Trump ordered to pay nearly 355 million in NY fraud case.

[Colt]

Does not answer the question.

You don't really want an answer, you keep moving the goal posts! None of these banks had an issue with Trump until the (D)'s wanted to use lawfare to destroy him! The porn star was happy with her extortion money UNTIL she thought she could get more!

 

[Subduction Zone]

You don't really want an answer, you keep moving the goal posts! None of these banks had an issue with Trump until the (D)'s wanted to use lawfare to destroy him! The porn star was happy with her extortion money UNTIL she thought she could get more!

Wrong on both points. The banks have set amounts to loan each year at different interest rates. They did not lose any money from Trump so they do not mind that much, though those that gave the loans to him may have gotten a good talking too. The victims were those that qualified for those loans but did not get them because Trump got there and took them with his lies first.

 

[Callisto]

You don't really want an answer, you keep moving the goal posts! None of these banks had an issue with Trump until the (D)'s wanted to use lawfare to destroy him! The porn star was happy with her extortion money UNTIL she thought she could get more!

Incorrect. It simply does not refute the law, Trump is guilty of fraud. Period.

 

[Colt]

Incorrect. It simply does not refute the law, Trump is guilty of fraud. Period.

LoL! I’m sure a prosecutor could find some “law” that you may have broken as the basis for a charge!

 

[Callisto]

LoL! I’m sure a prosecutor could find some “law” that you may have broken as the basis for a charge!

Uh, yeah Trump broke the law, repeatedly, by acquiring loans fraudulently and then profiting from said fraud. That's the point, that's why he has handed a disgorgement. That's what he was found guilty of, he broke the law numerous times.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Palmer report is unfortunately about a mirror of FOX TV on the left.

I haven't found it to be factually inaccurate or a liberal equivalent to Fox. Fox lies and propagandizes, which they've admitted to and, like Alex Jones, Giuliani, and Trump (a few times over), has lost a huge judgment over. Palmer Report reports the news accurately. If you think otherwise, what's your reason for believing so? Here's the list of current articles. If you can find any that are objectionable, please let me know which and why: Palmer Report

Yes, it also editorializes, and they make it clear that they want Trump punished, but so do I.

Maybe this is an example of something you find objectionable. No, he didn't need to use phrases like "laughing out loud" and "shove cash."

Incidentally, Palmer Report, as he notes below, has been discussing Trump's progressive dementia and bemoaning the media's relative lack of attention to that matter. Lately, he's pointing out their failure to discuss that Trump is essentially being pulled off of the campaign trail, which ought to be a huge story. Where else have you read this opinion, which I find insightful and credible? :

"After Donald Trump gave such a disastrous series of rally speeches that it resulted in wall to wall headlines about his cognitive problems, his handlers leaked to the media that they were pulling the plug on his rallies due to a campaign cash crunch. I remember laughing out loud at this at the time. We were really supposed to believe that they weren’t pulling the senile guy off the campaign trail because he’s senile, and they were instead pulling the senile guy off the campaign trail because the campaign trail was too expensive?​

​

"Yet here we are a couple weeks later, and multiple major media outlets are actually going along with the story that Trump is off the campaign trail due to budgetary reasons. I’m pretty cynical about the political media in general, but even I didn’t think they’d go along with this one.​

​

"For starters, Trump’s campaign rallies are easy profit centers. His core supporters show up, eager to shove cash at their hero. Easy money for Trump. If his campaign is indeed broke, then the answer would be more events, not fewer events.​

​

"There’s also Occam’s razor. Trump was giving completely senile rally speeches, resulting in one news cycle after another about Trump’s worsening senility. Just as these news cycles were getting so ugly that they were becoming the story of 2024, Trump’s people pulled him off the campaign trail. The obvious explanation was that they did it to try to make the headlines about his senility go away. And the obvious explanation is usually the correct one.​

​

"But the media (on both sides) really, really, really doesn’t want to talk about Trump’s senility any more than it has to. Trump has been in noticeable cognitive decline for a few years now. You could see him going gradually downhill during his public appearances in 2021, 2022, and 2023, but the media fully ignored it. It wasn’t until Trump started coming off like a full blown dementia patient in early 2024 that the media was finally willing to talk about it."​

Steve Benin reports much of the same news, but with more subdued language and less editorializing. Here are three of his most recent articles:

Trump-backed Bibles are the latest entry on a cringeworthy list

RNC reportedly looking to hire election deniers ahead of 2024 races

Trump isn’t done going after perceived foes’ family members​

"Monday in Fulton County, Georgia, facing a range of felony charges that all carry potential prison sentences that add up to a potential maximum sentence of 717.5 years in prison."

