NY AG suing Donnie for fraud

evince said:
I respect the facts

I change my option when FACTS warrant it



Remember that for next time



And accept the facts like I do
Click to expand...





This makes me proud of myself



I wish others here could muster this behavior



You would be amazed about how it feels inside to do this


Instead you fear accepting fact you dont like



You are slaves to lies



It’s idiocy
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Who knows? Big corporations say, like GM have a whole staff of accountants and lawyers to deal with IRS audits and many take years to complete. This isn't unusual when your tax return is a pile of paperwork six feet high.


https://www.taxgirl.com/2009/03/09/...led,to head, how many miles would they cover?

24,000 pages of paperwork is a lot of paperwork to fight over...
Click to expand...

Great. In the meantime trump has defrauded banks and taxing authorities. The evidence cannot be refuted. He's in deep shit. And if you think bank and tax fraud is ok - I guess, "everyone should do it" according to you, right?
 
LurchAddams said:
So, if you try to kill someone but fail, no harm no foul huh? Bank fraud's a crime - whether you've suffered a loss yet or not you're probably going to with trump. It's not the "if you've suffered the loss yet" it's the exposure financial institutions want to avoid - and they do so based on the information you give them. So when trump defaults on his loans, which is highly likely, that will be your "benchmark" for his crookedness?

Your posts are quite foolish.
Click to expand...

Apples to granite countertops. Trying to kill someone is attempted murder. Fudging numbers on a loan application isn't necessarily "lying." The bank or lender has a responsibility to do 'due diligence.' That is, they need to check your math and numbers independently and if they find them questionable, tell you you aren't getting the loan. That isn't criminal until it's massively obvious you are just lying out your ass, and particularly if you get the loan and can't repay it.

If you repay the loan in full, then there is no crime or civil wrong. The lender and borrower agreed to terms and those were met. Both were "made whole" under the law. Nobody took a loss. There is no basis in that case to bring a civil suit since there was no harm to anyone.

Where borrowers get into trouble and can get hit with criminal and civil suits successfully is when they lied or fudged numbers to get money and then had no means to pay it back. That's what got Symington in trouble. I put a link to his case.

It isn't the banks and lenders that are bringing this case, but the state of New York without their involvement. The prosecutor in this case is hit. She doesn't have a case if she can't prove the lenders were harmed, and Trump making claims on the forms about his wealth are fucking irrelevant if he paid the loan off.
 
evince said:
Yes it was a stupid lie

But in those days to admit to smoking pot was a death sentence

He was the first of us pot smoking generation to deal with that bridge


Now prove he did inhale


See the stupidity of even making that an issue

Bill isn’t one of my favorite people


My main reason was he couldn’t keep his dick in his pants


But Hilary didn’t seem to mind


It’s between them


It’s their marriage


I think they had an agreement about it


But then it’s none of my fucking business


See how that goes


I don’t need to know about what kind of sex my elected officials have


Gay

Open marriage


Dress up like clowns



I don’t fucking care as long as it’s legal and no one gets hurt



Bill was way better than Nixon or Ronny


In the lie department
Click to expand...



Now he’s dirt
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Apples to granite countertops. Trying to kill someone is attempted murder. Fudging numbers on a loan application isn't necessarily "lying." The bank or lender has a responsibility to do 'due diligence.' That is, they need to check your math and numbers independently and if they find them questionable, tell you you aren't getting the loan. That isn't criminal until it's massively obvious you are just lying out your ass, and particularly if you get the loan and can't repay it.

If you repay the loan in full, then there is no crime or civil wrong. The lender and borrower agreed to terms and those were met. Both were "made whole" under the law. Nobody took a loss. There is no basis in that case to bring a civil suit since there was no harm to anyone.

Where borrowers get into trouble and can get hit with criminal and civil suits successfully is when they lied or fudged numbers to get money and then had no means to pay it back. That's what got Symington in trouble. I put a link to his case.

It isn't the banks and lenders that are bringing this case, but the state of New York without their involvement. The prosecutor in this case is hit. She doesn't have a case if she can't prove the lenders were harmed, and Trump making claims on the forms about his wealth are fucking irrelevant if he paid the loan off.
Click to expand...

He defrauded the banks and the government idiot



Your lies won’t get him off
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Apples to granite countertops. Trying to kill someone is attempted murder. Fudging numbers on a loan application isn't necessarily "lying." The bank or lender has a responsibility to do 'due diligence.' That is, they need to check your math and numbers independently and if they find them questionable, tell you you aren't getting the loan. That isn't criminal until it's massively obvious you are just lying out your ass, and particularly if you get the loan and can't repay it.

If you repay the loan in full, then there is no crime or civil wrong. The lender and borrower agreed to terms and those were met. Both were "made whole" under the law. Nobody took a loss. There is no basis in that case to bring a civil suit since there was no harm to anyone.

Where borrowers get into trouble and can get hit with criminal and civil suits successfully is when they lied or fudged numbers to get money and then had no means to pay it back. That's what got Symington in trouble. I put a link to his case.

It isn't the banks and lenders that are bringing this case, but the state of New York without their involvement. The prosecutor in this case is hit. She doesn't have a case if she can't prove the lenders were harmed, and Trump making claims on the forms about his wealth are fucking irrelevant if he paid the loan off.
Click to expand...

Now imagine what you would be saying if it was Obama you dirt bag racist
 
LurchAddams said:
Great. In the meantime trump has defrauded banks and taxing authorities. The evidence cannot be refuted. He's in deep shit. And if you think bank and tax fraud is ok - I guess, "everyone should do it" according to you, right?
Click to expand...

