A story about a pathetic man's downfall [34 Felony Convictions]

[Captainant 27,667]

Yeah none of that gives me any hope that trump will ever face any consequences in his lifetime. He's got enough support in the courts and in his cronies to draw this out indefinitely. Because even IF there is a conviction, it'll be appealed and the ruling stayed and yadda yadda as just pointed out. 

There are no consequences for fascists once they seize power. The fascists don't care about the rules, and those who can stop the fascists are bound by the limitations of the law. And the law is intentionally limited by the fascists. 

But sure, let's see ol Donnie wriggle his way out of this jam! I'm sure it'll go differently from the last thousand times it's happened. 

[YGIFS 19,450]

He ain't ever seeing the inside of a jail cell folks.  Get that wish off your list.  He may still be indicted for passing classified secrets in exchange for something of value.  But he'll drag that legal process out for years, and very likely cost him the general election in 2024.  

But there is a shining light at the end of this tunnel of doom.  He believes in his core that what he does is beyond reproach.  That he is untouchable, and for good reason.  But as much as we berate him, he's not a complete fucking moron.  He has spent enough time in our legal system to know he is under some modicum of pressure.  You can see him physically uncomfortable and worried during these depositions---even if he is repeating his 5th amendment claims over and over again.  He is federal trouble, election trouble, financial trouble, debt trouble, state of NY & GA trouble, political trouble, media trouble, and family trouble.  Even with his narcissism, this weighs on him.  He won't ever go to jail but he will smeared and bankrupted many times over.  And the good news is is that will weigh fiercely over his head and cause him to die sooner than he'd like to.  The man will not live past the 2020's.  Only question will be whether or not his loyal base accepts his death as legitimate.    

[henrygandorf 29,191]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

I explain that prosecuting Trump to a conviction is more difficult than "hurr durr we've got him on tape" or "derp he told Lester Holt."

One of the difficulties is that sometimes what he does doesn't clearly line up with a statutory crime.  It's a difficulty, it's not insurmountable.  And yes, we could stand some better laws concerning official conduct.  But so far, we seem to have one that can be adapted to fit his misconduct.  Treason, however, is not one of them and I wish people would stop screaming treason all the time.  To paraphrase Popehat, "it's not treason, dammit."

Another difficulty is that many of the crimes that do fit require proof of a specific intention to commit the crime in question.  Trump is such an idiot and murky thinker that even when he does essentially confess to a crime, he does so in imprecise language and then immediately contradicts himself, at least verbally.  We all know that he probably has the worst intention humanly possible at any given time, but proving that intent within the courtroom environment is another matter entirely.

My main point is that prosecuting Trump is not a simple matter, it's complex, it takes some time to develop facts, especially when the witnesses have privileges with murky contours, are liars in the first place, and seem to be scared to death to cross Trump.  Just because it's hard doesn't mean it's impossible or that it won't happen.

I see positive signs all over that Jack Smith is building on the work of his predecessors and going hammer and tongs after Trump.  I don't think they're doing that just for shits n giggles, they're trying to build a convictable case.

Further, just about every Trump legal entanglement since he left office has gone poorly for him, including civil cases that he used to "win" by sheer obstreporousness.  I think that trend is going to hold.

while the j6 insurrection fuckery, georgia phone call nonsense, and classified document show-and-tell all seem like theoretical slam dunks, why isn't tax fraud or insurance fraud an actual slam dunk? 

we know he's lied about his personal/corporate net worth, value of his properties, and so forth - before, during, and since his presidency.  we know he's no longer under some fake 12 year audit.  we also know that some criminal masterminds in the past have escaped everything except the tax man.

in short, why not done?

 

 

Edited February 18, 2023 by henrygandorf

[Neonmoon 38,129]

41 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

while the j6 insurrection fuckery, georgia phone call nonsense, and classified document show-and-tell all seem like theoretical slam dunks, why isn't tax fraud or insurance fraud an actual slam dunk? 

we know he's lied about his personal/corporate net worth, value of his properties, and so forth - before, during, and since his presidency.  we know he's no longer under some fake 12 year audit.  we also know that some criminal masterminds in the past have escaped everything except the tax man.

in short, why not done?

Because it turns out, the legal system is not actually based on common law, or precedence, or legal theory. The legal system is based on politics, not the law. It’s based on power, not right or wrong. 

[YGIFS 19,450]

And unfortunately, a lot of the "wrongful" shit Trump pulled doesn't technically have specific statutes/caselaw about it because nobody thought this kinda shit would ever be pulled for a former President.  It would be as futile as me trying to get you to enact laws against online identity theft...in 1973.  