So the figure you cited was for just one trial? I'd like to hear the number of years he would get if he were convicted on all 88-91 charges (3 would need to be refiled) and got the max for each. Sounds like it might be a few millennia. Has America ever known so prolific a criminal?

And there's more trouble brewing for Trump. Arizona has begun an investigation of election tampering there: Kris Mayes is investigating Trump's 'fake electors,' focusing on threats to election workers

Good thing that never happened.

You wrote, "Questioning government has never been a crime," and I replied, "It is if you attempt a coup and an insurrection, or steal secrets, or tamper with elections."

The juries will have the final say, but the public has already seen enough evidence to expect that he'll be convicted for all of those.

You're hoping against hope that reality isn't what it is. That's a formula for disappointment. If you supported the rule of law and equality under it, you'd be much happier now.

 

[Pogo]

I haven't found it to be factually inaccurate or a liberal equivalent to Fox. Fox lies and propagandizes, which they've admitted to and, like Alex Jones, Giuliani, and Trump (a few times over), has lost a huge judgment over. Palmer Report reports the news accurately. If you think otherwise, what's your reason for believing so? Here's the list of current articles. If you can find any that are objectionable, please let me know which and why: Palmer Report

Yes, it also editorializes, and they make it clear that they want Trump punished, but so do I.

Maybe this is an example of something you find objectionable. No, he didn't need to use phrases like "laughing out loud" and "shove cash."

Incidentally, Palmer Report, as he notes below, has been discussing Trump's progressive dementia and bemoaning the media's relative lack of attention to that matter. Lately, he's pointing out their failure to discuss that Trump is essentially being pulled off of the campaign trail, which ought to be a huge story. Where else have you read this opinion, which I find insightful and credible? :

"After Donald Trump gave such a disastrous series of rally speeches that it resulted in wall to wall headlines about his cognitive problems, his handlers leaked to the media that they were pulling the plug on his rallies due to a campaign cash crunch. I remember laughing out loud at this at the time. We were really supposed to believe that they weren’t pulling the senile guy off the campaign trail because he’s senile, and they were instead pulling the senile guy off the campaign trail because the campaign trail was too expensive?​

​

"Yet here we are a couple weeks later, and multiple major media outlets are actually going along with the story that Trump is off the campaign trail due to budgetary reasons. I’m pretty cynical about the political media in general, but even I didn’t think they’d go along with this one.​

​

"For starters, Trump’s campaign rallies are easy profit centers. His core supporters show up, eager to shove cash at their hero. Easy money for Trump. If his campaign is indeed broke, then the answer would be more events, not fewer events.​

​

"There’s also Occam’s razor. Trump was giving completely senile rally speeches, resulting in one news cycle after another about Trump’s worsening senility. Just as these news cycles were getting so ugly that they were becoming the story of 2024, Trump’s people pulled him off the campaign trail. The obvious explanation was that they did it to try to make the headlines about his senility go away. And the obvious explanation is usually the correct one.​

​

"But the media (on both sides) really, really, really doesn’t want to talk about Trump’s senility any more than it has to. Trump has been in noticeable cognitive decline for a few years now. You could see him going gradually downhill during his public appearances in 2021, 2022, and 2023, but the media fully ignored it. It wasn’t until Trump started coming off like a full blown dementia patient in early 2024 that the media was finally willing to talk about it."​

Steve Benin reports much of the same news, but with more subdued language and less editorializing. Here are three of his most recent articles:

Trump-backed Bibles are the latest entry on a cringeworthy list​

​

RNC reportedly looking to hire election deniers ahead of 2024 races​

​

Trump isn’t done going after perceived foes’ family members​

So the figure you cited was for just one trial? I'd like to hear the number of years he would get if he were convicted on all 88-91 charges (3 would need to be refiled) and got the max for each. Sounds like it might be a few millennia. Has America ever known so prolific a criminal?

And there's more trouble brewing for Trump. Arizona has begun an investigation of election tampering there: Kris Mayes is investigating Trump's 'fake electors,' focusing on threats to election workers

You wrote, "Questioning government has never been a crime," and I replied, "It is if you attempt a coup and an insurrection, or steal secrets, or tamper with elections."

The juries will have the final say, but the public has already seen enough evidence to expect that he'll be convicted for all of those.

