Letitia James fraud case victory in question?

[Marener]

Because the act of shooting at me is illegal. The act of applying for a loan is not.

The act of lying to a bank while applying for a loan is illegal.

 

[airplanemechanic]

This case is literally like a DA deciding a woman was raped and she saying "No, it wasn't rape" and trying and convicting anyway.

 

[airplanemechanic]

The act of lying to a bank while applying for a loan is illegal.

If the bank complains. If they don't, and are fine with the loan and get paid back 100%, no crime was committed. It's not up to the DA to decide Trumps property values.

 

[Marener]

If the bank complains. If they don't, and are fine with the loan and get paid back 100%, no crime was committed.

If someone shoots at you and you don’t complain, is it no longer illegal?

 

[Couchpotato]

If someone shoots at you and you don’t complain, is it no longer illegal?

Yes because a business deal between Company and a bank in which both entities enter into voluntarily and both are satisfied with the outcome of said deal is the same as someone shooting at someone else.

BTW you never answered the question about whether you believe this case would have been brought were Trump not running for President.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

then why is the appeal court possibly looking to overturn.

Same reason they are likely looking to uphold the decision.

They are hearing an appeal.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Of course you did. Several times. Most recently here:

Yep, apparently they don’t, this their questioning of it. That doesn’t mean I know how they will decide. There is still a lot to go in the process

 

[Marener]

Yep, apparently they don’t, this their questioning of it. That doesn’t mean I know how they will decide. There is still a lot to go in the process

That makes no sense. If they haven’t decided, then you can’t say whether they agreed or disagreed with the outcome of the case.

You’re talking out of both sides of your mouth.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Same reason they are likely looking to uphold the decision.

They are hearing an appeal.

If it were an open and shut case, if what he did was illegal, then there should be no questioning it. The fact that they are asking these questions makes one wonder if they think it wasn’t a legitimate decision

We shall see

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If it were an open and shut case, if what he did was illegal, then there should be no questioning it

Well you better get on the phone and notify the Judicial branch that their appeal process isn't up to your standards.

While you're at it, Google the success rate of appeals of criminal convictions.

It's... not good.

 

[ThisIsMe]

That makes no sense. If they haven’t decided, then you can’t say whether they agreed or disagreed with the outcome of the case.

You’re talking out of both sides of your mouth.

There is obviously something they don’t agree with. If this case was air tight, open and shut, the appeals court probably wouldn’t be asking these questions, right?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There is obviously something they don’t agree with

False. Notice how your attempts to argue this as true are not going well.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Well you better get on the phone and notify the Judicial branch that their appeal process isn't up to your standards.

While you're at it, Google the success rate of appeals of criminal convictions.

It's... not good.

yeah, but then there has never been a case like this where the goal wasn’t justice, but to hamstring a political opponent.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

yeah, but then there has never been a case like this where the goal wasn’t justice, but to hamstring a political opponent.

I see it's make stuff up day, again.

And the conviction was on the evidence. Appeals are not do overs. I don't think you understand this.

 

[ThisIsMe]

False. Notice how your attempts to argue this as true are not going well.

Only in the minds of the partisan left . If the case was solid, they wouldn’t be asking these questions

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Only in the minds of the partisan left .

*and apparently also by all the facts and argument

Not much difference, to a bootlicking right winger on the wrong side of both.

 

[ThisIsMe]

I see it's make stuff up day, again.

And the conviction was on the evidence. Appeals are not do overs. I don't think you understand this.

I’ve not made anything up…did, or did not, Letitia James campaign on the promise to sue Trump?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If the case was solid, they wouldn’t be asking these questions

False. They would ask questions brought up by the appealing party.

Noticing a pattern?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I’ve not made anything up

*except for when you did, and when I quoted you, and when I argued and presented factual information to show you did.

 

[ThisIsMe]

*and apparently also by all the facts and argument

Not much difference, to a bootlicking right winger on the wrong side of both.

If the facts and arguments are solid, then why is msnbc saying her victory is in question?

Letitia James’ massive Trump civil fraud victory in question after appellate argument

Donald Trump had a decent day in court on Thursday, as his lawyer pressed a panel of New York state appellate judges to upend the massive, nine-figure fraud ruling against the former president and his business empire.

www.msnbc.com

See, you all think it’s just me saying it, I’m just repeating what YOUR lefty news sites are saying.