[TwiceHorn 31,469]

1 hour ago, henrygandorf said:

while the j6 insurrection fuckery, georgia phone call nonsense, and classified document show-and-tell all seem like theoretical slam dunks, why isn't tax fraud or insurance fraud an actual slam dunk? 

we know he's lied about his personal/corporate net worth, value of his properties, and so forth - before, during, and since his presidency.  we know he's no longer under some fake 12 year audit.  we also know that some criminal masterminds in the past have escaped everything except the tax man.

in short, why not done?

 

 

He's lied to the public.  It's not nearly as clear that he has lied to financial institutions.  Leticia James has made that allegation, but has yet to prove it even by a preponderance in a civil suit.

[henrygandorf 29,191]

38 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

He's lied to the public.  It's not nearly as clear that he has lied to financial institutions.  Leticia James has made that allegation, but has yet to prove it even by a preponderance in a civil suit.

so we’re supposed to believe he’s played it straight with banks, insurance companies, and the irs for the past 25 years?

[Grade of D as in David 13,253]

41 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

so we’re supposed to believe he’s played it straight with banks, insurance companies, and the irs for the past 25 years?

[Chewbacca 7,777]

Proof of a specific intent beyond a reasonable doubt can be muy dificil.  And, it's not just convincing jurors.  I would make an educated speculation that jury verdicts of conviction are overturned on the sufficiency of evidence of a specific intent more often than any other sufficiency of evidence issue.

So fucking what? Prosecute him with the best case you have and let the chips fall where they may.

[TwiceHorn 31,469]

57 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

so we’re supposed to believe he’s played it straight with banks, insurance companies, and the irs for the past 25 years?

Well, you know you can't go to trial on belief, right?  

That's the whole problem here.  Lawsuits and criminal cases are won on admissible and convincing evidence.  Not on tweets, not on blog posts, not on stories from the media.  And certainly not on belief.

We have tons of evidence that he was falsifying his net worth to the public and Forbes and anyone that would listen.  We don't have much evidence, yet, that he did so to a lender.

James' case is a civil case so she gets to do discovery to see what he may or may not have done with lending institutions and to ask people under oath what he knew and what he didn't.  You know, to turn "belief" into facts proven by evidence

The government can't do that in a criminal case, nearly as easily.  They have to gather all their proof before they indict.

In a home mortgage or a small commercial lending deal, bank fraud is an easy case.  Someone knowingly submits a false document, usually some kind of appraisal, boom, headshot.

It's not quite so simple in these hundreds of millions commercial loans.

Edited February 19, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31,469]

6 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

4 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Proof of a specific intent beyond a reasonable doubt can be muy dificil.  And, it's not just convincing jurors.  I would make an educated speculation that jury verdicts of conviction are overturned on the sufficiency of evidence of a specific intent more often than any other sufficiency of evidence issue.

So fucking what? Prosecute him with the best case you have and let the chips fall where they may.

All of the statutes under consideration for indictment of Trump relating to 1/6 require proof of a specific intention.

The only seemingly easy case before the government is obstruction of justice on the Mar-A-Lago documents and they seem to be working right now on connecting Trump directly to it by the grand jury testimony of Bobb and Corcoran.

People are acting like children about this.

2 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

Because it turns out, the legal system is not actually based on common law, or precedence, or legal theory. The legal system is based on politics, not the law. It’s based on power, not right or wrong. 

*precedents

[WhatTheBuck 28,781]

4 hours ago, Willfully Horn said:

My hope has always been that he face the judgement of twelve citizens.

I’d settle for him being the burden of six. 

[tx 3 putt 76,956]

The trump trial circus will break him.

multiple threats to the judge, prosecutors, jury , …,

[Gatorubet 30,238]

3 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

Because it turns out, the legal system is not actually based on common law, or precedence, or legal theory. The legal system is based on politics, not the law. It’s based on power, not right or wrong. 

That must be why he’s lost something like 61 times in courts since the election, right?

[TwiceHorn 31,469]

22 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

That must be why he’s lost something like 61 times in courts since the election, right?

Add at least a baker's dozen to that number of other, unrelated matters, lost in embarrassing fashion, often with sanctions.

Since leaving office, Trump doesn't have good lawyers anymore, and his judgment, which was never sterling, is clouded and not clarified by decent lawyers like Kasowitz and Jones Day.

Edited February 19, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[henrygandorf 29,191]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, you know you can't go to trial on belief, right?  

That's the whole problem here.  Lawsuits and criminal cases are won on admissible and convincing evidence.  Not on tweets, not on blog posts, not on stories from the media.  And certainly not on belief.

and you know i know i am not the da, right?  i refuse to ‘believe’ this fat fuck is that good at covering his tracks. 

and don’t they have cooperating witnesses and shit from trump org?