To defraud them, he had to get something for nothing. The banks and lenders had to lose on the deal. They didn't, and that's the rub. Trump paid them in full. Whatever you or I think of Trump personally, doesn't matter one whit here. What matters is he didn't take them for a ride and they lost piles of cash as a result. No harm, no foul, no case.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Apples to granite countertops. Trying to kill someone is attempted murder. Fudging numbers on a loan application isn't necessarily "lying." The bank or lender has a responsibility to do 'due diligence.' That is, they need to check your math and numbers independently and if they find them questionable, tell you you aren't getting the loan. That isn't criminal until it's massively obvious you are just lying out your ass, and particularly if you get the loan and can't repay it.

If you repay the loan in full, then there is no crime or civil wrong. The lender and borrower agreed to terms and those were met. Both were "made whole" under the law. Nobody took a loss. There is no basis in that case to bring a civil suit since there was no harm to anyone.

Where borrowers get into trouble and can get hit with criminal and civil suits successfully is when they lied or fudged numbers to get money and then had no means to pay it back. That's what got Symington in trouble. I put a link to his case.

It isn't the banks and lenders that are bringing this case, but the state of New York without their involvement. The prosecutor in this case is hit. She doesn't have a case if she can't prove the lenders were harmed, and Trump making claims on the forms about his wealth are fucking irrelevant if he paid the loan off.
Click to expand...

So you're saying we can all lie to our banks and if they banks don't discover our lies its' "on them"? Please tell me you're not serious.

Also, I suppose you're about the tell me all taxing authorities should do their due diligence and if we cheat them, it's, "on them"?

Seriously, Tiger. You're failing hard here.
 
LurchAddams said:
Great. In the meantime trump has defrauded banks and taxing authorities. The evidence cannot be refuted. He's in deep shit. And if you think bank and tax fraud is ok - I guess, "everyone should do it" according to you, right?
Click to expand...

What evidence???????!? What bank fraud?????!?
 
T. A. Gardner said:
To defraud them, he had to get something for nothing. The banks and lenders had to lose on the deal. They didn't, and that's the rub. Trump paid them in full. Whatever you or I think of Trump personally, doesn't matter one whit here. What matters is he didn't take them for a ride and they lost piles of cash as a result. No harm, no foul, no case.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, sport, that's not the way life works. You lie to your bank, knowingly, like trump did, it's fraud. Period.

And why are you still avoiding the tax cheating issue?
 
LurchAddams said:
So you're saying we can all lie to our banks and if they banks don't discover our lies its' "on them"? Please tell me you're not serious.

Also, I suppose you're about the tell me all taxing authorities should do their due diligence and if we cheat them, it's, "on them"?

Seriously, Tiger. You're failing hard here.
Click to expand...

What 'lying to the bank'????????!? Redefinition fallacy (bank<->tax).

Assumption of victory fallacy. Void argument fallacy.
 
LurchAddams said:
I'm sorry, sport, that's not the way life works. You lie to your bank, knowingly, like trump did, it's fraud. Period.

And why are you still avoiding the tax cheating issue?
Click to expand...

What lie??????!? What tax cheating issue???????!?
Void argument fallacy. Assumption of victory fallacy. Attempted proof by void.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
To defraud them, he had to get something for nothing. The banks and lenders had to lose on the deal. They didn't, and that's the rub. Trump paid them in full. Whatever you or I think of Trump personally, doesn't matter one whit here. What matters is he didn't take them for a ride and they lost piles of cash as a result. No harm, no foul, no case.
Click to expand...

You need to study up on the law buddy. That aint how it works.
 
Trump was a wannabe gangster for years and ran TrumpCo like a mafia family. That may come back to haunt him and his three oldest kids.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...b62e2c-9cad-11e8-843b-36e177f3081c_story.html
Trump’s résumé is rife with mob connections
f it seems harsh to compare Manafort to a mobster, take it up with President Trump, who got the ball rolling with a tweet before the trial began. “Looking back at history, who was treated worse, [Al] Capone, legendary mob boss . . . or Paul Manafort?” Trump mused.

And the president ought to know: He has spent plenty of time in mobbed-up milieus. As many journalists have documented — the late Wayne Barrett and decorated investigator David Cay Johnston most deeply — Trump’s trail was blazed through one business after another notorious for corruption by organized crime.

New York construction, for starters. In 1988, Vincent “the Fish” Cafaro of the Genovese crime family testified before a U.S. Senate committee concerning the Mafia’s control of building projects in New York. Construction unions and concrete contractors were deeply dirty, Cafaro confirmed, and four of the city’s five crime families worked cooperatively to keep it that way.
Click to expand...

https://www.themarshallproject.org/2016/04/27/trump-and-the-mob
Trump and the Mob
The budding mogul had a soft spot (but a short memory) for wiseguys.
Donald Trump’s views on criminal justice remain one of those mysteries he will presumably carry with him, if elected, into the Oval Office, where he’ll sort it all out with the help of the nation’s best minds. We do know that he’s a “huge fan” of the police, and that he’d like to see them get more power. But he hasn’t suggested what kind of power, or how he’d do that. More jobs would solve the problem of mass incarceration, he told the Washington Post editorial board last month. And he’s been crystal clear on the death penalty, which he would make harsher by eliminating lethal injections since they’re “too comfortable.”

But one helpful lens for determining Trump’s views on crime and law enforcement is via his past encounters with those alleged to be on the wrong side of the law. That’s his history with the mob. And for all of his tough law and order rhetoric, the record shows the GOP frontrunner has been remarkably tolerant. In the course of his forty years of business deals, Trump has encountered a steady stream of mob-tainted offers that he apparently couldn’t refuse....
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top