Grand Jury returns a no bill in indicting Letitia James

[SweetTea]

So as long as she spent any time in the home, that’s adequate. Right?

Even a minute?

Do you really think that would hold up in court? Obviously it would with jurors like yourself as long as the defendant is on the right side of the political aisle.

You’ll have to remind me how much you wanted Trump prosecuted for lying on his financial statements. I don’t seem to remember you saying that he should be prosecuted for fraud.

That is a different case. Trump was fined several hundred million for his loans while James got nothing. Granted, He won’t pay that money and will ultimately get his 100+ million dollar bond back.

As for the lying on his financial statements, the jury never had to specify the underlying crime. The entire trial was nothing more than a hit job as they elevated one alleged crime to 34 felonies for each check Trump signed to Cohen. Absurd, but I don’t expect anything different from a biased court. Democrats couldn’t care less about the rule of law, only retaining and increasing their power.

 

[JoeB131]

There are no specified number of days for the first year of ownership, however, it is explicitly stated that during that first year that the owner must occupy the home for a portion of that year.

I know you are desperately trying to find a loophole for her because she is a Democrat. If Trump had done exactly this, but on a large level, you and your cult would be all over it. In fact, they convicted Trump of similar, rather benign and equally questionable loan fraud. For example, that fact that a judge actually stated the tax appraisal value of Mar-A-Largo in his ruling as if that had any bearing whatsoever was a HUGE red flag as to the bias of the court. Again, you don’t care, because “orange man bad”.

The key point is Trump did this sort of thing on a large level, like hundreds of millions of dollars. He undervalued properties when reporting them to taxing agencies, and inflated their value for securing loans.

The value of the home that James bought for her niece was a whopping $137,000. No misrepresentation of its value, just a question of who was going to be living there and when.

 

[Marener]

Do you really think that would hold up in court? Obviously it would with jurors like yourself as long as the defendant is on the right side of the political aisle.

All it has to do is introduce a reasonable doubt. Pretty hard to justify prosecuting someone and putting them in jail for violating the contract which does not offer specific stipulations about the criteria.

The question is whether it's a secondary property or a investment property. The illegally appointed prosecutor clearly was trying to make it seem like she was just leasing it out to people, but the truth is that she bought it for family to live in. There was no lease. There was barely any "rent" paid (which is also legal for short term leases per the contract). If you have a house for your family to live in, that seems like personal use to me.

That is a different case. Trump was fined several hundred million for his loans while James got nothing. Granted, He won’t pay that money and will ultimately get his 100+ million dollar bond back.

As for the lying on his financial statements, the jury never had to specify the underlying crime. The entire trial was nothing more than a hit job as they elevated one alleged crime to 34 felonies for each check Trump signed to Cohen. Absurd, but I don’t expect anything different from a biased court. Democrats couldn’t care less about the rule of law, only retaining and increasing their power.

Trump wasn't even prosecuted in criminal court, so even though his deception was far greater it was still treated as a civil matter. You're confusing the civil fraud trial which James was a part of. In that case, Trump was clearly lying through his teeth about the valuation of his properties. No reasonable person could claim otherwise. All you do is just shrug your shoulders and pretend that lying is no big deal as long as everyone already assumes you're lying or as long as everyone else does it to.

 

[JoeB131]

The banks didn’t care about Donald Trump’s evaluations of his properties either, but that didn’t matter. In fact, Trump claimed Mar-A-Largo as a private club rather than a personal residence in order to get a lower tax appraisal. Also, Florida has restrictions on how much tax appraisals can increase per year so it stands to reason that Mar-A-Largo would have a low tax appraisal. The estimate Trump provided was a fair market value appraisal, which makes perfect sense because if the property was sold, the zoning could be changed to a private residence and the tax value would skyrocket. This is exactly what the banks would have done had they been forced to foreclose on the property. This is one of the reason they didn’t have a problem giving Trump the loans, which he paid back on time.

Trump’s case was a total sham. James case is nitpicking, but not more than Trump’s. That is kind of the point. Democrats have a different rule of law for fellow high profile leftwingers.

James was guilty of no more than a paperwork error.

Trump engaged in Nine-figure bank and tax fraud.

 

[SweetTea]

All it has to do is introduce a reasonable doubt. Pretty hard to justify prosecuting someone and putting them in jail for violating the contract which does not offer specific stipulations about the criteria.

Owner occupied is pretty specific, however, is that is the case, everyone should choose “second home” on their investment property and just make a point to stay their 1 day the first year. She wanted lower mortgage rates. It’s pretty obvious.

If you have a house for your family to live in, that seems like personal use to me.

May seem like it to you, but that obviously doesn’t qualify as “owner occupied”.

In that case, Trump was clearly lying through his teeth about the valuation of his properties.

Nope. Borrowers may state what they believe their property is worth. The lender requires professional evaluations, particularly if they don’t trust the borrowers “guess”. Very, very, very seldom is a person legally liable for their evaluation unless they were told that the lender was not going to do their due diligence AND the borrower intended to defraud them. In Trump’s case, the banks did not rely on his appriasals. They did their own appraisals which were under Trump’s but they chose to give him the loans regardless. This case would have NEVER been brought against him if he wasn’t in politics. NEVER.

