They'll make sure elections are completely unnecessary soon enough.

A_Gang_Ag_06 said:

---

no different than what what happened to Alexei Nalvany.

---

They even have matching, good-looking wives and daughters.

BluHorseShu said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

Nalvany - dead
Trump - golf every day

Hmm...I guess you're right...My mind has been changed.
I guess doing anything to make Russia not look so bad is the way to go.

---

Can you at least put in a little effort on your trolls? Seriously it is just ridiculous.

Good to know that your official stance is no major harm was done besides stomping all over the former president's constitutional rights because he is a member of the political party. Nothing bad can happen from that precedent. He is rich!

---

Explain why this is a troll? That's just something lazy people throw out when they don't have a good retort. And then show me where no harm is done to Trump. My entire argument is any harm to Trump (whether I agree or digree with the justice of it is moot) is not a good comparison to another person....who was murdered. But if you can tell me why they are comparable, I'd like to know.

---

The "troll" in this thread is the one who equated Trump's situation to that of Navalny.

"Trolling by Insane Hyperbole" is a thing.

A_Gang_Ag_06 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

A_Gang_Ag_06 said:

---

…is no different than what what happened to Alexei Nalvany. Democrats want to act morally outraged that Putin would eliminate a political threat to him while they are doing the exact same thing. Here though, they are just doing it through litigation.

Times are looking grim these days.

---

Oh good grief. Not only is this a terrible comparison but have you not heard Trump that he would punish his enemies? But no one thinks he means kill them.

Killing someone for political dissension vs taking a billionaire to court who also continues to make millions from his supporters.

Yeah, Trumps really suffering right now. Which I could suffer in that kind of luxury.

And guess what happens even if he loses? He's still a billionaire. He'll never go to jail anyway.

Thank goodness nobody on F16 is any high level government positions that involve foreign policy.

---

What I meant is that you are eliminating a political threat to your party staying in control. Democrats aren't going to come out and murder a former president, but they don't have to. They'll eliminate the threat through the court system. Just as effective.

You can return to being concerned now, moderate.

---

If you had the choice would you prefer to having your political career ended or poisoned multiple times, thrown into prison, and then killed? Or maybe you see both scenarios as pretty much the same thing.

BluHorseShu said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

A_Gang_Ag_06 said:

---

…is no different than what what happened to Alexei Nalvany. Democrats want to act morally outraged that Putin would eliminate a political threat to him while they are doing the exact same thing. Here though, they are just doing it through litigation.

Times are looking grim these days.

---

Oh good grief. Not only is this a terrible comparison but have you not heard Trump that he would punish his enemies? But no one thinks he means kill them.

Killing someone for political dissension vs taking a billionaire to court who also continues to make millions from his supporters.

Yeah, Trumps really suffering right now. Which I could suffer in that kind of luxury.

And guess what happens even if he loses? He's still a billionaire. He'll never go to jail anyway.

Thank goodness nobody on F16 is any high level government positions that involve foreign policy.

---

To sum it up: it is okay the State stole from Trump through the legal system because Trump is very rich and his supporters donate money to him.

Your perspective on if harm was done was is his life better than yours not was he wronged. No wonder your policy takes blow with the wind and you end up defending the moderate side over and over again.

---

Nalvany - dead
Trump - golf every day

Hmm...I guess you're right...My mind has been changed.
I guess doing anything to make Russia not look so bad is the way to go.

---

So chasing women in New York was Trump's version of serving in the US Military and going to Viet Nam. And now living in Mar-A-Lago and playing golf daily is Trump's version of dying in a gulag.

There is probably a whole lot of truth in that.

StandUpforAmerica said:

---

No victims. All loans were repaid. The supposed victim banks testified in defense of Trump.

The ugly face of corrupt jurisprudence pic.twitter.com/xoVQ02pS36

— Rasmussen Reports (@Rasmussen_Poll) February 16, 2024

---

If Trump was so good for them, are they going to loan him money to cover an appeals bond?

TheCurl84 said:

---

Who, in their right mind, would ever get into national politics? Especially with an (R) by your name. It ruins you.

Meanwhile, if you have a (D) by your name, or if you provide no threat to the establishment, you will gain lavish riches.

