DJT to get final review

Fi
Yep and the final counts actually require a victim and judges first finding will be overturned on appeal.

.
First, let's examine the argument that crimes require victims to be actionable.

Novel legal theory. So attempted murder is not a crime? Attempted kidnapping? Etc. etc.


Now let's examine if this fraud caused had no victims.

Banks loan money for interest. That interest act as profit and insurance. More collateral offered means less risk. This in turn is reflected in lower interest rates. Those lower interest rates mean less money owed to the bank. By inflating his value, he was offered lower interest rates costing the bank money.
 
Apparently Joe's keeping our border open so China can traffic Fentanyl into the U.S.A. and kill over 200,000 Americans. Why isn't Joe in jail??

In jail? Your beloved party cannot even find the balls to impeach him.
 
Fi

First, let's examine the argument that crimes require victims to be actionable.

Novel legal theory. So attempted murder is not a crime? Attempted kidnapping? Etc. etc.


Now let's examine if this fraud caused had no victims.

Banks loan money for interest. That interest act as profit and insurance. More collateral offered means less risk. This in turn is reflected in lower interest rates. Those lower interest rates mean less money owed to the bank. By inflating his value, he was offered lower interest rates costing the bank money.


Have you ever bought a car or house and financed them?

.
 
forkup , where’d you go?
Driving home. I do have other things to do besides talking to people on a message board.

As to your question.

The argument that Texas was proposing is that crimes are only crimes when harm is done.

You are now proposing that whether or not harm is done is irrelevant because the intention by itself made a victim. I happen to agree. That's the point.
 
Driving home. I do have other things to do besides talking to people on a message board.

As to your question.

The argument that Texas was proposing is that crimes are only crimes when harm is done.

You are now proposing that whether or not harm is done is irrelevant because the intention by itself made a victim. I happen to agree. That's the point.
Double taking I don’t do! You need a victim for an attempted anything, right? That was the subject, not your double talk nonsense
 
Double taking I don’t do! You need a victim for an attempted anything, right? That was the subject, not your double talk nonsense
Sure. Aren't the banks victims when they're lied to by a customer, causing them to give lower interest rates?
 
Sure. Aren't the banks victims when they're lied to by a customer, causing them to give lower interest rates?
When do customers get their own interest rates? Too funny stupid fk. BTW, the bank didn’t file a complaint. No victim
 
When do customers get their own interest rates? Too funny stupid fk. BTW, the bank didn’t file a complaint. No victim
Just about all the time. Do you think the interest rate for a house for someone with a credit score below 600 is the same as the interest rate of someone with a perfect credit score?

Do you think the interest rate for a house is the same as the rate for a trip you are planning to make?

Do you think the interest rate for a billionaire is the same as for a regular Joe?


Let me answer for you, it isn't. Because a bank when determining rates take several factors in consideration.

They will consider basic risk, length of the loan, size of the loan, because they are a business. And when a customer lies so he can receive more favorable conditions that is fraud, and the bank is the victim of that fraud.
 
I have to both. What's your argument?


Did the bank take your word on their value? The short answer is, HELL NO!!! Banks have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders, it would be malpractice for them to take your word on anything related to a loan transaction. If the bankers committed malpractice, is that Trumps fault?

.
 
Did the bank take your word on their value? The short answer is, HELL NO!!! Banks have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders, it would be malpractice for them to take your word on anything related to a loan transaction. If the bankers committed malpractice, is that Trumps fault?

.
First off. You just changed your entire argument. The argument being that it was a victimless crime, and therefore not a crime at all. So, before I answer the next point.

Do you concede that that particular argument is flawed?

I'm not about to chase my tail. Arguing against a premise only to have you change it when it becomes indefensible.
 
Last edited:
Just about all the time. Do you think the interest rate for a house for someone with a credit score below 600 is the same as the interest rate of someone with a perfect credit score?

Do you think the interest rate for a house is the same as the rate for a trip you are planning to make?

Do you think the interest rate for a billionaire is the same as for a regular Joe?


Let me answer for you, it isn't. Because a bank when determining rates take several factors in consideration.

They will consider basic risk, length of the loan, size of the loan, because they are a business. And when a customer lies so he can receive more favorable conditions that is fraud, and the bank is the victim of that fraud.
How does one get credit scores?
 
First off. You just changed your entire argument. The argument being that it was a victimless crime, and therefore not a crime at all. So, before I answer the next point.

Do you concede that that particular argument is flawed?

I'm not about to chase my tail. When I argue against a premise only to have you changing it when it becomes indefensible.


No, I don't concede a damn thing, if there were a fraud it would have been committed by the banks, not Trump. Trump paid off the loans AS AGREED, the banks made money, so you can't even claim the shareholders lost a damn thing. Only victim I'm seeing is Trump, prosecutors are twisting a law, to an unintended purpose, to pursue a political persecution.

.
 
Last edited:
First off. You just changed your entire argument. The argument being that it was a victimless crime, and therefore not a crime at all. So, before I answer the next point.

Do you concede that that particular argument is flawed?

I'm not about to chase my tail. Arguing against a premise only to have you change it when it becomes indefensible.
but you failed to provide a victimless crime?
 

Forum List

Back
Top