You're hoping against hope that reality isn't what it is. That's a formula for disappointment. If you supported the rule of law and equality under it, you'd be much happier now.

Whoosh, I generally agree with you but as large quote shows their reputation for editorializing pushes them down and out in the fact and bias ratings. Cringeworthy is biased Hire election deniers does not belong in the headline, and the next one is not much better. as for @Laniakea is a lost cause.

 

[Twilight Hue]

View attachment 89912

It's amazing how the kleft..err.. left wing works.

 

[Laniakea]

Not at all. Do you not understand what the word "potential" means? The person that you were using as a comparison had a sentence of 140 years. It was not a "potential". His potential sentence was probably much higher. That it is why you need to reread the part in bold that you ignored again.

Oh my! I was simply addressing your false assertion. Did you already forget what that was? Would you like me to show you again? Ok....

Who wants to give Trump 700 years? I have not heard one judge say anything like that. Do you not understand that "judicial bias" involves judges?

They want it to happen and are working to make it happen, which makes it "potential". Do you recognize your error now?

And how many billions or even trillions is a fake Presidency worth?

It's already been several trillion. About a year to go and then we'll know the total amount.[/QUOTE]

 

[Subduction Zone]

I haven't found it to be factually inaccurate or a liberal equivalent to Fox. Fox lies and propagandizes, which they've admitted to and, like Alex Jones, Giuliani, and Trump (a few times over), has lost a huge judgment over. Palmer Report reports the news accurately. If you think otherwise, what's your reason for believing so? Here's the list of current articles. If you can find any that are objectionable, please let me know which and why: Palmer Report

Yes, it also editorializes, and they make it clear that they want Trump punished, but so do I.

Maybe this is an example of something you find objectionable. No, he didn't need to use phrases like "laughing out loud" and "shove cash."

Incidentally, Palmer Report, as he notes below, has been discussing Trump's progressive dementia and bemoaning the media's relative lack of attention to that matter. Lately, he's pointing out their failure to discuss that Trump is essentially being pulled off of the campaign trail, which ought to be a huge story. Where else have you read this opinion, which I find insightful and credible? :

"After Donald Trump gave such a disastrous series of rally speeches that it resulted in wall to wall headlines about his cognitive problems, his handlers leaked to the media that they were pulling the plug on his rallies due to a campaign cash crunch. I remember laughing out loud at this at the time. We were really supposed to believe that they weren’t pulling the senile guy off the campaign trail because he’s senile, and they were instead pulling the senile guy off the campaign trail because the campaign trail was too expensive?​

​

"Yet here we are a couple weeks later, and multiple major media outlets are actually going along with the story that Trump is off the campaign trail due to budgetary reasons. I’m pretty cynical about the political media in general, but even I didn’t think they’d go along with this one.​

​

"For starters, Trump’s campaign rallies are easy profit centers. His core supporters show up, eager to shove cash at their hero. Easy money for Trump. If his campaign is indeed broke, then the answer would be more events, not fewer events.​

​

"There’s also Occam’s razor. Trump was giving completely senile rally speeches, resulting in one news cycle after another about Trump’s worsening senility. Just as these news cycles were getting so ugly that they were becoming the story of 2024, Trump’s people pulled him off the campaign trail. The obvious explanation was that they did it to try to make the headlines about his senility go away. And the obvious explanation is usually the correct one.​

​

"But the media (on both sides) really, really, really doesn’t want to talk about Trump’s senility any more than it has to. Trump has been in noticeable cognitive decline for a few years now. You could see him going gradually downhill during his public appearances in 2021, 2022, and 2023, but the media fully ignored it. It wasn’t until Trump started coming off like a full blown dementia patient in early 2024 that the media was finally willing to talk about it."​

Steve Benin reports much of the same news, but with more subdued language and less editorializing. Here are three of his most recent articles:

Trump-backed Bibles are the latest entry on a cringeworthy list​

​

RNC reportedly looking to hire election deniers ahead of 2024 races​

​

Trump isn’t done going after perceived foes’ family members​

So the figure you cited was for just one trial? I'd like to hear the number of years he would get if he were convicted on all 88-91 charges (3 would need to be refiled) and got the max for each. Sounds like it might be a few millennia. Has America ever known so prolific a criminal?

And there's more trouble brewing for Trump. Arizona has begun an investigation of election tampering there: Kris Mayes is investigating Trump's 'fake electors,' focusing on threats to election workers

You wrote, "Questioning government has never been a crime," and I replied, "It is if you attempt a coup and an insurrection, or steal secrets, or tamper with elections."