---

If that was correct, then they would have already gone after Bush. Right?

Like it or not, Trump is there because he has been a dirty s.o.b. for years and, if anything, just keeps getting dirtier and dirtier.

StandUpforAmerica said:

---

No victims. All loans were repaid. The supposed victim banks testified in defense of Trump.

The ugly face of corrupt jurisprudence pic.twitter.com/xoVQ02pS36

— Rasmussen Reports (@Rasmussen_Poll) February 16, 2024

---

Repaying a loan does NOT mean that you did not LIE to GET the loan. For good or ill, the State of New York wants to discourage the LYING, regardless of repayment.

Why is this so hard for Trump sycophants to grasp?

Would NY have done the same to someone without the surname "Trump?" Probably not, but that is an ENTIRELY distinct argument. You people have me in your corner when you make reasonable arguments (like "selective enforcement"), but you lose me when you stink them up with red herrings (like "no money damages").

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

A_Gang_Ag_06 said:

---

…is no different than what what happened to Alexei Nalvany. Democrats want to act morally outraged that Putin would eliminate a political threat to him while they are doing the exact same thing. Here though, they are just doing it through litigation.

Times are looking grim these days.

---

Or maybe never Trumper's were right all along and he actually did do these things? I know it seems impossible. Lol.

---

What things specifically do you mean?

The banks testified there was no harm. What else do you mean?

Antoninus said:

---

StandUpforAmerica said:

---

No victims. All loans were repaid. The supposed victim banks testified in defense of Trump.

The ugly face of corrupt jurisprudence pic.twitter.com/xoVQ02pS36

— Rasmussen Reports (@Rasmussen_Poll) February 16, 2024

---

Repaying a loan does NOT mean that you did not LIE to GET the loan. For good or ill, the State of New York wants to discourage the LYING, regardless of repayment.

Why is this so hard for Trump sycophants to grasp?

Would NY have done the same to someone without the surname "Trump?" Probably not, but that is an ENTIRELY distinct argument. You people have me in your corner when you make reasonable arguments (like "selective enforcement"), but you lose me when you stink them up with red herrings (like "no money damages").

---

Your use of sycophants tells me you're a far left, progressive.

Just stop. They/them Marxist.

Antoninus said:

---

StandUpforAmerica said:

---

No victims. All loans were repaid. The supposed victim banks testified in defense of Trump.

The ugly face of corrupt jurisprudence pic.twitter.com/xoVQ02pS36

— Rasmussen Reports (@Rasmussen_Poll) February 16, 2024

---

Repaying a loan does NOT mean that you did not LIE to GET the loan. For good or ill, the State of New York wants to discourage the LYING, regardless of repayment.

Why is this so hard for Trump sycophants to grasp?

Would NY have done the same to someone without the surname "Trump?" Probably not, but that is an ENTIRELY distinct argument. You people have me in your corner when you make reasonable arguments (like "selective enforcement"), but you lose me when you stink them up with red herrings (like "no money damages").

---

The NY AG campaigned on "getting" Trump and was elected for that. Then she found examples of Trump exaggerating his property values and banks deciding they were good with the valuation and giving him the loans, which were subsequently repaid.

As far as I'm concerned, exaggerating his property values to secure a loan is akin to exaggerating your skills/experience to land a job. Everyone does it, and it's up to the bank or employer to either accept it or confirm it.

This really is just a witch hunt. And it's obvious to everyone that doesn't suffer from TDS or other similar mental illnesses.

GenericAggie said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

Repaying a loan does NOT mean that you did not LIE to GET the loan. For good or ill, the State of New York wants to discourage the LYING, regardless of repayment.

Why is this so hard for Trump sycophants to grasp?

Would NY have done the same to someone without the surname "Trump?" Probably not, but that is an ENTIRELY distinct argument. You people have me in your corner when you make reasonable arguments (like "selective enforcement"), but you lose me when you stink them up with red herrings (like "no money damages").

---

Your use of sycophants tells me you're a far left, progressive.

Just stop. They/them Marxist.

---

Then you are not very perceptive. I have been voting GOP since you were suckling at mommy's breast, and I think that the pronoun thing is just as stupid as you do.