[Hermanator 7,050]

15 hours ago, Captainant said:

You've explained in painstaking detail how our legal framework can not and will not EVER stop the fascists from doing their dirty work. There may be some vague hope that they'll eventually get what's coming, but you're ignoring or overlooking all the real, tangible damage to our democracy and society at the hands of these people that you can only hope that they don't get away with it. 

Can you share some of why you're hopeful? Because all I ever seem to read about the criminal proceedings is that our laws just don't address their behavior, and we need to amend our laws to address it. 

In what reality is that something that will actually happen? Where is there any evidence of consequence for any of these fucking fascists that turned the levers of power against citizens they choose to "other"? 

Oh I know, I bet we'll just have to hope right? There's so many reasons to believe they'll face actual consequences that meaningfully discourage their sort of actions in the future. We've been SO good at that up till now. 

US system of democracy was set up intentionally to not hold wealthy land owners accountable. It was set up to protect wealthy land owners from anyone trying to take their wealth. It was not set up to protect anyone that is not a wealthy land owner. 

They just did a good job of hiding the traitorous behavior from the public before. They suck at it now. 

It sucks but if you decide you need justice in this life it's up to you to take it with a bullet. 

Edited February 19, 2023 by Hermanator

[Hookah Horns 3,083]

7 hours ago, Captainant said:

Yeah none of that gives me any hope that trump will ever face any consequences in his lifetime. He's got enough support in the courts and in his cronies to draw this out indefinitely. Because even IF there is a conviction, it'll be appealed and the ruling stayed and yadda yadda as just pointed out. 

There are no consequences for fascists once they seize power. The fascists don't care about the rules, and those who can stop the fascists are bound by the limitations of the law. And the law is intentionally limited by the fascists. 

But sure, let's see ol Donnie wriggle his way out of this jam! I'm sure it'll go differently from the last thousand times it's happened. 

This is why people delude themselves that the afterlife or reincarnation is real. We need to believe Donnie loses in the end, because if Jesus loved us he would. 

[DDD Dad 14,339]

5 hours ago, Hermanator said:

US system of democracy was set up intentionally to not hold wealthy land owners accountable. It was set up to protect wealthy land owners from anyone trying to take their wealth. It was not set up to protect anyone that is not a wealthy land owner. 

They just did a good job of hiding the traitorous behavior from the public before. They suck at it now. 

It sucks but if you decide you need justice in this life it's up to you to take it with a bullet. 

 

[Neonmoon 38,129]

8 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

That must be why he’s lost something like 61 times in courts since the election, right?

Having to deny a frivolous attack on democracy 61 times isn’t the flex you think it is 

[TwiceHorn 31,469]

6 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

and you know i know i am not the da, right?  i refuse to ‘believe’ this fat fuck is that good at covering his tracks. 

and don’t they have cooperating witnesses and shit from trump org?

Right, and I am trying to tell you what a DA or US Attorney is realistically looking at. 

I do have the sense that unlike Willis or Garland, Manhattan DA Bragg doesn't have the stones to take on Trump.  But he is an elected official subject to local politics.  Trump is wildly unpopular in NYC, but I don't doubt that he has some major backroom influence there still.

As far as cooperating witnesses, they had Weisselberg, but he apparently was unwilling to dump on Trump.  He did just enough cooperation to secure his own sweetheart sentence and nothing more.

[TwiceHorn 31,469]

6 hours ago, Hermanator said:

US system of democracy was set up intentionally to not hold wealthy land owners accountable. It was set up to protect wealthy land owners from anyone trying to take their wealth. It was not set up to protect anyone that is not a wealthy land owner. 

They just did a good job of hiding the traitorous behavior from the public before. They suck at it now. 

It sucks but if you decide you need justice in this life it's up to you to take it with a bullet. 

I don't believe it was set up that way intentionally, either the government writ large or the judicial branch.

Like any government, though, it is susceptible to manipulation, subtle or otherwise, by the "power classes."

I actually believe that our government gives more access to out groups than most any other on the planet.  To the extent it doesn't, it is more a reflection of society than of the government itself.  And I would say the same is true of any governments that you might wish to hold up as better examples.

Take, for example, the most heinous thing written into our Constitution, the 3/5 compromise.  That was undone relatively rapidly by the 14th Amendment.  Of course, it took another roughly 100 years for that to take real effect, but that was more a societal problem than a constitutional or governmental problem.

Edited February 19, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Neonmoon 38,129]

9 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, you know you can't go to trial on belief, right?  

That's the whole problem here.  Lawsuits and criminal cases are won on admissible and convincing evidence.  Not on tweets, not on blog posts, not on stories from the media.  And certainly not on belief.

