours ago, jimmybcool said:

 

Some of you seem blind to the simple fact she signed loan agreements declaring the purchase as her primary residence.  In a state she never lived in.  This is called fraud.  How much she benefited from this or who is prosecuting won't matter.  The documents are there for the world to see.  

I mean maybe she will claim it was her primary residence.  But...... does she already have another mortgage filed claimed as primary.  

I despise the use of lawfare in politics but honestly if you all can't see how she and other democrats opened that pandoras box and TOLD THE WORLD they would do so in campaign promises..... well denial isn't just a river in Egypt.

 

‘Simple facts’ need simple evidence.
‘Documents are there for the world to see.’
— Where’s the money, Jimmy?
 

‘Well, denial isn’t just a river in Egypt’?
Yes — and in Trump’s and MAGA’s case, it’s official — a badge of honor.
 

In lieu of the Nobel, Trump was awarded the Egyptian Royal Order of Denial —
for a ‘peace deal’ where everyone — except the two at war — were there.

Denial — MAGA’s crown jewel, shining when there is no truth left to find.

21 hours ago, candide said:

If charges were false, then the GOP should be eager to show it by having Smith testifying  under oath in front of Congress! I'm joking, of course, it will never happen! 🤣

If Trump was in the Epstein files, then the Dems s hould have been eager to show it by releasing or leaking the files. I'm joking, of course, it  never happened.

1 hour ago, billd766 said:

Do you have any proof or verifiable links to back them up that perhaps you forgot to add?

The documents speak for themselves

9 hours ago, KhaoHom said:

 

Of course you've missed the point entirely. This is throughly unsurprising. This is fraud 

 

Thel article is bull<deleted> with all sorts of weasel words 

 

The argument underpinning this is that when she broke the law it only amounted to 800 per year - note they break it down to per year 🤡

 

The charges against Trump no harm was found whatsoever. The argument was he broke a law...and the unhinged retards hung on that until his case was setted 

 

Moreover, this is just spraying the farty air with perfume. Trying to taint jury pool. Nothing resolved. The article is just blah blah (aol ffs c'mon ) and she's going the jail

"Thel article is bull<deleted> with all sorts of weasel words"

 

You could have stopped there, buddy. Your po😆werful arguments have convinced  me already!

Just now, BLMFem said:

"Thel article is bull<deleted> with all sorts of weasel words"

 

You could have stopped there, buddy. Your po😆werful arguments have convinced  me already!

 

You didn't do university...freshman year. No surprise you don't know what a weasel word is.

3 minutes ago, KhaoHom said:

 

You didn't do university...freshman year. No surprise you don't know what a weasel word is.

 

Believe me when I tell you that my Uni degree has had no impact on my ability to spot a weasel, buddy.

9 hours ago, KhaoHom said:

 

Pure delusion 

 

They were all fake, all dismissed once the were able to get above the political fray

 

Some people may go to jail over it as well. Willis, Smith come quickly to mind 

 

Do you post this crap to score points for team libtard or really believe this rubbish??

Lol! A trash post talking about posting trash! 🤣

 

And because Smith is culprit, he wants to testify under oath in front of Congress! Suuure! 🤣

51 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

If Trump was in the Epstein files, then the Dems s hould have been eager to show it by releasing or leaking the files. I'm joking, of course, it  never happened.

And because he's not in the Epstein file, Trump doesn't want to release them! 🤣

5 hours ago, jerrymahoney said:

From NY Post:

 

Prosecutor Roger Keller — who was transferred to Virginia from the Eastern District of Missouri to lead the case — revealed that the government was prepared to call as many as 10 witnesses against James.

https://nypost.com/2025/10/24/us-news/new-york-attorney-general-letitia-james-pleads-not-guilty-to-bank-fraud-false-statements-charges/

 

NB Maybe the prosecution will call William Pulte who provided the criminal referral to DoJ -- if not, maybe the defense should.

Custodians of records. Thats the witnesses.

 

William Pulte has nothing to add to the case in chief or to the defense. 

 

Bet they offer her a plea just to mess with her lawyers. 

Whether it is referenced at a pre-trial hearing on vindictive prosecution or at trial, Pulte has the answer as to just how FHFA became aware of potential malfeasance on the part of NY AG James.

Sure. Professional prosecutors refused to bring the case to a grand jury because none of these defenses will work? Now that's stupid.

On 10/25/2025 at 5:31 AM, jimmybcool said:

This is going to be fun.  😄

 

Some of you seem blind to the simple fact she signed loan agreements declaring the purchase as her primary residence.  In a state she never lived in.  This is called fraud.  How much she benefited from this or who is prosecuting won't matter.  The documents are there for the world to see.  

 

I mean maybe she will claim it was her primary residence.  But...... does she already have another mortgage filed claimed as primary.  

