Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

These trials are going to backfire on the democrats in the end.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This will be appealed for another year or so and then he'll get the money back. It's all pointless election year theater.

It isn’t theater. He was found guilty.

It’s Democrat Kabuki Theater.

Ok, tell me this. Let's say he had decided not to run for president in 2024. Would he still be facing this lawsuit? Of course he would be. He was being investigated before he became a candidate for office. The main reason he's running again is to keep himself out of jail and further delay paying anything he owes in any civil matters.

Hypotheticals are not asked in good faith.

You have a dishonest agenda.

Typically when someone asks a hypothetical, they are trying to get me to say some bs answer they have in mind. (You already answered your own hypothetical, so you really don’t care what I would answer, anyway.)

Trump has been doing business in NY for decades. But now, suddenly now, he’s a criminal? sure.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This will be appealed for another year or so and then he'll get the money back. It's all pointless election year theater.

It isn’t theater. He was found guilty.

It’s Democrat Kabuki Theater.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like the circus aspects of this case could have been avoided if a reasonable DA and judge were not trying to make political statements.

Or, you know, if it had been someone other than Trump. But then someone other than Trump would not have committed the massive fraud that he did, so there's that.

There was no fraud. The banks were repaid and testified that they would do business again. The law used to get Trump is intended to be used against lenders defrauding borrowers.

Apparently not if the insurance company is UST certified:

"What insurers are looking for in terms of collateral for a bond are liquid assets, said Julie Alleyne, general counsel for the Surety & Fidelity Association of America, a trade group for the industry.

"They want something that can be easily liquidated where ownership can be transferred and would not require the surety company to go through bankruptcy in order to execute on that asset," Alleyne said in an interview.""

"Gary Giulietti of broker Lockton Inc., who assisted Trump in the search for a bond, said in the affidavit that the limited number of insurers certified by the US Treasury Department to underwrite bonds for the amount of the judgment against Trump do not accept hard assets as collateral."

https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/trump-s-appeal-bond-quest-highlights-surety-market-s-thirst-for-liquidity-80909985

https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/trump-s-appeal-bond-quest-highlights-surety-market-s-thirst-for-liquidity-80909985

Then why could he not get the original $464m bond in a timely fashion?

My understanding is that banks do not provide such bonds; insurance companies do. And the latter do not take real estate as collateral.

Of course they take real estate as collateral, where did you get your understanding. What they do not take is real estate that is mortgages up the wazoo already as collateral.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like the circus aspects of this case could have been avoided if a reasonable DA and judge were not trying to make political statements.

Or, you know, if it had been someone other than Trump. But then someone other than Trump would not have committed the massive fraud that he did, so there's that.

There was no fraud. The banks were repaid and testified that they would do business again. The law used to get Trump is intended to be used against lenders defrauding borrowers.

Apparently not if the insurance company is UST certified:

"What insurers are looking for in terms of collateral for a bond are liquid assets, said Julie Alleyne, general counsel for the Surety & Fidelity Association of America, a trade group for the industry.

"They want something that can be easily liquidated where ownership can be transferred and would not require the surety company to go through bankruptcy in order to execute on that asset," Alleyne said in an interview.""

"Gary Giulietti of broker Lockton Inc., who assisted Trump in the search for a bond, said in the affidavit that the limited number of insurers certified by the US Treasury Department to underwrite bonds for the amount of the judgment against Trump do not accept hard assets as collateral."

https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/trump-s-appeal-bond-quest-highlights-surety-market-s-thirst-for-liquidity-80909985

https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/trump-s-appeal-bond-quest-highlights-surety-market-s-thirst-for-liquidity-80909985

Then why could he not get the original $464m bond in a timely fashion?

My understanding is that banks do not provide such bonds; insurance companies do. And the latter do not take real estate as collateral.

Of course they take real estate as collateral, where did you get your understanding. What they do not take is real estate that is mortgages up the wazoo already as collateral.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This will be appealed for another year or so and then he'll get the money back. It's all pointless election year theater.

It isn’t theater. He was found guilty.

It’s Democrat Kabuki Theater.

Ok, tell me this. Let's say he had decided not to run for president in 2024. Would he still be facing this lawsuit? Of course he would be. He was being investigated before he became a candidate for office. The main reason he's running again is to keep himself out of jail and further delay paying anything he owes in any civil matters.

Hypotheticals are not asked in good faith.

You have a dishonest agenda.

Typically when someone asks a hypothetical, they are trying to get me to say some bs answer they have in mind. (You already answered your own hypothetical, so you really don’t care what I would answer, anyway.)

Trump has been doing business in NY for decades. But now, suddenly now, he’s a criminal? sure.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This will be appealed for another year or so and then he'll get the money back. It's all pointless election year theater.