We have tons of evidence that he was falsifying his net worth to the public and Forbes and anyone that would listen.  We don't have much evidence, yet, that he did so to a lender.

James' case is a civil case so she gets to do discovery to see what he may or may not have done with lending institutions and to ask people under oath what he knew and what he didn't.  You know, to turn "belief" into facts proven by evidence

The government can't do that in a criminal case, nearly as easily.  They have to gather all their proof before they indict.

In a home mortgage or a small commercial lending deal, bank fraud is an easy case.  Someone knowingly submits a false document, usually some kind of appraisal, boom, headshot.

It's not quite so simple in these hundreds of millions commercial loans.

 

8 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Right, and I am trying to tell you what a DA or US Attorney is realistically looking at. 

I do have the sense that unlike Willis or Garland, Manhattan DA Bragg doesn't have the stones to take on Trump.  But he is an elected official subject to local politics.  Trump is wildly unpopular in NYC, but I don't doubt that he has some major backroom influence there still.

As far as cooperating witnesses, they had Weisselberg, but he apparently was unwilling to dump on Trump.  He did just enough cooperation to secure his own sweetheart sentence and nothing more.

They have the lender documents showing one amount and the tax documents showing a different amount. That should be all the evidence they need. But as you point out, the DA Bragg is a political figure and Trump has some back room influence, so instead of deciding this case based on the law using evidence, this case will be decided by money and power. 

Edited February 19, 2023 by Neonmoon

[TwiceHorn 31,469]

3 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

 

They have the lender documents showing one amount and the tax documents showing a different amount. That should be all the evidence they need. But as you point out, the DA Bragg is a political figure and Trump has some back room influence, so instead of deciding this case based on the law using evidence, this case will be decided by money and power. 

That's a nice trope and it goes along nicely with the old notion that you keep one set of books for the IRS and one set for everyone else.  The problem is, though, that many times, that's completely legit.  IRS rules aren't the same as GAAP.

And, I am virtually certain that the underwriting rules of big commercial lending are much more ad hoc than say a home mortgage, where it's three years tax returns, W2s and an appraisal or two.

Moreover, I'm not sure we really have seen any lender documents.  I have been rather carefully scrutinizing the reports of the James civil litigation and have been waiting for the evidence that will make a bank fraud case and haven't seen it yet.  I'm hoping it's there.  I feel relatively certain it's there, but I haven't seen it yet.

[Neonmoon 38,129]

Trump received a 21 million income tax deduction based on a appraisal that valued the full Seven Springs property at 56.5 million. local government assessors said the entire estate was worth 20 million. Trump gave financial statements saying it was worth 290 million to Deutsche Bank to get a better loan. It’s not a trope. Getting tax deductions based on one value and bigger loans based on another value seems illegal. 

[TwiceHorn 31,469]

4 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Trump received a 21 million income tax deduction based on a appraisal that valued the full Seven Springs property at 56.5 million. local government assessors said the entire estate was worth 20 million. Trump gave financial statements saying it was worth 290 million to Deutsche Bank to get a better loan. It’s not a trope. Getting tax deductions based on one value and bigger loans based on another value seems illegal. 

But it's not the difference in the valuations that makes them illegal.  The simpleton analysis is that one is false and the other is true.

The TV lawyer Perry Mason moment is "were you lying then or are you lying now."

But, to make bank fraud, it has to be proven that the DB statements were knowingly false.  To make IRS fraud, you have to prove that the IRS valuation was knowingly false.

This ain't TV.

[Biff Tannen 45,683]

On 2/16/2023 at 3:58 PM, Biff Tannen said:

I've come to appreciate @TwiceHorn explaining all of this to us non-lawyers and as frustrating as it is, I know he's acting in good faith, so I've stopped getting upset about it.  However, I think what all of his explaining has done is shown me how utterly fucked up and broken our justice system is.  Aside from voting rights, I'd say the justice system is number 2 on the list of shit that needs to be absolutely scratched and started over from the beginning.  But that will never happen, so onward we go, into oblivion.

Also, since this has gotten so much traction, I’d like to say that I read every twicehorn post in Eric’s voice now:

[WhatTheBuck 28,781]

7 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

But it's not the difference in the valuations that makes them illegal.  The simpleton analysis is that one is false and the other is true.

The TV lawyer Perry Mason moment is "were you lying then or are you lying now."

But, to make bank fraud, it has to be proven that the DB statements were knowingly false.  To make IRS fraud, you have to prove that the IRS valuation was knowingly false.

This ain't TV.

Trump admitted to not paying his taxes during a debate with Hillary Clinton. He said it makes him smart.

