SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Sorry, that's what your boy did. Just stating the facts.
Notice how you have failed to actually address it twice now.
-
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
- Thread starter PoetPhilosopher
- Start date
Notice how you have failed to actually address it twice now.
Laniakea
Not of this world
False narratives aren't worth addressing.
Next!
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
The false narrative is yours. You're the one denying the facts of reality.
Psychological projection isn't going to help you.
Third time failing to address it.
Laniakea
Not of this world
Reality is on my side.
Deal with it.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
You don't think Trump is a civilly liable sexual assaulter and a defamer. Well, he is! That's reality. Adjudicated as such in a court of law. That's reality. Demonstrable reality.
You live in MAGA land where Trump can do no wrong and everything he says is true. Where court room verdicts suddenly don't matter, when Dear Leader is the defendant. Which is demonstrably, not reality.
Deal with it.
That is not what happened in the Trump case. What happened is that Trump and the Trump organization lied to the banks and presented falsified documents. That is what happened, the grand jury decided there was enough evidence that this happened to charge and the court subsequently determined that this happened and set the penalty.
Laniakea
Not of this world
I've already dealt with people here who claim that any approved motion or ruling that is in Trump's favor is "preferential treatment".
You're showing yourself to be on that side of things.
Laniakea
Not of this world
Banks do their own research on information given to them before issuing a loan. They found no falsehoods.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Nobody has made such a claim. Nor is that the subject of the post you were responding to.
This was in response to, "You don't think Trump is a civilly liable sexual assaulter and a defamer. Well, he is! That's reality. Adjudicated as such in a court of law. That's reality. Demonstrable reality.
You live in MAGA land where Trump can do no wrong and everything he says is true. Where court room verdicts suddenly don't matter, when Dear Leader is the defendant. Which is demonstrably, not reality.
Deal with it."
The bank is not the legal system, they don't get to decide. There is such a thing as the law, there is such a thing as the legal system. And I am just telling you what happened.
Callisto
Hellenismos, BTW
They have to accuse legitimate transactions of crime to make illegitimate ones look less bad.
Laniakea
Not of this world
Funny how the "legal system" only has a problem with Trump when the fat black lady running for AG has a campaign promise to keep based on the hatred of one specific man.
Racist, or misogynistic? Or both?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
The OJ Simpson trial was a combination of incompetence by the prosecution, not only in how they presented the case, but in how they allowed the trial to be moved to a highly prejudicial area. They should have demanded a neural area. Not one that could be said to be "pro white" which is why it was moved in the first place, but it was just as big of an error to have the trial where it was "pro black". And how they presented the case. Allowing Simpson to try on the glove was ridiculous since there were many things that OJ could have done to make his hands bigger before hand or even appear to be larger while trying on the gloves. One of the rules of prosecution is that one should never allow the defendant to handle the evidence.
As to Stewart's home, it was undervalued by the tax accessor. We do not know if that was the doing of Stewart at all. So you cannot say that it is the same thing. When my house is accessed they never ask me for my opinion. That may be the case with John Stewart as well. Here is the difference. Trump grossly overvalued the value of Mar a Lago and other properties himself. When it came to Mar a Lago he argued that the original accessed value was too high with the county accessors office and won a reduction. Now as to his over valuing it that is where he clearly lied and broke the law. He compared apples and oranges. He compared properties that could and were being developed to his property. The reason that the county lowered the properties assessed values was that Trump turned over his rights to develop it with a promise that it would stay a golf club. He gave up his right to develop it and that right could not be taken back.
Laniakea
Not of this world
Good observer of facts.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
There is a crowd of people that exists whom backs the premise of guilty until proven innocent, rather then innocent until proven guilty.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Talk about shrinkflation. Don't give marketers any ideas! They might just do that.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Legally Trump is innocent until proven guilty. But right now we know that he is a rapist and a tax cheat legally. We already new that factually before those verdicts came in. Some of us pay attention.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Yet some don't pay attention to the difference between civil and criminal when passing judgments and making conclusions. Hence lawfare commences.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
At times people evade the law long enough so that the statute of limitations applies. That only means that the person cannot be put in prison for their past wrong dongs. They still happened. They are still a fact. That is where civil suits offer some degree of justice. Even if a cheat avoids prison time by outlasting the statute of limitations they can still be convicted at times and be forced to pay a fine. It does not matter if the person could not be criminally prosecuted or not. After being found guilty in a civil case ones is still guilty. The presumption of innocence for that act no longer applies. That is why news sources and commentators can call Trump a rapist without being sued.