It isn’t theater. He was found guilty.

It’s Democrat Kabuki Theater.

Ok, tell me this. Let's say he had decided not to run for president in 2024. Would he still be facing this lawsuit? Of course he would be. He was being investigated before he became a candidate for office. The main reason he's running again is to keep himself out of jail and further delay paying anything he owes in any civil matters.

Hypotheticals are not asked in good faith.

You have a dishonest agenda.

Typically when someone asks a hypothetical, they are trying to get me to say some bs answer they have in mind. (You already answered your own hypothetical, so you really don’t care what I would answer, anyway.)

Trump has been doing business in NY for decades. But now, suddenly now, he’s a criminal? sure.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This will be appealed for another year or so and then he'll get the money back. It's all pointless election year theater.

It isn’t theater. He was found guilty.

It’s Democrat Kabuki Theater.

Ok, tell me this. Let's say he had decided not to run for president in 2024. Would he still be facing this lawsuit? Of course he would be. He was being investigated before he became a candidate for office. The main reason he's running again is to keep himself out of jail and further delay paying anything he owes in any civil matters.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like the circus aspects of this case could have been avoided if a reasonable DA and judge were not trying to make political statements.

Or, you know, if it had been someone other than Trump. But then someone other than Trump would not have committed the massive fraud that he did, so there's that.

There was no fraud. The banks were repaid and testified that they would do business again. The law used to get Trump is intended to be used against lenders defrauding borrowers.

No. That’s incorrect. It covers repeated fraudulent or illegal acts in carrying out any business activity. Here is the language of 63(12):

12. Whenever any person shall engage in repeated fraudulent or illegal
acts or otherwise demonstrate persistent fraud or illegality in the
carrying on, conducting or transaction of business, the attorney general
may apply, in the name of the people of the state of New York, to the
supreme court of the state of New York, on notice of five days, for an
order enjoining the continuance of such business activity or of any
fraudulent or illegal acts, directing restitution and damages and, in an
appropriate case, cancelling any certificate filed under and by virtue
of the provisions of section four hundred forty of the former penal law
or section one hundred thirty of the general business law, and the court
may award the relief applied for or so much thereof as it may deem
proper. The word "fraud" or "fraudulent" as used herein shall include
any device, scheme or artifice to defraud and any deception,
misrepresentation, concealment, suppression, false pretense, false
promise or unconscionable contractual provisions. The term "persistent
fraud" or "illegality" as used herein shall include continuance or
carrying on of any fraudulent or illegal act or conduct. The term
"repeated" as used herein shall include repetition of any separate and
distinct fraudulent or illegal act, or conduct which affects more than
one person. Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, all monies
recovered or obtained under this subdivision by a state agency or state
official or employee acting in their official capacity shall be subject
to subdivision eleven of section four of the state finance law.

In connection with any such application, the attorney general is
authorized to take proof and make a determination of the relevant facts
and to issue subpoenas in accordance with the civil practice law and
rules. Such authorization shall not abate or terminate by reason of any
action or proceeding brought by the attorney general under this section.

I still don't get the fraud. Banks simply don't take a borrower's assessment of value of their real estate collateral. They do their own appraisals.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like the circus aspects of this case could have been avoided if a reasonable DA and judge were not trying to make political statements.

Or, you know, if it had been someone other than Trump. But then someone other than Trump would not have committed the massive fraud that he did, so there's that.

There was no fraud. The banks were repaid and testified that they would do business again. The law used to get Trump is intended to be used against lenders defrauding borrowers.

Then why could he not get the original $464m bond in a timely fashion?

My understanding is that banks do not provide such bonds; insurance companies do. And the latter do not take real estate as collateral.

Of course they take real estate as collateral, where did you get your understanding. What they do not take is real estate that is mortgages up the wazoo already as collateral.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This will be appealed for another year or so and then he'll get the money back. It's all pointless election year theater.

It isn’t theater. He was found guilty.

It’s Democrat Kabuki Theater.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This will be appealed for another year or so and then he'll get the money back. It's all pointless election year theater.

It isn’t theater. He was found guilty.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like the circus aspects of this case could have been avoided if a reasonable DA and judge were not trying to make political statements.

Or, you know, if it had been someone other than Trump. But then someone other than Trump would not have committed the massive fraud that he did, so there's that.

There was no fraud. The banks were repaid and testified that they would do business again. The law used to get Trump is intended to be used against lenders defrauding borrowers.

Then why could he not get the original $464m bond in a timely fashion?

My understanding is that banks do not provide such bonds; insurance companies do. And the latter do not take real estate as collateral.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:$175 million to a billionaire is like a $250 fine to a middle class person. A joke.

Not in that time frame. Not everyone has cash sitting around like that.