And I think that Donald Trump is the worst thing to happen to the GOP in a century. MANY lifelong GOP voters agree with me.

waitwhat? said:

---

The NY AG campaigned on "getting" Trump and was elected for that. Then she found examples of Trump exaggerating his property values and banks deciding they were good with the valuation and giving him the loans, which were subsequently repaid. ...

This really is just a witch hunt. And it's obvious to everyone that doesn't suffer from TDS or other similar mental illnesses.

---

That is a "selective enforcement" argument, and I agree with you. It is appalling.

Quote:

---

As far as I'm concerned, exaggerating his property values to secure a loan is akin to exaggerating your skills/experience to land a job. Everyone does it, and it's up to the bank or employer to either accept it or confirm it.

---

And this is where you lose me. Like it or not, New York law says otherwise. Basically, you are arguing that New York should not enforce New York law, because it is not the same as Texas law.

Hopefully, you are enough of a federalist to see the problem with that argument.

Antoninus said:

---

waitwhat? said:

---

The NY AG campaigned on "getting" Trump and was elected for that. Then she found examples of Trump exaggerating his property values and banks deciding they were good with the valuation and giving him the loans, which were subsequently repaid. ...

This really is just a witch hunt. And it's obvious to everyone that doesn't suffer from TDS or other similar mental illnesses.

---

That is a "selective enforcement" argument, and I agree with you. It is appalling.

Quote:

---

As far as I'm concerned, exaggerating his property values to secure a loan is akin to exaggerating your skills/experience to land a job. Everyone does it, and it's up to the bank or employer to either accept it or confirm it.

---

And this is where you lose me. Like it or not, New York law says otherwise. Basically, you are arguing that New York should not enforce New York law, because it is not the same as Texas law.

Hopefully, you are enough of a federalist to see the problem with that argument.

---

But you can't disconnect the two like you're trying to. They always selectively enforce these laws, usually doing so when there is real harm done to someone. In this case, they're doing it when no harm was done, solely to hurt a political enemy.

If they enforced these laws every single time there was even a whiff of it occurring, and the fines are in line with other penalties percentage wise, then I would have no issue with the result of this.

But you and I both know why it was enforced this time, and it seems like a pretty absurd penalty that is likely orders of magnitude greater than the typical penalty.

Faustus said:

---

It's like Joan of Arc.

---

I hope you are joking.

A_Gang_Ag_06 said:

---

…is no different than what what happened to Alexei Nalvany.

---

I've been around TexAgs for a while, and I've seen the meltdown threads during football season, the impeachment trials, the election loss, and countless other times some commentor says some real dumb *****

But this asinine sentence is a lock for #1.

Fani and Leticia banana republic

Antoninus said:

---

StandUpforAmerica said:

---

No victims. All loans were repaid. The supposed victim banks testified in defense of Trump.

The ugly face of corrupt jurisprudence pic.twitter.com/xoVQ02pS36

— Rasmussen Reports (@Rasmussen_Poll) February 16, 2024

---

Would NY have done the same to someone without the surname "Trump?" Probably not.

---

Probably?!? When the State of NY, even by your own admission in prior posts, has NEVER utilized this statute in this manner against any other individual, it is unequivocal that NY would not have done this to someone not named Trump.

A_Gang_Ag_06 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

A_Gang_Ag_06 said:

---

…is no different than what what happened to Alexei Nalvany. Democrats want to act morally outraged that Putin would eliminate a political threat to him while they are doing the exact same thing. Here though, they are just doing it through litigation.

Times are looking grim these days.

---

Oh good grief. Not only is this a terrible comparison but have you not heard Trump that he would punish his enemies? But no one thinks he means kill them.

Killing someone for political dissension vs taking a billionaire to court who also continues to make millions from his supporters.

Yeah, Trumps really suffering right now. Which I could suffer in that kind of luxury.

And guess what happens even if he loses? He's still a billionaire. He'll never go to jail anyway.

Thank goodness nobody on F16 is any high level government positions that involve foreign policy.

