“Fraudulent or misleading” practices.

This is much better when it's memorialized:

Eric? Eric? Are you a possible fall guy?

 

I accuse "others" of ignoring his rights and of rushing to judgment based on a claim by a political rival prior to trial or even an indictment. Yes, I do. I think it is manifest in this thread, and I think it's legally and morally wrong. It's Bridgegate and Russiagate and Kyle Rittenhouse all over again.

She may well have uncovered significant evidence, sure. But prosecutors always think this, especially when they have the target in their crosshairs, as now. MSNBC and Twitter and then liberal blogosphere and this forum will amplify it beyond measure. Prior to indictment, prior to trial, prior to the defense presenting its own evidence. All in the name of clicks or some such. This is wrong.

She can present her evidence in a court of law to an UNBIASED jury. Until she does so and the jury speaks unanimously on the matter and all appeals are exhausted, we shouldn't care or try to inflame the passion of potential jurors. Even though Orange Man Bad.


From "A Man for All Seasons" --

Roper: So now you'd give the Devil the benefit of law!

[Sir Thomas] More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast– man's laws, not God's– and if you cut them down—and you're just the man to do it—do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law for my own safety's sake.

 

This should keep the lock-em-up lemmings bleating for a while.

 

Oh boy you guys really got them this time.... No really the 3, 687th time is the charm.....
Yawn...

 

I completely agree that the "lock her up" chant was wrong.

 

I agree as well. The lock-her-up lemmings and the lock-him-up lemmings take turns bleating the phrase fed to them. Each side thinks they are good and the other side is ba'a'a'd. While they are fighting among each other, they are getting fleeced by politicians, spending their money like thieves with stolen credit cards.

 

How?

 

I'm not sure I see the correlation between your apparent hatred for government (which is made up by we the people) and an investigation in to potential criminal behavior by Trump and the fam.

 

This is the SMOKING GUN! Its so smoking that the OP had to reply to his own thread twice before anyone posted. I think we got him now boys! We will finally see the evil orange man in prison!
woohooo

 

OK One more time for those that need to understand:
Banks do not loan money on the property owners 'estimate of value', they have an independent appraiser provide that information. The only input the property owner would have is 'plans for expected development', and additional information supporting those development plans would be required for independent review. They do not have the ability to set the value. Think how your personal home is appraised before the bank would give you a mortgage.....

Tax assessments come from the Tax Assessor's office. For tax reporting to the Federal/State governments, numbers aren't plucked from the sky, they are, once again, reported based on reviewed assessments if they are out of a standardized range for the the type of asset.

Some people obviously don't know how asset values are developed, mainly because they usually don't have a reason to know. There is no shame in that, but to wave a banner on something so obviously incorrect, makes that person look just a bit foolish.

 

That's not really unique to threads reporting a government entity has produced detailed evidence of wrongdoing by the Orange Messiah. The Following tends to shy away from them. Your reply, for example, does not even attempt to provide a rebuttal to James' assertions. Instead it's......well it's.......sorry, but it's juvenile ranting.

 

no rebuttal needed. You've been posting Orange Messiah's "wrong doings" for years and multiple times a day. I don't even want to know how many hours of your life are devoted to "Orange Messiah" but at this point you might as well be one of his Apostles.
Why is he still a FREE MAN? You seem to have a new smoking gun on him every day. Please explain

 

By presuming him guilty before he's even indicted. (If that's not what this thread is about, what IS it about?

By rushing to judgment without giving him the opportunity to be heard or to confront his accusers.

By doing so ONLY in his case and not in any of thousands of others, much more heinous, in the news today.
By mocking his right to remain silent. Do you know what a perjury trap is?

 

Folks on a message board don't effect his rights one little bit.

 

"Affect," and they might, and that's the danger. You are spreading information among us, potential jurors all. It may even prove to be accurate and truthful information, but you are already spinning it on the internet. It's not different than a bunch of angry guys in a bar opining, pontificating and bloviating about the credibility of a disputed police report. Think Yellow Journalism. What good does it do?

Would you be happy if everyone read and were persuaded by your campaign here? If not, why not? If so, we can't get a jury.

But a broader question is, why is it so hard to stay neutral? What is that caricature of Trump doing on your avatar if you are fair? Why is it unfair to ask that judgment be withheld? This (the allegedly inflated property values) is not about anything that any of us have first or even second hand knowledge about.

I'll maybe surprise you and admit that Trump strikes me as an overly aggressive salesman -- not the same as a con man, which he may also be. I just don't.

We are bemoaning elsewhere the loss of democracy. The loss of objectivity in criminal investigations frankly worries me more because I can see it happening right here.

 

Go ask anybody what they think their house is worth when trying to sell.

Ask then the same questions when they are being taxed assessed.

This is why we have assessors and underwriters.

Youll get him this time Lee! This time I can feel it!

 

You are factually incorrect. BTW,

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/19/sup...white-house-records-from-jan-6-committee.html

 

If you are called to serve as a juror in Trump's criminal trial, and the judge asks you if you are prejudiced against one side or the other, what will you say?

 

Factually incorrect about what?

This is you, above, I think:

Misleading asset valuations in Trump financial statements

29. The Statements described Mr. Trump’s (or the Trustees of the Revocable Trust’s) valuation process in broad terms and in ways which are often inaccurate or misleading to a reader when compared with the supporting data and documentation that the Trump Organization submitted to Mazars.
Among other things, the Statements or the backup material:
a. Misstated objective facts, like the size of Mr. Trump’s Trump Tower penthouse;
b. Miscategorized assets outside Mr. Trump’s or the Trump Organization’s control as “cash,” thereby overstating his liquidity;
c. Misstated the process by which Mr. Trump or his associates reached valuations. INDEX NO. 451685/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 358 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/18/2022 9 of 115 9
d. Failed to use fundamental techniques of valuation, like discounting future revenues and expenses to their present value;
e. Misstated the purported involvement of “outside professionals” in reaching the valuations; and
f. Failed to advise that certain valuation amounts were inflated by an undisclosed flat percentage for brand value, despite express language on the Statements asserting that the value of Mr. Trump’s brand was not reflected the Statements pursuant to generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”).

Do you know that the above accusations are true? Personally, I have no idea.

I call up on all to set aside prejudices and withhold judgment and wait for the charges to be proved or not proved in court. Will you join me in this?

 

Where's the proof?