President Donald Trump - J.D. Vance Administration

#39,526
#39,526
jmacvols1 said:
no one is above the law....the left took trump to court over real estate fraud and tried (complete bogus cases against Trump) to take all of his properties away from him and fine him a half billion dollars. Trump did what other developers do and the bank testified on Trump's behalf that the bank used its own valuations, Trump paid the loan back with interest as he did with other loans and the bank would be happy to do more loans with Trump.

The left's own lawfare against Trump has now come back to bite them....what goes around comes around
Click to expand...

Trump repeatedly lied and provided false info on those applications. He provided a fake income statement. He lied about square footage. Revenue. Expenses. Liquidity. He did far more than inflate values. You continually choose to ignore that aspect.

The fine was ridiculous for reasons discussed at length previously. No argument there. Appeals court was right for throwing it out for that reason.

If she's guilty, then yeah, she needs to be removed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 85SugarVol, BernardKingGOAT, NorthDallas40 and 1 other person
#39,527
#39,527
tvolsfan said:
Nothing. The country has seemingly accepted that children dying is more tolerable than making it harder to get guns.
Click to expand...
I guess it depends on what you mean by "harder to get guns".

but which shooting would have been stopped by making it "harder to get guns"?

i mean if you want to get to the level where only the elite and rich can have guns, yeah it might "help". and it would fit in with the original racist intentions of gun control. but usually you guys aren't looking at the law of unintended consequences.

look at Covid. we shut down schools to save children's lives, even though it was a tiny tiny number dying from Covid. what we saw in return was an increase in child's deaths, after we sent them home. more suicides, from breaking their routines. more deaths from abusive/drunk parents with everyone locked together for months on end in an atmosphere of fear. more accidental deaths from swiping prescription drugs or alcohol found at home.

on complex matters its rarely the first answer that works. you would be better off breaking it into manageable chunks, instead of just trying more of the same ineffective things.

its always worth pointing out, that the people trying to take away rights from others have never been the good guys.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Peradox1K
#39,528
#39,528
  • Like
Reactions: 85SugarVol, DuckInAPen, swampfoxfan and 2 others
#39,529
#39,529
BigOrangeMojo said:
Trump repeatedly lied and provided false info on those applications. He provided a fake income statement. He lied about square footage. Revenue. Expenses. Liquidity. He did far more than inflate values. You continually choose to ignore that aspect.

The fine was ridiculous for reasons discussed at length previously. No argument there. Appeals court was right for throwing it out for that reason.

If she's guilty, then yeah, she needs to be removed.
Click to expand...
Trump's attorneys and CPAs gave their evaluations of real estate as all real estate developers do, in the end the bank used their own valuations. Trump's people even included a disclaimer cover sheet saying the numbers were their own valuations and the bank could use its own valuations. The bank even testified on Trumps' behalf and said they were paid back with interest and would do business again with Trump.


AI Overview

During the New York civil fraud case, Donald Trump and his legal team argued that disclaimers on his financial statements absolved them of wrongdoing. However, the presiding judge rejected this argument, ruling that the disclaimers did not protect against the fraudulent valuations found within the documents.

The disclaimer defense
  • The argument: Trump's defense, including his lawyers and his own testimony, claimed that a "worthless statement clause" in the financial documents protected them. The disclaimer urged banks to do their own due diligence and not rely on the provided figures.

  • Trump's testimony: In a November 2023 testimony, Trump stated the disclaimer "says, very strongly, 'do your own due diligence'" and that it covered any mistakes. He even tried to present a physical copy of the disclaimer to the judge in the courtroom.

  • The accounting firm's role: The accounting firm Mazars USA LLP, which prepared the statements for the Trump Organization, also included its own disclaimers. These indicated that the firm did not audit or verify the information provided and that the valuations did not necessarily follow Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP)
 
#39,530
#39,530
jmacvols1 said:
Trump's attorneys and CPAs gave their evaluations of real estate as all real estate developers do, in the end the bank used their own valuations. Trump's people even included a cover sheet saying the numbers were their own valuations and the bank could use its own valuations.
Click to expand...

We arent talking about valuations though.

How much unrestricted cash do have on hand isnt subjective
How much revenue did this building generate lsst last year isnt subjective
How much expenses did this building have last year isnt subjective
How many square feet isnt subjective
What was your P&L for this building last year isnt subjective

These are all things he lied about on an application.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 85SugarVol and NorthDallas40
#39,531
#39,531
BigOrangeMojo said:
We arent talking about valuations though.