The juries will have the final say, but the public has already seen enough evidence to expect that he'll be convicted for all of those.

You're hoping against hope that reality isn't what it is. That's a formula for disappointment. If you supported the rule of law and equality under it, you'd be much happier now.

I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but it seems as if he news wants Trump to run. Hopefully they do not want him to win too. But, Trump running makes for a very contentious campaign. That means more people watching the news. That means a lot more money.

Oh my! I was simply addressing your false assertion. Did you already forget what that was? Would you like me to show you again? Ok....

I made no false assertion. As usual you did not understand your error. You were comparing two different things.

They want it to happen and are working to make it happen, which makes it "potential". Do you recognize your error now?

Oh my! You still have no clue.

I know that you love to copy me, but that only works when you are right.

It's already been several trillion. About a year to go and then we'll know the total amount.

[/QUOTE]
Okay, I agree, Trump is a far worse criminal than Madoff ever was. So why are you complaining?

 

[Laniakea]

I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but it seems as if he news wants Trump to run. Hopefully they do not want him to win too. But, Trump running makes for a very contentious campaign. That means more people watching the news. That means a lot more money.

It also means more free publicity for Trump. Yay!

I made no false assertion. As usual you did not understand your error. You were comparing two different things.

And yet you're still replying about the one I was referring to without understanding why.

Oh my! You still have no clue.

As to why you keep deflecting? You've already given your clues away.

I know that you love to copy me, but that only works when you are right.

I never copy those who are wrong. Everything I say is original when I educate those who need it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It also means more free publicity for Trump. Yay!

That publicity is beginning to backfire.

And yet you're still replying about the one I was referring to without understanding why.

What makes you think that? Aside from being wrong of course. Please support your claims.

As to why you keep deflecting? You've already given your clues away.

That is another term that you do not understand, or else you may just be telling falsehoods again.

I never copy those who are wrong. Everything I say is original when I educate those who need it.

And that is pure BS.

 

[Laniakea]

That publicity is beginning to backfire.

Only if Trump tried claiming that he used to ride the train that crossed that bridge that collapsed in Baltimore, even though there was no such train. Trump made that claim, right? Right???

What makes you think that? Aside from being wrong of course. Please support your claims.

You first have to support your claim that I'm wrong. Otherwise you don't get to demand evidence from anyone else.

That is another term that you do not understand, or else you may just be telling falsehoods again.

Nope, you still haven't supported your belief that you're not deflecting. That means you're admitting to doing it, which I appreciate you doing for once. It marks the beginning of progress, which I commend you for.

And that is pure BS.

That's not something an honest interlocutor would say. Have I upset you in some way?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Only if Trump tried claiming that he used to ride the train that crossed that bridge that collapsed in Baltimore, even though there was no such train. Trump made that claim, right? Right???



You first have to support your claim that I'm wrong. Otherwise you don't get to demand evidence from anyone else.



Nope, you still haven't supported your belief that you're not deflecting. That means you're admitting to doing it, which I appreciate you doing for once. It marks the beginning of progress, which I commend you for.


That's not something an honest interlocutor would say. Have I upset you in some way?

Why you are constantly wrong has been explained to you ad nauseum. Tell me what explanation was too hard for you to understand and I will see if I can simplify for you.

 

[Laniakea]

Why you are constantly wrong has been explained to you ad nauseum. Tell me what explanation was too hard for you to understand and I will see if I can simplify for you.

You haven't provided an explanation. That's why I keep getting the message from you that you realize you were mistaken.
Don't feel bad about it. It happens to you a lot.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You haven't provided an explanation. That's why I keep getting the message from you that you realize you were mistaken.
Don't feel bad about it. It happens to you a lot.

Sure I have. I will be nice to an extent, but I do not.play the wayback game.

 

[Laniakea]

Sure I have. I will be nice to an extent, but I do not.play the wayback game.

Call it what you like, but you need to be able to remember what you wrote in the past in order to go back and provide supporting evidence to back it up. I shouldn't have to keep debunking misinformation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Call it what you like, but you need to be able to remember what you wrote in the past in order to go back and provide supporting evidence to back it up. I shouldn't have to keep debunking misinformation.

I am not the one that cannot remember.

 

[Laniakea]

I am not the one that cannot remember.

Now you're proving to everyone that you forgot what you said.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Now you're proving to everyone that you forgot what you said.

No, if anyone that followed the rules of debate was to ask me I would tell them right away.