Is our system of justice equipped to deal with trump?

[Billiejeens]

"we should use the military against political opponents"



That's simply made up.

 

[j-mac]

trump's guilty verdict, pending trials, and findings for the plaintiffs resulting in financial penalties in his civil cases are what it looks like when the justice system works. That is, a thorough examination of the facts by grand juries and trial juries after the defendant had every opportunity to defend himself resulted in the appropriate verdicts.

It didn’t seem that’s what the appellate judges thought in the Engoran case….We don’t have their ruling yet, but they sure didn’t believe James’ thugs…

Your specious allegations, basically parroting trump's, are based on your belief in the infallibility of your Dear Leader.........not the evidence.

lol…you guys are one trick pony’s….

 

[Billiejeens]

Of course the court are not equiped to deal with multiple prosecutions of a former president and current front runner in an election less than a month away.

The founders never envisioned that such lawfare would be embarked upon by a political party, and certainly never envisioned politically charged federal agencies and courts aiding and abbetting such malfeasance.

The courts are equipped
It is just a slow process.

 

[struth]

The prosecutions are based on factual evidence considered by either a judge or a jury, following the recommendation of a grand jury, not politics.

They are polltical prosecutions. The appeaette courts are ripping up the NY cases

 

[berg80]

It didn’t seem that’s what the appellate judges thought in the Engoran case….We don’t have their ruling yet, but they sure didn’t believe James’ thugs…

What don't the appellate judges understand about the loss of revenue to the lending institutions due to lower interest rates offered to trump based on fraudulent representations of the value of his properties?

If borrowers can inflate the value of collateral by hundreds of millions of dollars without consequence then the laws need to be re-written.

 

[j-mac]

What don't the appellate judges understand about the loss of revenue to the lending institutions due to lower interest rates offered to trump based on fraudulent representations of the value of his properties?

Other than the bank said they were paid back with interest, and would be happy to do business with him again?

If borrowers can inflate the value of collateral by hundreds of millions of dollars without consequence then the laws need to be re-written.

I suggest you go lobby for that….

 

[Billiejeens]

What don't the appellate judges understand about the loss of revenue to the lending institutions due to lower interest rates offered to trump based on fraudulent representations of the value of his properties?

If borrowers can inflate the value of collateral by hundreds of millions of dollars without consequence then the laws need to be re-written.

There was no loss of revenue -
The loans were made by people who do that for a living, at an altitude that your mind could never comprehend.

They all testified to being satisfied with the process.

 

[SweetTea]

What don't the appellate judges understand about the loss of revenue to the lending institutions due to lower interest rates offered to trump based on fraudulent representations of the value of his properties?

They wanted the loans, even at lower rates. They knew if they didn’t give them to him, he would go elsewhere. They wanted the money. It is you that doesn’t understand. Businesses cut deals everyday in order to gain business. Nobody was harmed. Nobody.

 

[berg80]

Other than the bank said they were paid back with interest, and would be happy to do business with him again?

The accusation isn't that he defaulted on the loans. It's that the amount of interest paid is lower than it would have been if the banks had been given accurate values of his other properties. Think of it like someone who is given a loan at a lower rate based on a fraudulent credit score. If a bank loans money at 4% when 5% is warranted they don't technically lose money, they just don't make as much as they should have.

 

[berg80]

They wanted the loans, even at lower rates. They knew if they didn’t give them to him, he would go elsewhere. They wanted the money. It is you that doesn’t understand. Businesses cut deals everyday in order to gain business. Nobody was harmed. Nobody.

Historically, most banks wouldn't do business with trump because of past defaults and bankruptcies. Not to mention money laundering.

 

[Billiejeens]

The accusation isn't that he defaulted on the loans. It's that the amount of interest paid is lower than it would have been if the banks had been given accurate values of his other properties. Think of it like someone who is given a loan at a lower rate based on a fraudulent credit score. If a bank loans money at 4% when 5% is warranted they don't technically lose money, they just don't make as much as they should have.

The banks have the responsibility to do their own due diligence, and did -

You're coming across now as not just a partisan hack troll - but one that is a simpleton.

 

[Billiejeens]

Historically, most banks wouldn't do business with trump because of past defaults and bankruptcies. Not to mention money laundering.

Not true
Just more made up shit.

 

[hadit]

What don't the appellate judges understand about the loss of revenue to the lending institutions due to lower interest rates offered to trump based on fraudulent representations of the value of his properties?

Because the lender testified that they were not ripped off and would do business with him again. That's the point, the lender agreed to the interest rate, if they didn't like it, they could have refused the loan and demanded more. They are the final arbiter of whether they got ripped off or not, and in this case they did not.

If borrowers can inflate the value of collateral by hundreds of millions of dollars without consequence then the laws need to be re-written.

And again, who with an above room temperature IQ thinks that lenders don't perform their own evaluations of a collateral property's value before lending millions, who? It would be the height of financial malpractice and should land someone in prison if they put millions or billions of their institution's dollars at risk solely on the word of an applicant.

 

[hadit]

Historically, most banks wouldn't do business with trump because of past defaults and bankruptcies. Not to mention money laundering.

This bank testified that, not only DID they do business with TRUMP!, that they would do so AGAIN, having been paid back completely and on time. That's the point here, the prosecutors stupidly went after a loan in which there were no victims.

 

[j-mac]

The accusation isn't that he defaulted on the loans. It's that the amount of interest paid is lower than it would have been if the banks had been given accurate values of his other properties. Think of it like someone who is given a loan at a lower rate based on a fraudulent credit score. If a bank loans money at 4% when 5% is warranted they don't technically lose money, they just don't make as much as they should have.

The bank told the court they did their own due diligence, and they were happy with it…

 

[hadit]

The bank told the court they did their own due diligence, and they were happy with it…

We weren't supposed to notice that.

 

[SeaMajor7]

What don't the appellate judges understand about the loss of revenue to the lending institutions due to lower interest rates offered to trump based on fraudulent representations of the value of his properties?

If borrowers can inflate the value of collateral by hundreds of millions of dollars without consequence then the laws need to be re-written.

Get used to hearing the word SANCTION.........

 

[hadit]

The accusation isn't that he defaulted on the loans. It's that the amount of interest paid is lower than it would have been if the banks had been given accurate values of his other properties. Think of it like someone who is given a loan at a lower rate based on a fraudulent credit score. If a bank loans money at 4% when 5% is warranted they don't technically lose money, they just don't make as much as they should have.

And what moron thinks lenders don't do independent analyses of properties offered as collateral for multi-million or billion-dollar loans? What loan officer is going to put his professional license and career on the line risking his institution's money solely on the applicant's word?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

I guess we may find out. When they heard how he just said we should use the military against political opponents, a chill must have gone down their spine.

The question is how many soldiers would revolt.

Soldiers follow their officers' lead. The soldiers don't revolt.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Back in 2012 (before the age of Trump), I thought this grant of emergency authority was a wise decision, writing that “any President of either party should not be presumed to exercise powers granted in a dictatorial way.” And in the run-up to Trump’s election, I wondered if we could extend the same presumption to a putative President Trump.

Today, the answer to that question seems obvious. The fundamental norm to presume a lack of malevolent intent is now in doubt. And that, in turn, means that the entire postwar architecture of federal power—congressional legislation backed by executive discretion—is also in doubt.

The generals will take Trump into custody.

This has already been decided if he misuses his authority.