Fraud as a matter of law.

The 21st century Democratic party would never, under any circumstances, allow someone who was found legally liable for sexual assault and business fraud to be their leading candidate for the presidential nomination.
 
The case was so clear, that the judge issued a summary judgment. No reason for a trial. The evidence was all on one side.
 
Nordberg said:
The case was so clear, that the judge issued a summary judgment. No reason for a trial. The evidence was all on one side.
Click to expand...

He determined it to be PERSISTENT fraud. Is that really a surprise to anyone?

The trial phase next week will determine more specifics and damages.
 
His original claim of qualification for president were that he had run a successful business...

FRAUD.

And they fell for it.
 
christiefan915 said:
We've known it for years and years. It's good to know he finally has to face the music.
Click to expand...

Do you think that, in his heart of hearts, the Toadstool regrets winning in 2016? None of this, NONE OF IT, would have been exposed to public eyes or even occurred, absent that event. No 91 felony indictments for classified document theft, J6, RICO charges in Georgia, fraud, etc. etc. He probably would not have even lost the E. Jean Carroll defamation case because she might not have brought it, absent his big fat mouth when IMPOTUSx2.
 
Nordberg said:
The case was so clear, that the judge issued a summary judgment. No reason for a trial. The evidence was all on one side.
Click to expand...

I LMAO at what appeared to be his sole defense: There was a disclaimer that said not to trust the information on those documents. Bwahahahahaha!
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
Do you think that, in his heart of hearts, the Toadstool regrets winning in 2016? None of this, NONE OF IT, would have been exposed to public eyes or even occurred, absent that event. No 91 felony indictments for classified document theft, J6, RICO charges in Georgia, fraud, etc. etc. He probably would not have even lost the E. Jean Carroll defamation case because she might not have brought it, absent his big fat mouth when IMPOTUSx2.
Click to expand...

I remember when he was first running for President that the Donald was warned about his past history coming under scrutiny. The chickens are finally coming home to roost on the Donald. LOL
 
PostmodernProphet said:
appellate reversal as a matter of law........apparently the NY courts have become disassociated from reality.....
Click to expand...

Maybe, we will see. The evidence looked pretty strong to me. The attorneys were arguing that it wasn't fraud because they told the banks to conduct due diligence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top