[Captainant 27,667]

10 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

But it's not the difference in the valuations that makes them illegal.  The simpleton analysis is that one is false and the other is true.

The TV lawyer Perry Mason moment is "were you lying then or are you lying now."

But, to make bank fraud, it has to be proven that the DB statements were knowingly false.  To make IRS fraud, you have to prove that the IRS valuation was knowingly false.

This ain't TV.

 

48 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

That's a nice trope and it goes along nicely with the old notion that you keep one set of books for the IRS and one set for everyone else.  The problem is, though, that many times, that's completely legit.  IRS rules aren't the same as GAAP.

And, I am virtually certain that the underwriting rules of big commercial lending are much more ad hoc than say a home mortgage, where it's three years tax returns, W2s and an appraisal or two.

Moreover, I'm not sure we really have seen any lender documents.  I have been rather carefully scrutinizing the reports of the James civil litigation and have been waiting for the evidence that will make a bank fraud case and haven't seen it yet.  I'm hoping it's there.  I feel relatively certain it's there, but I haven't seen it yet.

So all I ever hear from you is:

1) It's childish and unreasonable to act like trump won't face any consequences, legal civil or otherwise

2) it's childish and unreasonable to expect any case against trump to move forward because there's just no evidence!

 

Before you say mUh SiXtY cOuRt LoSsEs, those were all trump's own cases getting bounced out - not an action taken AGAINST trump. None of that has fucking happened. Because if you're rich enough you gain power, and if you're powerful enough you are effectively beyond reproach. Your own arguments and posts back this up. Your cognitive dissonance to act so hopeful while explaining why there is no hope is pretty outrageous 

[TwiceHorn 31,469]

7 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Trump admitted to not paying his taxes during a debate with Hillary Clinton. He said it makes him smart.

[TwiceHorn 31,469]

29 minutes ago, Captainant said:

 

So all I ever hear from you is:

1) It's childish and unreasonable to act like trump won't face any consequences, legal civil or otherwise

2) it's childish and unreasonable to expect any case against trump to move forward because there's just no evidence!

 

Before you say mUh SiXtY cOuRt LoSsEs, those were all trump's own cases getting bounced out - not an action taken AGAINST trump. None of that has fucking happened. Because if you're rich enough you gain power, and if you're powerful enough you are effectively beyond reproach. Your own arguments and posts back this up. Your cognitive dissonance to act so hopeful while explaining why there is no hope is pretty outrageous 

And, the Trump org has been criminally convicted.  He has failed at every turn to stop or impede the James litigation.  He has failed to stop subpoenas and disclosure of information from the IRS.

Most importantly, perhaps, in the past, Trump's legal strategy has been to go on offense before he has to go on defense.  Sue the bastard before he sues you.  And that strategy has been a near-complete failure since leaving office.

What I am saying is that all of this TV lawyer bullshit about how we know he's done crimes, why not done, is bullshit.  Childish bullshit.

The cases are being built as we speak, with what appears to be due or even extraordinary diligence.

I can't successfully predict the outcome, but it's happening, man, it's happening.

What I do explain is that this is more difficult than certain people want to believe that it is.  Instead, you believe some conspiratorial shit like Merrick Garland's a pussy or whatever.

And, difficult does not mean impossible, or even unlikely.  It means it's hard and will take some time.  People were saying Fani Willis was going to get him before the pussy Garland.  Well, lo, here it is, and they look to be about on the same timeline.  Because. This. Shit. Is. Not. Easy.

Edited February 19, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31,469]

10 hours ago, Chewbacca said:

15 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Proof of a specific intent beyond a reasonable doubt can be muy dificil.  And, it's not just convincing jurors.  I would make an educated speculation that jury verdicts of conviction are overturned on the sufficiency of evidence of a specific intent more often than any other sufficiency of evidence issue.

So fucking what? Prosecute him with the best case you have and let the chips fall where they may.

You say you want him to suffer consequences, and yet you make a post like this.

You know how to let Trump skate, yet again, bring a half-ass criminal case and let the chips fall where they may.

[Captainant 27,667]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

The cases are being built as we speak, with what appears to be due or even extraordinary diligence.

I'd love to see ol Donnie wriggle his way out of this one!

[Sawbonz 27,561]

11 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

It's not quite so simple in these hundreds of millions commercial loans.