 

I despise the use of lawfare in politics but honestly if you all can't see how she and other democrats opened that pandoras box and TOLD THE WORLD they would do so in campaign promises..... well denial isn't just a river in Egypt.

 

Live by the sword.  

 

 

Such ignorance and inventiveness. Please produce evidence that James claimed this would be her priimary residence.  As the article notes, what's stipulated is occupancy. Occupancy hasn't been defined by the law. She did not claim that the house would be her primary residence.

And finally, to convict someone of fraud, intent has to be shown. Given that the prosecutors discovered that James had told multiple parties including lawyers and bank officials that she was buying the property for her niece, good luck with showing intent.

2 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Sure. Professional prosecutors refused to bring the case to a grand jury because none of these defenses will work? Now that's stupid.

Such ignorance and inventiveness. Please produce evidence that James claimed this would be her priimary residence.  As the article notes, what's stipulated is occupancy. Occupancy hasn't been defined by the law. She did not claim that the house would be her primary residence.

And finally, to convict someone of fraud, intent has to be shown. Given that the prosecutors discovered that James had told multiple parties including lawyers and bank officials that she was buying the property for her niece, good luck with showing intent.

 

This is rich.  Kind of like Clinton redefining the word "is" or what having sex  means.  We'll let the courts play out and see.

 

My prediction assuming no plea deal is reached is that she is found guilty and given a short suspended jail sentence, a very real fine, and loses her license to practice law.

 

12 minutes ago, jimmybcool said:

 

This is rich.  Kind of like Clinton redefining the word "is" or what having sex  means.  We'll let the courts play out and see.

 

My prediction assuming no plea deal is reached is that she is found guilty and given a short suspended jail sentence, a very real fine, and loses her license to practice law.

 

No, it's nothing at all like Clinton redefining the word "is".

Intent has to be shown in a fraud case

When it comes to fraud charges, the government must demonstrate that the accused misrepresented or lied with the intention of deceiving someone else.  Although the typical fraud case will involve financial or legal harm to the victim, harm is not an element of fraud offenses. For example, attempts and conspiracies to commit fraud are violations of federal law, even if they are not successful.

However, one critical aspect the government must prove before prosecuting a fraud case is whether the accused had the necessary criminal intent to meet the required elements of fraud.

https://www.burnhamgorokhov.com/understanding-fraud-charges-the-importance-of-intent-and-defense-lawyers/

 

Not really compatible with someone explicitly claiming to interested parties that they were buying the house for someone else.

 

 

On 10/24/2025 at 4:21 PM, Yagoda said:

No they arent.

 

Not at this level

 

Its a documents case.

About rent:  "While the indictment alleges that James made "thousand(s)" from rental income, sources tell ABC News that prosecutors found no record of James collecting rent from her niece beyond $1,350 that James reported on her 2020 tax return, which was said to cover the cost of utilities, according to sources familiar with the investigation."

 

As for your claim that the judge at this level does not have it in power to determine vindictive or selective prosecution. James Comey's lawyers and the Federal District Judge in his case would disagree with you:

"Former FBI director James B. Comey asked a federal judge on Monday to dismiss the criminal case against him, calling it a vindictive prosecution and a direct extension of President Donald Trump’s long-running personal animosity.

In court filings, Comey’s attorneys — led by Patrick J. Fitzgerald, a former U.S. attorney for Chicago — accused the president of personally instigating the case on “facially flawed” charges that Comey lied to Congress. When several career prosecutors refused to proceed, citing insufficient evidence, the attorneys wrote, Trump installed a loyalist as U.S. attorney to ensure that a case would be filed...

They asked U.S. District Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff to dismiss the case with prejudice, meaning the charges could not be refiled.

https://archive.ph/Yrjgf

If Comey's lawyers can do this, why couldn't James' lawyers do the same? The Federal District Court judge has full authority to determine whether a prosecution is vindictive. Stop lying.

 

As for your claim that it's a documents case...reversing yourself much?

Previously you contended that testimony in this case is dangerous. Now you're claiming that it's irrelevant? 

Tell that to the prosecutors who determined that James told lawyers and bank officials that she intended to purchase the property for her niece. And then explain how that is compatible with an accusation of fraud. What you clearly don't understand is that to prove fraud, the government has to prove intent.

 

 

 

On 10/24/2025 at 3:56 PM, CallumWK said:

 

Nobody is safe, even Trump himself, when he throws his dummy out of the pram.

 

I'm sure, at one point he will incriminate himself.