 

[Marener]

Owner occupied is pretty specific, however, is that is the case, everyone should choose “second home” on their investment property and just make a point to stay their 1 day the first year. She wanted lower mortgage rates. It’s pretty obvious.

Not even close to specific enough.

May seem like it to you, but that obviously doesn’t qualify as “owner occupied”.

You sure? You're committed to the idea that the "owner" can only refer to the individual who on the loan document. What if the only person who stays there is the owner's wife? Or their kid? A related party may also qualify under the heading of "owner". There's a significant difference between renting a house out to unrelated third parties and letting your family reside there.

Nope. Borrowers may state what they believe their property is worth. The lender requires professional evaluations, particularly if they don’t trust the borrowers “guess”. Very, very, very seldom is a person legally liable for their evaluation unless they were told that the lender was not going to do their due diligence AND the borrower intended to defraud them. In Trump’s case, the banks did not rely on his appriasals. They did their own appraisals which were under Trump’s but they chose to give him the loans regardless. This case would have NEVER been brought against him if he wasn’t in politics. NEVER.

The borrower is required to be honest about their financial state when applying for a loan.

It is VERY clear that Trump was anything but honest with his finances when he was applying for a loan and there were numerous examples in the trial. The exaggeration of the square footage of his penthouse is one obvious one. He lied about his financial interest in Vornado. On one of his properties, he valued it as though a dozen mansions existed on the property when there were no mansions and he was not legally allowed to build them anyway. These are just straight up lies.

You're factually incorrect about the bank appraising all of Trump's properties. They did no such thing. All they did was take Trump's numbers (which they testified they assumed were accurate) and reduced them by 50%.

This case would have never been brought against James if it wasn't for her politics. Can you at least admit that?

 

[JoeB131]

Owner occupied is pretty specific, however, is that is the case, everyone should choose “second home” on their investment property and just make a point to stay their 1 day the first year. She wanted lower mortgage rates. It’s pretty obvious.

Or she just wanted to help her niece get her life together.

As opposed to Trump, who just wanted to buy more gold-plated toilets.

 

[SweetTea]

This case would have never been brought against James if it wasn't for her politics. Can you at least admit that?

They would not have likely been brought. Now can you admit the same about Trump's cases? Of course not.

 

[Marener]

They would not have likely been brought. Now can you admit the same about Trump's cases? Of course not.

Trump’s case was at least clear cut fraud. I don’t know how it would have been discovered if it had been anyone else.

But yeah, I don’t think it would have been prosecuted if he weren’t Trump.

But still, Trump’s case was fraud. I don’t see anything illegal for James. Or Comey for that matter.

 

[busybee01]

And the Swamp lives on. Anyone surprised? Even if she HAD been indicted ... she'd likely get an immediate pardon. It's the trend these days.

MAGA is the swamp. MAGA like you are thew swamp creatures. Career prosecutors say there is no case.

 

[SaxonJackson]

MAGA is the swamp. MAGA like you are thew swamp creatures. Career prosecutors say there is no case.

That's where you're wrong, busybum, I'm not MAGA ... I'm "America First." Two, very different things.

 

[Mac1958]

And again:

Justice Department fails to reindict Letitia James for a second time

This is pathetic. Now the DOJ is a joke, just like the "Department of War" and the White House.

The national embarrassment continues. And do the rubes see it? No, they sure don't.

 

[Zincwarrior]

And again:

Justice Department fails to reindict Letitia James for a second time

This is pathetic. Now the DOJ is a joke, just like the "Department of War" and the White House.

The national embarrassment continues. And do the rubes see it? No, they sure don't.

Supposedly the Statute of Limitations already kicked in. Why is this still happening?

 

[g5000]

I guess the law doesnt apply to everyone after all,,

Trump counts on it. Otherwise he would have been in prison long ago.

Letitia James caught him stealing from cancer kids.

If you or I were caught doing that, they'd be coming after us with pitchforks and torches.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Supposedly the Statute of Limitations already kicked in. Why is this still happening?

Short Answer:
The SOL limitation applies to the Comey failed indictment, not to the James one.

Comey Case:
There is a federal law that allows for filing a new indictment beyond the SOL if an indictment is found deficient. However, in the Comey case it wasn’t a technical deficiency in the indictment that was the problem. Halligan was found to have been illegally appointed. Since she alone briefed the grand jury and she alone signed the indictment, invalidation of her position means the indictment never existed. There will likely be more litigation in that case.

WW

 

[g5000]

Grand Jury returns a no bill in indicting Letitia James​

.


.
https://i.ibb.co/GQ3wQfS4/trump-****.jpg

RAAAAAAAAAA...

ZONK

 

[Zincwarrior]

Short Answer:
The SOL limitation applies to the Comey failed indictment, not to the James one.

AI may have steered me wrong as it says hers also expired.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

Cite the statute she broke.

87 RICO crimes.

 

[MarcATL]

87 RICO crimes.

Cite them.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

Cite them.

Clearly you don’t understand the new rules. Now charges are filed and the crime is made up later.