President Biden: The NEW one and only politics thread

Still, what do you think of the Bloomberg article? You have failed to address the source of the discussion.

 

It appears the banks were paid and didn't lose money. Are you on the side of the big, bad banks who enabled Trump because they missed out on a hundred basis points?

 

See folks, this is what alternate facts are.

 

Why has Louis DeJoy not been terminated from his fucking job? Better yet, why was he not marched to prison at gunpoint with a rubber truncheon in his neck, sometime in February 2021 on charges of criminal maladministration, sabotage and obstruction of the USPS??

Among the deliveries fucked up by his intentional degradation of the USPS are vital medications.

 

Ugh. I hate to wade into this back-and-forth, but this is highly suspect reasoning. trump broke the law, lying about his assets to achieve financial gain or avoid losses. It doesn't matter if the "big, bad banks" enabled trump or that they were paid back.

If I drive drunk and happen to avoid getting caught or hurting anyone, I still broke the law.

 

Generally you have to prove damages to prevail in civil matters. This isn't a criminal matter like a DUI. Bad analogy.

If it wasn't Trump, would the NY AG bother trying to prove a big bank was duped by a rich person and never actually lost money?

 

If you drove drunk, didn't get caught and didn't hurt anyone, and you turned yourself in the next day at the police office and told them what you did, would charges be filed?

I'm guessing not.

 

I agree. It would be better if they used less sauce on it. The ribs are actually pretty tender, but the sauce! It just overwhelms them. I actually think that's why McDonald's only offers the the McRib periodically. It probably wouldn't be as good of a seller as a regular item. By making a promotion out of it, they have actually built it up, and it ends up, probably, making for good sales when it is offered.

Putting it on the menu all the time would expose it as the not-as-great-as-it's-made out-to-be item that it is. Instead, it's almost a gimmicky novelty -- one that, yeah, some people like well enough to buy it up during the short periods it's available.

 

My point is very basic. Is it legal to massively inflate or deflate assets to get favorable loan and insurance rates? It is not. So trump broke the law.

If not trump, I would hope these cases are still prosecuted. It’s illegal.

 

Did trump turn himself in or something after he broke the law? Not sure I get the point.

In your scenario, there likely isn’t proof of what I did. In the trump case, there is ample proof of the what he did.

 

I think it's nonsense that people give a hoot what Melania wore to a funeral. That being said, she was obviously wearing a gray coat, with black skirt or dress underneath.

 

That's not quite it. The prosecution's theory is that Deutsche et al. weren't paid enough for the risk they took on given Trump's inflation of the asset values. The prosecution's expert witness said the lenders were screwed to the tune of $170 million (ballpark). The witness is certainly entitled to his/her opinion, but wouldn't you think Deutsche et al. would have already sued to reclaim at least some of these losses? They haven't.

And the idea that they simply took his word for it in establishing the terms of the financing is ludicrous. No, it's not ludicrous, it's abso-fucking-lutely insane. Deutsche baked Trump's bullshit into the terms it offered him. Analogous statements of financial condition, etc., offered by a run-of-the-mill corporate borrower would have resulted in drastically different (i.e., more attractive) terms.

It's a stupid law that requires neither a victim nor nefarious intent. (As per usual with Trump, there is a boatload of the latter.) All it requires is: 1) two or more individuals "affect[ed]" by the inaccurate information; and 2) a prosecuting team angling for a piece of the publicity pie. James could have brought this action under the law in question (Executive Law 65(12)) if the only consequence was that two reporters reported Trump's inaccurate valuations.

Trump's a fool, a dangerous, evil fool. He should have been impeached and removed after January 6. He should (and almost certainly will) be convicted of the classified documents charges. I'm less impressed by facets of the election interference cases, but they're legit. This one and the other New York case (the business records one), though, are both ridiculous.