This is straight up bullshit. They walked through his inflated valuations and omissions of liens on NPR. They would lock you up and throw away the key if you did it. 
 

eta you might, if you had a great lawyer, successfully blame it on your financial advisors. But not if you are supposed to be a commercial real estate mogul in the business for 50 years 

Edited February 19, 2023 by Sawbonz

[TwiceHorn 31,469]

50 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

This is straight up bullshit. They walked through his inflated valuations and omissions of liens on NPR. They would lock you up and throw away the key if you did it. 
 

eta you might, if you had a great lawyer, successfully blame it on your financial advisors. But not if you are supposed to be a commercial real estate mogul in the business for 50 years 

I haven't seen that.  I see lots of reportage of the obviously false financial statements, but nothing about actual submission to lenders.

[Chewbacca 7,777]

4 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

That's a nice trope and it goes along nicely with the old notion that you keep one set of books for the IRS and one set for everyone else.  The problem is, though, that many times, that's completely legit.  IRS rules aren't the same as GAAP.

And, I am virtually certain that the underwriting rules of big commercial lending are much more ad hoc than say a home mortgage, where it's three years tax returns, W2s and an appraisal or two.

Moreover, I'm not sure we really have seen any lender documents.  I have been rather carefully scrutinizing the reports of the James civil litigation and have been waiting for the evidence that will make a bank fraud case and haven't seen it yet.  I'm hoping it's there.  I feel relatively certain it's there, but I haven't seen it yet.

Now you're an IRS, GAAP and commercial lending expert, too?  Stay in your lane.

[Gatorubet 30,238]

5 hours ago, Captainant said:

Before you say mUh SiXtY cOuRt LoSsEs, those were all trump's own cases getting bounced out - not an action taken AGAINST trump. None of that has fucking happened. Because if you're rich enough you gain power, and if you're powerful enough you are effectively beyond reproach. Your own arguments and posts back this up. Your cognitive dissonance to act so hopeful while explaining why there is no hope is pretty outrageous 

So now your position is that Trump’s own appointees fucked him over 60 times when he was trying to obtain his most treasured goal of holding on to Power…..but that doesn’t count.

Your new theory is that the fix is in when YOU sue Trump - but the fix is NOT in when Trump sues you. OK

Nothing wrong with some decent “ I hate Trump and he’ll get off” rant to start the morning. But I doubt there’s an attorney on this site who would agree to that nonsense.  It is truly a nutter take. 

[atomheartbevo 89,665]

23 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

I stopped watching the NFL when the Oilers moved to Tennessee. 

23 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Preach, brother.

22 hours ago, Grade of D as in David said:

Fuck Bud Adams and Jeff Fisher 

[Gatorubet 30,238]

5 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

Also, since this has gotten so much traction, I’d like to say that I read every twicehorn post in Eric’s voice now:

this whole thread reminds me of that nutter horn.mil with his camera tricked out car, refusing to believe shaggy lawyers who told him how and why it was going to turn out poorly and it was not as easy as he claimed.  All we got back was a bunch of anger about how we didn’t care about civil rights and why we were wrong about the law.      We kept telling him that explaining how the law works is not us actively rooting against him, but that got nowhere.    

It is fine if we are wrong, but don’t shoot the messenger.    Giving you news you don’t like hearing is not me or twice saying that is how we want to turn out. Jesus, you guys can be a beat down.  You were simultaneously arguing that the fix is in and he won’t be charged while in the same breath saying it’s childishly easy to charge him and readily apparent that he’s absolutely guilty.  

I will grant you this: everyone is so concerned about not bringing a case that he will win that all those prosecutors may not be as aggressive or creative as they might in a run-of-the-mill case that would get far less exposure.    In that sense, you are correct that there is protection for Trump that might not exist for somebody else.  

Try to imagine Trump fans and Trump’ getting to rooster around after beating an indictment at trial.  If you bring another charge, it will be seen as pure harassment.    And if the second one is successful and he is convicted, it will be crafted as a vendetta against Trump. That is why it is so fucking important to get it right the first time and not have a failed trial.  To prevent him and his moron base and Fox News from planting a flag in the middle of the field as proof that the deep state and corrupt politicians could not defeat him….and to prevent further erosion of trust about the court system arising from a “not- guilty” as seen here in this fucking thread.

So you want him to suffer consequences but you want to risk everything on just any case that charges him?  A grand jury might be able to indict a potato, but the jury might find for the potato.  Or the appellate court overturn a weak evidence potato conviction.   Emotion plays no part in this shit.