He already has, often! The point is that nobody is able really to do anything. Legally he has been given "Presidential Immunity", and will front out legal challenges until they end up in front of the Supreme Court, he has used his admittedly thin control of Congress to efectively prorogue it, (once it voted him the budget he demanded it was game over for them - any oversight actions are simply ignored). Recent events show that his administration simply refuses to seat opponents who do win elections (which doesn't exactly bode well for elections in 2026 and 2028 - if indeed they are held); he has taken control and operates the prosecutorial process as a vehicle to suppress opposition. He simply ignores the constitution and the established checks and balances. To all intents and purposes he rules by his own personal fiat ("executive orders").

 

Commentators warn of embarking on a road towards an autocracy, America, remarkably rapidly, has moved a very long way down that road. The point to be considered is can it be reversed, or will, in time, power simply be passed to his favoured political or familian heirs?

 

 

33 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

 

 

About rent:  "While the indictment alleges that James made "thousand(s)" from rental income, sources tell ABC News that prosecutors found no record of James collecting rent from her niece beyond $1,350 that James reported on her 2020 tax return, which was said to cover the cost of utilities, according to sources familiar with the investigation."

 

As for your claim that the judge at this level does not have it in power to determine vindictive or selective prosecution. James Comey's lawyers and the Federal District Judge in his case would disagree with you:

"Former FBI director James B. Comey asked a federal judge on Monday to dismiss the criminal case against him, calling it a vindictive prosecution and a direct extension of President Donald Trump’s long-running personal animosity.

In court filings, Comey’s attorneys — led by Patrick J. Fitzgerald, a former U.S. attorney for Chicago — accused the president of personally instigating the case on “facially flawed” charges that Comey lied to Congress. When several career prosecutors refused to proceed, citing insufficient evidence, the attorneys wrote, Trump installed a loyalist as U.S. attorney to ensure that a case would be filed...

They asked U.S. District Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff to dismiss the case with prejudice, meaning the charges could not be refiled.

https://archive.ph/Yrjgf

If Comey's lawyers can do this, why couldn't James' lawyers do the same? The Federal District Court judge has full authority to determine whether a prosecution is vindictive. Stop lying.

 

As for your claim that it's a documents case...reversing yourself much?

Previously you contended that testimony in this case is dangerous. Now you're claiming that it's irrelevant? 

Tell that to the prosecutors who determined that James told lawyers and bank officials that she intended to purchase the property for her niece. And then explain how that is compatible with an accusation of fraud. What you clearly don't understand is that to prove fraud, the government has to prove intent.

 

 

 

Judge Nachmanoff has since since referred the appeal to the Fourth Circuit Court. Not because he doesn't have the authority to decide the case but because of a possible conflict of interest.

1 hour ago, Alan Zweibel said:

No, it's nothing at all like Clinton redefining the word "is".

Intent has to be shown in a fraud case

When it comes to fraud charges, the government must demonstrate that the accused misrepresented or lied with the intention of deceiving someone else.  Although the typical fraud case will involve financial or legal harm to the victim, harm is not an element of fraud offenses. For example, attempts and conspiracies to commit fraud are violations of federal law, even if they are not successful.

However, one critical aspect the government must prove before prosecuting a fraud case is whether the accused had the necessary criminal intent to meet the required elements of fraud.

https://www.burnhamgorokhov.com/understanding-fraud-charges-the-importance-of-intent-and-defense-lawyers/

 

Not really compatible with someone explicitly claiming to interested parties that they were buying the house for someone else.

 

However, she can hardly claim any sort of ignorance based on her being a lawyer.  So the word occupy is pretty clear in the English language.  I dunno.  This is why we have courts, judges and juries.  I will accept any ruling regardless of what I think she deserves.  And I still think she will be found guilty.  But whatever happens I lose no sleep.  I do have to laugh at the outrage claiming weaponizing the system when she is guilty as hell of doing that when she went after Trump.  

 

 

15 minutes ago, jimmybcool said:

 

However, she can hardly claim any sort of ignorance based on her being a lawyer.  So the word occupy is pretty clear in the English language.  I dunno.  This is why we have courts, judges and juries.  I will accept any ruling regardless of what I think she deserves.  And I still think she will be found guilty.  But whatever happens I lose no sleep.  I do have to laugh at the outrage claiming weaponizing the system when she is guilty as hell of doing that when she went after Trump.  

 

 

Not the same at all. Trump massively lied about the facts concerning his collateral.

31 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Not the same at all. Trump massively lied about the facts concerning his collateral.

 

 

Since I have multiple relatives in banking (not branch or tellers) in risk assessment for large loans I have a little insight into this.  Banks do not use ANY of your estimated valuations on a deal that size.  They do their own evaluations and risk analysis.  Which is why they were never unhappy with the deal and all said they would do business again. 