---

What I meant is that you are eliminating a political threat to your party staying in control. Democrats aren't going to come out and murder a former president, but they don't have to. They'll eliminate the threat through the court system. Just as effective.

You can return to being concerned now, moderate.

---

If the Dems are trying to eliminate Trump politically, he's sure trying to make it easier for them with his own actions and words over the years, beginning well before he became just another creature of the Washington swamp. The only thing that has kept him out of legal jeopardy and possible jail for the last 20-30 years is tens of millions paid to an ever changing army of lawyers. The guy is simply a despicable human being. Easy to overlook that for some when he's preaching what they want to hear. Too bad its just all words to make you like him with just enough meat on the bones for believability.

I think its funny that people think they might jail Trump, but they'd never kill him. If they think it will help them solidify power, they'd kill him. They don't think he deserves to live. The only reason they haven't killed him is that they don't think that will help them, at least so far. The entrenched progressive powers that be are every bit as bad as Putin. They show it every day.

Why doesn't anyone defend our border policy?

He made mean tweets about them on twitter.

Quote:

---

The progressive ideology collects and/or creates psychopaths and sociopaths. People that believe they are acting with the highest virtue and that justifies any action against their presumptively malicious opposition. Ends justifies the means.

---

And Tim McVey says hold my drink!

Antoninus said:

---

waitwhat? said:

---

The NY AG campaigned on "getting" Trump and was elected for that. Then she found examples of Trump exaggerating his property values and banks deciding they were good with the valuation and giving him the loans, which were subsequently repaid. ...

This really is just a witch hunt. And it's obvious to everyone that doesn't suffer from TDS or other similar mental illnesses.

---

That is a "selective enforcement" argument, and I agree with you. It is appalling.

Quote:

---

As far as I'm concerned, exaggerating his property values to secure a loan is akin to exaggerating your skills/experience to land a job. Everyone does it, and it's up to the bank or employer to either accept it or confirm it.

---

And this is where you lose me. Like it or not, New York law says otherwise. Basically, you are arguing that New York should not enforce New York law, because it is not the same as Texas law.

Hopefully, you are enough of a federalist to see the problem with that argument.

---

Isn't valuation of property essentially subjective until the property is sold? Trump says it's worth $X. The bank think it's worth $Y. $X>$Y. Bank loans Trump money based on the banks valuation of $Y. (I believe they said this)

Unless that property is sold, it's valuation is an educated guess...Both Trump and banks presented their guess...

BTW, how much is my house worth? Answer - exactly as much as I agree to sell it for. If someone offers less than I think it's worth, I won't sell it to them - even if an appraiser says that their offer is a good valuation.

The Democratic strategy nowadays is to use the legal system to intimidate the opposition.

Lots of truth. There is zero chance that the government lets Trump win. The voters don't matter anymore.

Ag with kids said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

Basically, you are arguing that New York should not enforce New York law, because it is not the same as Texas law.

Hopefully, you are enough of a federalist to see the problem with that argument.

---

Isn't valuation of property essentially subjective until the property is sold? Trump says it's worth $X.

Unless that property is sold, it's valuation is an educated guess...Both Trump and banks presented their guess...

---

No, not under this statute.

The AG asserts that Trump made value representations that were NOT "opinion," but rather which Trump KNEW to be artificially inflated to a number far beyond anything resembling market value.

For example, let's say that Trump offered Property M to Buyer B at price $X, and Buyer B declined the offer because it was too high. We KNOW at this point, that Trump thought that Property M was "worth" $X. The assertion is that he NONETHELESS represented the value on the financial statements as being $X PLUS $Y, with full knowledge that there was NO BUYER willing to pay that price.

Now, the burden of proof lies with the AG to PROVE those facts, and apparently she did so to the satisfaction of the Court.

Quote:

---

BTW, how much is my house worth? Answer - exactly as much as I agree to sell it for. If someone offers less than I think it's worth, I won't sell it to them - even if an appraiser says that their offer is a good valuation.

---

Which has exactly ZERO relevance to the claims asserted by the AG, as explained above.

I am not saying that the AG was correct or not correct. I have no opinion, because I have not seen the evidence. But your argument is wholly specious.

