• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Trump's bond reduced to 175 million

F1fan

Veteran Member
I believe everyone should be able to appeal a court's decision, and that it not be overly burdensome to do so.
Do you think it's overly burdonsome for a billionaire (his claim) who has over $400 million in cash (his claim) to post $450 million to cover a judgment over his fraud? He already filed an appeal. The bond is only to stop the collection efforts as he appeals. If he loses the appeal he will be liable for the amount of judgment plus interest.

I'm glad you aren't arguing that he didn't commit fraud. He's being held accountable like any other citizen is held accountable.
 

Laniakea

Not of this world
It was a civil trial related to a criminal act.

I have no more issue calling Trump a fraudster than I do calling OJ Simpson a murderer.
A real indication of how the "Rule of Law" really doesn't matter to you.
Simpson was never convicted of murder, even after a lengthy trial. He was found NOT guilty by a jury.

Maybe the law only applies when liberals get to apply it according to their own desires.....
 

Laniakea

Not of this world
Do you think it's overly burdonsome for a billionaire (his claim) who has over $400 million in cash (his claim) to post $450 million to cover a judgment over his fraud? He already filed an appeal. The bond is only to stop the collection efforts as he appeals. If he loses the appeal he will be liable for the amount of judgment plus interest.

I'm glad you aren't arguing that he didn't commit fraud. He's being held accountable like any other citizen is held accountable.
There was no fraud.
"Overvaluing" a property is only a term that came about to use against Trump. What Trump did was commonplace, and still happens without anyone being indicted: Jon Stewart benefited by 829% ‘overvalue’ of his NYC home even as he labels Trump’s civil case ‘not victimless’
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
A real indication of how the "Rule of Law" really doesn't matter to you.
Simpson was never convicted of murder, even after a lengthy trial. He was found NOT guilty by a jury.

Not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt for murder, but liable on a preponderance of the evidence for wrongful death.

Maybe the law only applies when liberals get to apply it according to their own desires.....

Exactly what law do you think governs what our opinions of a person should be?

"Beyond a reasonable doubt" is the threshold for criminal punishments like imprisonment.

"The preponderance of the evidence" is the threshold for a civil trial and things like financial awards of damages.

The threshold for you or I to consider someone a crook or a traitor is wherever we want.

... however, Trump has met the second threshold for being considered a thief and is currently waiting on dozens of felony charges to see if he meets the first threshold for being a traitor in various ways.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
A real indication of how the "Rule of Law" really doesn't matter to you.
Simpson was never convicted of murder, even after a lengthy trial. He was found NOT guilty by a jury.
A prosecution that botched the case. A jury that was bored and exhausted. A judge that made mistakes.

Thr evidence is overwhelming that he did it. Read Bugliosi's book.
Maybe the law only applies when liberals get to apply it according to their own desires.....
More of yoru absurd prejucial comments.

There was no fraud.
Then read the facts that the judge and lawyers understand as being fraud. Your ignorance means nothing, except how it harms your reputation.
"Overvaluing" a property is only a term that came about to use against Trump. What Trump did was commonplace, and still happens without anyone being indicted: Jon Stewart benefited by 829% ‘overvalue’ of his NYC home even as he labels Trump’s civil case ‘not victimless’
It is the rate of overvaluations, and undervaluations, that got Trump in trouble. Trump did it intentionally and for the sake of self-profit. It was illegal.

The valuation of properies is an estimate that has a range of discrepancies and uncertainties. A house might go on the market for $130K but since the remodeling work was so good it had numerous offers and sold for $144K. Similar properties in the area were around $130, but te advantage of new work was not considered at listing. Anyway the market is what it is.

As for Stewart, there's no info that indicates fraud. He put a property on the market and he found a buyer. This is totally different that Trump setting his own values on his own properties for the sake of exploiting loan applications, and tax assessments. He's a habitual liar and cheater. He's perfect for conservatives, but unfit for president.
Whatever hateful terms make you guys happy to use.
Sorry, I'm sure SubZone didn't mean to upset you by describing Trump as a rapist. How about found guilty of sexual assault? Oh, and defamtion, twice. And perhaps a third judgment because Trump just can't learn from his mistakes.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
A real indication of how the "Rule of Law" really doesn't matter to you.
Simpson was never convicted of murder, even after a lengthy trial. He was found NOT guilty by a jury.

Maybe the law only applies when liberals get to apply it according to their own desires.....

Oj Simpson was found liable for assault and battery and for the wrongful deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman in a separate trial and was ordered to pay the families about $25 million.

It's not the people supporting the rule of law that are claiming the rule of law doesn't matter here. It's hardcore MAGAs claiming that when it comes to the rule of law, it somehow doesn't apply to Trump because .... he's Dear Leader.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member

Laniakea

Not of this world

Oj Simpson was found liable for assault and battery and for the wrongful deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman in a separate trial and was ordered to pay the families about $25 million.

It's not the people supporting the rule of law that are claiming the rule of law doesn't matter here. It's hardcore MAGAs claiming that when it comes to the rule of law, it somehow doesn't apply to Trump because .... he's Dear Leader.
Only after being tried a second time after public opinion was determined to not agree with the judge and jury.
 

Laniakea

Not of this world
I've worked in real estate. Kevin O'Leary is full of ****. It's not common practice to commit fraud.
A family member of mine bought his home around 30 years ago for $80,000. Based on prices of recent sales around the neighborhood, he figures he could get around $250,000 for it if he were to sell now.
If he sold it to a willing buyer for that amount, would you consider that to be "overvaluing" his property?
 

Laniakea

Not of this world
I've worked in real estate. Kevin O'Leary is full of ****. It's not common practice to commit fraud.
A family member of mine bought his home around 30 years ago for $80,000. Based on prices of recent sales around the neighborhood, he figures he could get around $250,000 for it if he were to sell now.
If he sold it to a willing buyer for that amount, would you consider that to be "overvaluing" his property? Would you call it "fraud"?
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
A family member of mine bought his home around 30 years ago for $80,000. Based on prices of recent sales around the neighborhood, he figures he could get around $250,000 for it if he were to sell now.
If he sold it to a willing buyer for that amount, would you consider that to be "overvaluing" his property?

You don't understand what happened in the Trump case.
 

Laniakea

Not of this world
You don't understand what happened in the Trump case.
He entered into a loan agreement with a willing party, and both parties agreed to the terms and conditions, and both parties were satisfied with the outcome.
Then came Latoya james who campaigned on "getting Trump" because....reasons!
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
A false narrative that you have accepted.
So you think that someone insterting their fingers into another person's vagina without their consent is "a false narrative that have accepted."

The problem here, is that it's a demonstrable and verifiable fact that Trump has been found civilly liable for sexual abuse and defamation.

Sorry to tell you, but you're the one living a false narrative if you deny that reality.
 
Top