 

But then I suspect you don't care about any of that.  The machinations she went to to even charge him with this is despicable.  Which is why it is so ironic that SHE or any other democrat that cheered her on is getting in a tizzy about weaponizing the judicial system.  She RAN on getting Trump.  That is weaponizing the system.  I am laughing at the irony.  Especially since the entire penalty of her "conviction" has been tossed out.

18 minutes ago, jimmybcool said:

She RAN on getting Trump.  That is weaponizing the system

Running on prosecuting a criminal is weaponizing the system?

4 hours ago, Alan Zweibel said:

 

 

About rent:  "While the indictment alleges that James made "thousand(s)" from rental income, sources tell ABC News that prosecutors found no record of James collecting rent from her niece beyond $1,350 that James reported on her 2020 tax return, which was said to cover the cost of utilities, according to sources familiar with the investigation."

 

As for your claim that the judge at this level does not have it in power to determine vindictive or selective prosecution. James Comey's lawyers and the Federal District Judge in his case would disagree with you:

"Former FBI director James B. Comey asked a federal judge on Monday to dismiss the criminal case against him, calling it a vindictive prosecution and a direct extension of President Donald Trump’s long-running personal animosity.

In court filings, Comey’s attorneys — led by Patrick J. Fitzgerald, a former U.S. attorney for Chicago — accused the president of personally instigating the case on “facially flawed” charges that Comey lied to Congress. When several career prosecutors refused to proceed, citing insufficient evidence, the attorneys wrote, Trump installed a loyalist as U.S. attorney to ensure that a case would be filed...

They asked U.S. District Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff to dismiss the case with prejudice, meaning the charges could not be refiled.

https://archive.ph/Yrjgf

If Comey's lawyers can do this, why couldn't James' lawyers do the same? The Federal District Court judge has full authority to determine whether a prosecution is vindictive. Stop lying.

 

As for your claim that it's a documents case...reversing yourself much?

Previously you contended that testimony in this case is dangerous. Now you're claiming that it's irrelevant? 

Tell that to the prosecutors who determined that James told lawyers and bank officials that she intended to purchase the property for her niece. And then explain how that is compatible with an accusation of fraud. What you clearly don't understand is that to prove fraud, the government has to prove intent.

 

 

 

Your lack of knowledge of the law and legal proceddings is only exceeded by your derangement from Trump hate.

 

1. Dismissal for "vindictive prosecution" dont happen. Yes, the District Courts review it ab initio and have the power to do it. However. Appeals Courts make the final determination. Go look, you wont find more than one or two in the 100,000 plus appellate cases.

 

2. You dont know much about evidence do you. Here is how the trial will go:

 

X will testify that here are the documents

Y will testify that James signed them

If James made statements, they will be testified to, although if I was trying the case, I might save that for rebuttal, since rebuttal is the last testimony a jury will here.

 

Now its up to James. You are her lawyer, are you putting her on the stand.? Why dont you answer that questions for us?

 

No one is above the law. 

 

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

Running on prosecuting a criminal is weaponizing the system?

Show me the man, Ill show you the crime.

On 10/25/2025 at 3:41 PM, Yagoda said:

Custodians of records. Thats the witnesses.

 

William Pulte has nothing to add to the case in chief or to the defense. 

 

50 million + residential loans /mortgages. So how did Pulte come up with James?

 

 Hearing on any (James) motion to dismiss based on a theory of vindictive and/or selective prosecution set for 12/5/2025 at 11:00 a.m at which Mr. Pulte may be a prime topic.

NB not the Halligan issue.

 

1 minute ago, jerrymahoney said:

50 million + residential loans /mortgages. So how did Pulte come up with James?

 

 

 

I wonder if Pulte dobbed his own parents in?

 

Both are currently under investigation for mortgage fraud......5555

 

Sweet.

 

 

44 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

50 million + residential loans /mortgages. So how did Pulte come up with James?

How did James come up with Trump?

 

Pulte is not a witness in the case in Chief.

42 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

I wonder if Pulte dobbed his own parents in?

 

Both are currently under investigation for mortgage fraud......5555

 

Source?

4 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

How did James come up with Trump?

 

Pulte is not a witness in the case in Chief.

Source?

 

Lee & Perrins

4 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Pulte is not a witness in the case in Chief.

Pulte's documented actions will likely be noted in the selective prosecution motion hearing.

 

https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Filed-Pulte-complaint.pdf

13 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

Pulte's documented actions will likely be noted in the selective prosecution motion hearing.

 

https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Filed-Pulte-complaint.pdf

You can get your hopes up, but its a virtual impossible burden. Read the cases they cite.

26 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

You can get your hopes up, but its a virtual impossible burden. Read the cases they cite.

As I said yesterday, when you are bucking federal criminal charges you are playing against the house.

 

That said, in vindictive prosecutions I would think it a rare precedent that the prime vindictor was the US President.