[Brisketexan 105,139]

this whole thread reminds me of that nutter horn.mil with his camera tricked out car, refusing to believe shaggy lawyers who told him how and why it was going to turn out poorly and it was not as easy as he claimed.  All we got back was a bunch of anger about how we didn’t care about civil rights and why we were wrong about the law.      We kept telling him that explaining how the law works is not us actively rooting against him, but that got nowhere.    
It is fine if we are wrong, but don’t shoot the messenger.    Giving you news you don’t like hearing is not me or twice saying that is how we want to turn out. Jesus, you guys can be a beat down.  You were simultaneously arguing that the fix is in and he won’t be charged while in the same breath saying it’s childishly easy to charge him and readily apparent that he’s absolutely guilty.  
I will grant you this: everyone is so concerned about not bringing a case that he will win that all those prosecutors may not be as aggressive or creative as they might in a run-of-the-mill case that would get far less exposure.    In that sense, you are correct that there is protection for Trump that might not exist for somebody else.  
Try to imagine Trump fans and Trump’ getting to rooster around after beating an indictment at trial.  If you bring another charge, it will be seen as pure harassment.    And if the second one is successful and he is convicted, it will be crafted as a vendetta against Trump. That is why it is so fucking important to get it right the first time and not have a failed trial.  To prevent him and his moron base and Fox News from planting a flag in the middle of the field as proof that the deep state and corrupt politicians could not defeat him….and to prevent further erosion of trust about the court system arising from a “not- guilty” as seen here in this fucking thread.
So you want him to suffer consequences but you want to risk everything on just any case that charges him?  A grand jury might be able to indict a potato, but the jury might find for the potato.  Or the appellate court overturn a weak evidence potato conviction.   Emotion plays no part in this shit.

Yep.

Which is why I think that he should be attacked asymmetrically, and without regard for the law. Every business he has an interest in should be targeted by hackers, fraudsters, and rip-off artists. People should infiltrate his businesses and embezzle, waste funds and resources, etc. Drain the oil from the engine of every Trump vehicle, so they seize up at once. Leave the oven on overnight at Mar A Lago, with flammable shit in there. Harass him and all associated with him relentlessly, completely, and without mercy.
The law doesn’t protect us from him. It also can’t fully protect him from us. Use it. Crush him.

[Grade of D as in David 13,253]

18 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yep.

Which is why I think that he should be attacked asymmetrically, and without regard for the law. Every business he has an interest in should be targeted by hackers, fraudsters, and rip-off artists. People should infiltrate his businesses and embezzle, waste funds and resources, etc. Drain the oil from the engine of every Trump vehicle, so they seize up at once. Leave the oven on overnight at Mar A Lago, with flammable shit in there. Harass him and all associated with him relentlessly, completely, and without mercy.
The law doesn’t protect us from him. It also can’t fully protect him from us. Use it. Crush him.

Getting Tyler durden vibes from this 

[YGIFS 19,450]

Trump calls it Operation Mayham.  Mmmmmmm, smoked meats...

Anyway, I like Brisket's idea.  Problem is no point in boycotting his shit.  only stupids, people that need help from his political gravitas, and foreign nationals stay at his properties.  Nobody bought his fucking water, wine, vodka, or steaks so that's not really a problem anymore.  The guy couldn't make casinos work even if you forced players to hit hard 20's with mandatory splits.  

But one thing I don't get.  Those hacker groups like Anonymous, et. al.  They can't shut the fuck up for years about how they're coming for all these bad actors, gonna wrong rights in corporate America and our politics.  What the fuck are you guys waiting on?  I'm sure while in office, some government experts beefed up security on all Trump Org's shit since the President was assuredly still conducting personal/family business from the White House and on mobile devices.  But the Trump Organization is sitting there waiting to be infected/corrupted/taken down digitally.  Have its finances exposed, accounts frozen, grifted, held for ransom, etc.  

Not one of these fucking tough-talk hackers put down their red bull and beats headphones to realize the man keeps nuclear secrets in an unlocked desk, openly discusses constitutional crimes on his own personal cell phone, and the Trump Org's cybersecurity team consists of 4 geeksquad guys trying to get Eric to let them help open up the McAfee CD-ROM from 20 years ago.  It wouldn't even be a challenge.  What are they waiting on?  An airtight case? 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,870]

On 2/18/2023 at 2:18 PM, Brisketexan said:

Preach, brother.

 

8 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

at least y'all had closure. I'm still for some reason in the abusive relationship that is being a Cowboys fan. fuck all the Joneses

Edited February 20, 2023 by Longhorn_Fan68

[tx 3 putt 76,956]

[TwiceHorn 31,469]

4 hours ago, Chewbacca said:

Now you're an IRS, GAAP and commercial lending expert, too?  Stay in your lane.

Does not require one to be an expert to know those things and that prosecuting trump is not as simple as the simple Jacks on the thread seem so desperate to believe. 

For one thing, Trump didn't personally apply for any of these loans.  He may have made personal guarantees that required disclosures, but we don't really know we just have to guess. 

It's certainly not a residential mortgage case with a cooked appraisal or falsified income docs. 

