Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Stop Jack Smith!

War Admiral is just another election year troll getting paid by the dnc to spread bs and lies..mb

War Admiral, are you compensated for your post?

How many other posters are?


For the record, I’m not and never have been.

Yes. You caught me. I get paid millions of dollars for my posts. Even more when I post about my Winchester rifles and fishing. And when I post about my Howa rifles I get paid in cash.

Way admire is at 177 posts.
The same caliber as his home defense single shot.

They think we are fooled when they tell us they'd love to see a conservative elected---just as long as it isn't Trump (who isn't really an ideologue in the first place). Nasty-assed lying POSs.

Thanks for admitting it even if you tried to make a joke of it.

My bad, I had no idea that the trial was a criminal trial. I thought is was handled as a civil matter.

Counselor, is injury an element of NY's fraud law, and who specifically was injured and how by Trump's fraud?

Watch this everyone. This is where these discussion always get interesting.

Yes. The court found that the lenders and insurance companies were damaged by Trump's frauds. Trump received better interest rates and insurance premiums than he was entitled to as a direct result of his lies - in other words he defrauded them. They lost out on several hundred million dollars in interest payments and premiums that they were entitled to based on the actual risk, not the perceived risk based on Trump's fraudulent submissions. Had Trump submitted accurate information to them they would have either denied coverage or denied the loan, or charged an appropriate interest rate, whatever the case may be.

Man it would seem that the lenders would have either a moral or legal duty to exercise due diligence when so much money is at stake. Have any of the investors and or stock holders sued the financial institutions for dereliction of their fiduciary responsibilities?

Under NY law the fraud is committed at the time of the submission of false information. It doesn't matter that the recipient didn't catch the wrongdoer. It doesn't matter if the lender decided to do nothing about it upon learning of it after the fact. What matters is that the party committing the fraud does not get to keep what is known as "ill-gotten gains". The NY AG has shown at trial that Trump received $370 million worth of gains he wasn't entitled to. He received this benefit under false pretenses. You can argue against this all you like. This is the law.

That is fascinating. Trump owes them money that they would have made if they had verified the information as they should have. It's Trump's fault they were lazy.

Is there actual and perceived risk or simply probabilities? Are the interest rates offered based on objective standards or did the lenders have some discretionary latitude?

Horseshit. It's all totalitarian police state persecution and you know it.

Is the following true or untrue of New York law:

New York’s statute of limitations for civil fraud is the greater of:

six years starting from when the fraud is actually committed, or
two years from the time when the fraud was actually discovered or when it could have been discovered with plaintiff’s reasonable diligence.

You're confusing restitution with disgorgement. The law calls for disgorgement. He can't keep the benefits he only received as a result of his fraud. You can argue all you want that the banks weren't harmed. But Trump benefited in ways he wasn't entitled to had he submitted true information. I'll leave it at that. Argue with the courts in NY.

Trump's loans called for him to submit yearly financial statements for as long as the loans remained outstanding. So every year he submitted the same false information that he submitted originally. So every year he reset the statute of limitations as every year he committed the same fraud. You can't use more fraud to cover up old fraud.

Trump appealed this very issue and the appellate court threw him out on his ass.

Lets drill down to some basic facts.

Trump went so far as to inform the lender that they should NOT rely on his estimates and valuations.

The rates that lending institutions and insurers charge in such deals are discretionary. They are not absolutely and completely objective based.

The lenders chose to rely on Trump's information and offered the rate of their choosing.

Trump re-payed all of his debt on time and in accordance with the agreement.

The lenders eventually learned of the inaccuracies and chose not to pursue restitution. There's a reason for this.

At best NY's statute of limitations for fraud is six years. The inaccurate information was provided much longer ago than that.

Letitia James ran on a platform of getting Trump for anything she could. She would have hit him criminally if she thought there was any way in hell that she would prevail. She went civil because the standard substantially lower standard. It's worth noting that prosecutors in Manhatten declined to file charges. There's a reason for that.

This will be appealed, and when it hits an impartial venue, justice will prevail.

It will be appealed. You've got that right.

Here's another thing that doesn't help NY's case. The court chose to use an $18 valuation on Mar-A Lago. Of all of the valuations out there, they chose the lowest one. Just the fact that valuations are all over the place helps make Trump's case. It will be hard in any real court of law to hold him accountable for an inaccurate estimation when professional appraisers walk away with widely divergent valuations. Engeron certainly chose an inaccurate one.

As hellbent as James is on hammering Trump, she would have gone criminal if she thought she could get away with it. From a tactical standpoint she was smart to avoid having the facts measured against the criminal standard where there would have been a real trial with a jury.

FWIW War Admiral, I do appreciate your willingness to have a focused fact-based discussion. It was a pleasant surprise. Too often discussions between people with different beliefs turn into personal attacks.

Thank you. You and I have many of the same beliefs.

Keep your eyes open for the next several months. If Trump is good at anything he's good at generating epic legal confrontations. Just today the Supreme Court elected to take up the Colorado election disqualification case. Oral arguments will be heard on February 8th and it won't be long after that before they affirm the ruling or overrule it. If they affirm it, well, hang on tight.