Antoninus said:

---

StandUpforAmerica said:

---

No victims. All loans were repaid. The supposed victim banks testified in defense of Trump.

The ugly face of corrupt jurisprudence pic.twitter.com/xoVQ02pS36

— Rasmussen Reports (@Rasmussen_Poll) February 16, 2024

---

Repaying a loan does NOT mean that you did not LIE to GET the loan. For good or ill, the State of New York wants to discourage the LYING, regardless of repayment.

Why is this so hard for Trump sycophants to grasp?

Would NY have done the same to someone without the surname "Trump?" Probably not, but that is an ENTIRELY distinct argument. You people have me in your corner when you make reasonable arguments (like "selective enforcement"), but you lose me when you stink them up with red herrings (like "no money damages").

---

Bull*****

Real estate has ALWAYS worked like this on the commercial collateral side. The borrower used the best most optimistic valuation. The lender counters with a much more conservative estimate, and they negotiate terms from there.

Since 2008-9, this is more regulated insofar as the lending requirements on the banks all but prevent any valuation but a third party market valuation from being used, so all other valuations are pretty much irrelevant. They all agree to the terms and then documents are signed. As long as everyone meets terms, there should be no problem.

Literally every commercial transaction works like that. Nobody borrowing goes in undervaluing their collateral, and it wouldn't matter if they did that, either.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

Repaying a loan does NOT mean that you did not LIE to GET the loan. For good or ill, the State of New York wants to discourage the LYING, regardless of repayment.

---

Bull*****

Real estate has ALWAYS worked like this. The borrower used the best most optimistic valuation. The lender counters with a much more conservative estimate, and they negotiate terms from there....

Literally every commercial transaction works like that. Nobody borrowing goes in undervaluing their collateral, and it wouldn't matter if they did that, either.

---

It is AMAZING to me how many people have such strong opinions about how a specific NEW YORK statute should be applied, based upon a very general understanding of real estate transactions in a more general sense ... and OUTSIDE the State of New York.

jja79 said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

StandUpforAmerica said:

---

No victims. All loans were repaid. The supposed victim banks testified in defense of Trump.

The ugly face of corrupt jurisprudence pic.twitter.com/xoVQ02pS36

— Rasmussen Reports (@Rasmussen_Poll) February 16, 2024

---

Repaying a loan does NOT mean that you did not LIE to GET the loan. For good or ill, the State of New York wants to discourage the LYING, regardless of repayment.

Why is this so hard for Trump sycophants to grasp?

Would NY have done the same to someone without the surname "Trump?" Probably not, but that is an ENTIRELY distinct argument. You people have me in your corner when you make reasonable arguments (like "selective enforcement"), but you lose me when you stink them up with red herrings (like "no money damages").

---

No offense but you're a bona fide idiot. I've been in banking since 1979. Any bank that even considers an applicant's valuations should be closed.

---

No offense, but you are clearly not a New York banker and have not taken the time to try and understand how a specific New York law might apply to these specific New York transactions.

Under this New York law ... listen carefully here ... it DOES NOT MATTER whether the bank "considered the applicant's valuations." The violation occurs as soon as the potential borrower MAKES the representation, REGARDLESS of whether any money damages eventually arise from the misrepresentation. The violation has occurred, even if the banker NEVER READS the application. It is the MISREPRESENTATION alone that gives rise to the enforcement.

I will not call you an "idiot." Just ignorant of the law in a jurisdiction other than your own.

Quote:

---

And apparently you believe 98% of loan applicants should be prosecuted. You have now made the dumbest post in Texags history. Congratulations.

---

See, this proves my observation about YOU. NO ONE was "prosecuted" here. It was a civil enforcement proceeding. And the statute does not APPLY to "98% of loan applicants," for about two dozen different reasons. It applies to (a) COMMERCIAL transactions, (b) in NEW YORK, in which (c) the applicant makes representations which he OBJECTIVELY KNOWS to be false at the time he made them. If we apply only those THREE limitations, we have eliminated probably 99.99% of all loan applications.

If you want to call someone an idiot, you should probably take a moment and make certain that you know at least SOMETHING about the subject matter.

It's ok. You can admit this law has NEVER been used this way before. It hasn't that I have been able to find.