How much unrestricted cash do have on hand isnt subjective
How much revenue did this building generate lsst last year isnt subjective
How much expenses did this building have last yearulent back accounts, adisnt subjective
How many square feet isnt subjective
What was your P&L for this building last year isnt subjective

These are all things he lied about on an application.
Click to expand...
--the judge did claim fraudulent over evaluations were made by Trump's team.

--every developer can be prosecuted in NY for overstating valuations.

--James ran on "get Trump" and she should never have been allowed to bring this case anyway.....no DA can run on going after private individuals she personally dislikes. Trump's case is the only one of its particular kind to be tried in NY....no other developers have been tried for overvaluing property that I could find.

AI found following cases below on real estate fraud in NY but these cases involved crimes as defrauding investors, stolen deeds, fraudulent bank accounts.... all crimes. Trump did not commit such criminal activities. Trump's case was simply "get Trump" at any and all cost.
Again, Trump is far from the only developer to have over-vaulations of property, but Trump is being singled out for being Trump.


(Google AI)
Examples of other New York real estate fraud cases include:
  • Michael D'Alessio (2018): This real estate developer pleaded guilty in Manhattan federal court to defrauding investors of more than $58 million. He also concealed assets from bankruptcy court.
  • Angelo Scudiero (1999): This developer was implicated in a corruption scandal involving a real estate enterprise that received kickbacks of over $1 million related to a large apartment complex.
  • Real estate executive (2025): The Department of Justice announced a charge against a real estate executive who created a fraudulent bank account in the name of a development project. The executive then diverted a $30 million investment into that account.
  • Deed theft cases: In 2025, New York authorities brought charges against Sanford Soul, who stole the deeds to 11 residential properties. The Manhattan District Attorney's office has a dedicated unit for deed fraud and secured 31 indictments from 2017 to 2025.
 
#39,532
#39,532
jmacvols1 said:
no one is above the law....the left took Trump to court (complete bogus case) over real estate fraud and tried to take all of his properties away from him and fine him a half billion dollars. Trump did what other developers do and the bank testified on Trump's behalf that the bank used its own valuations, Trump paid the loan back with interest as he did with other loans and the bank would be happy to do more loans with Trump.

The left's own lawfare against Trump has now come back to bite them....what goes around comes around
Click to expand...
Again, if you see the President trying to take over the Fed and think "Ha! Revenge, really owning the libs this time" you are very stupid
 
  • Like
Reactions: BeardedVol
#39,541
#39,541


Shipwreckedcrew
@shipwreckedcrew
·
19m

I think what will happen is that Judge Cobb is going to give both sides a chance to file simultaneous briefs based on what was argued today, and then replies to each of those briefs, with the stipulation that the TRO motion is converted to a Prelim. Injunction. The briefing schedule might extend to Friday next week, and she will decide the following Monday.

I don't think she's going to grant the motion. The statute gives great discretion to the Pres. Cook will still have her suit pending and can pursue her claim of pretextual removal -- although that is legally dubious.

But given the recent decisions in the DC Cir. and SCOTUS on removal, I think the Judge is going to say the balance of harms favors the Govt as SCOTUS has already ruled.
 
Last edited:
#39,545
#39,545
jmacvols1 said:


Shipwreckedcrew
@shipwreckedcrew
·
19m

I think what will happen is that Judge Cobb is going to give both sides a chance to file simultaneous briefs based on what was argued today, and then replies to each of those briefs, with the stipulation that the TRO motion is converted to a Prelim. Injunction. The briefing schedule might extend to Friday next week, and she will decide the following Monday.

I don't think she's going to grant the motion. The statute gives great discretion to the Pres. Cook will still have her suit pending and can pursue her claim of pretextual removal -- although that is legally dubious.

But given the recent decisions in the DC Cir. and SCOTUS on removal, I think the Judge is going to say the balance of harms favors the Govt as SCOTUS has already ruled.
Click to expand...

Dude, don't you know we don't actually do legal analysis here. We decide whether it is pro-Trump or anti-Trump and we declare what the result should be accordingly.

If we prevail, we declare it "following the law," if we lose, we declare it "downfall of the Republic."

Don't give us this stuff about "stays" "discretion" and "legally dubious" actions. It kills the acrimonious vibe around here. 😉
 
  • Like
Reactions: jmacvols1 and Peradox1K
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top