Edited February 19, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[YGIFS 19,450]

Somewhere along the way in order to get better terms to keep his cash flow illusion going, he had to have signed for full recourse loans on some of his CRE.  Or pledged his GP carry on other deals as security.  What muddies up his shit even more is everything is run through the Trump Organization.  It's not like a typical single family office (investment platform, not a literal office space), you can't see the cap table.  And it's not like Texas where I can see the articles of incorporation of almost anybody.  In New York, it's much harder to see them.  So you have this massive umbrella with all these S and Sub-S corps inside of it that pass through both income and losses to Trump as principal.  But the crux of confusion comes from how different entities can be pledged in loans for other projects in which the Trumps are GPs or LPs.  That's what's taken so many fucking years to unpack.  He could end all the obfuscation and skepticism, but he chooses to drag it out for some reason.  Maybe one day we'll know why.

The handful of deals we've done with New York managers and family offices are as vanilla as it gets.  Sponsored fund with standard promote, entity formation, then GP, then LP, and any co-invests/side letters if applicable.  Clean capital stack with 1st lien, subordinated, mezz if applicable, and tranches of equity.  The people we've dealt with who've also dealt with the Trumps say their PPM's are the most convoluted things they've ever seen.  But in the end, he has established lender relationships and the unsub & subs are of appropriate coverage and LTC/LTV somehow make sense so they pull the trigger.  But everybody from Mezz on down gets the distinct impression he is robbing from other deals to payout LPs on deals as they expire/retired/liquidated. 

Smarter people with way more information than we have are on the case.  But they've also been "on the case" for decades with this clownshow.    You can get cute with your lender underwriting, mis-state personal wealth, not share the bylaws and minutes of a privately held company, manipulate your hurdle and promotes, inflate valuations, etc.  Happens with almost every single private real estate deal in North America.  The one that sticks out like a sore thumb is how he/T.O. handles carried interest.  You retire a vintage fund asset or liquidate one-off direct-deal properties, there's a closing price on a piece of title company letterhead out there with a cancelled check stapled to it.  You back out fees, cross over to the PPM to see what the economics of the GP/LP were, and just punch in the percentage.  Only one of four things can happen after that.  T.O rolls its carry into another deal/re-ups evergreen style, they 1035 into another direct piece of indentified property, they donate it, or they received it after paying LTCG on it.  There's some cute variations of all of these but they all leave a tax return and can be married against the 80% (or whatever the number) cashed out by the LP's.  There's no fucking way he was putting in the ~30% in equity into every single deal for 50 years.  Nobody does that, not even actual billionaires.  At best, he's a side-car.  

[Fudge Nuggets 19,190]

3 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

Nothing wrong with some decent “ I hate Trump and he’ll get off” rant to start the morning. But I doubt there’s an attorney on this site who would agree to that nonsense.  It is truly a nutter take. 

So you think he eventually gets convicted on something?  I bet more attorneys would bet he walks than gets convicted.

[TwiceHorn 31,469]

6 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

So you think he eventually gets convicted on something?  I bet more attorneys would bet he walks than gets convicted.

Any attorney or anyone else that bets he walks is just guessing/speculating at this point.  Not until we see an actual indictment will we be able to make more educated speculation/guesses/ bets.

One thing that is a legit concern is that he can tie it up on appeal for quite a while.  That's nothing special for Trump, it's just something litigators have to deal with.

[Hermanator 7,050]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Does not require one to be an expert to know those things and that prosecuting trump is not as simple as the simple Jacks on the thread seem so desperate to believe. 

For one thing, Trump didn't personally apply for any of these loans.  He may have made personal guarantees that required disclosures, but we don't really know we just have to guess. 

It's certainly not a residential mortgage case with a cooked appraisal or falsified income docs. 

You're more patient here than I could be. I would have just kept saying over and over

 "the system was set up by the rich for the rich to shield themselves from their criminal acts"

Trump was skating on financial crimes for decades before he ever called out Obama's birth certificate and entered politics. Now he's upped his crimes to the level of an American traitor, but as a rich guy and now former President he's protected. They're all protected. They all have been protected. Just until now none of them were so outwardly stupid enough to completely remove all doubt in front of the masses. 

There is no such thing as justice in the manner we were all taught (brainwashed) as kids. Certain people are above the law, and if you feel you were wronged by one of them then it's up to you to decide whether you want to risk the consequences of enacting justice on them yourself. Because the legal system will not. 

 

[hornmpa96 2,618]

4 hours ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

 

at least y'all had closure. I'm still for some reason in the abusive relationship that is being a Cowboys. fuck all the Joneses

Can I introduce you to the Houston Texans?