Funny The Daily Show with Jon Stewart

[beast blazer]

Trump has gotten away with an astonishing number of crimes. And continues to do so. If there are two standards of justice, there is one for most of us and another for rich and connected who have a cult following.

Coming from a woman who will have absolutely nothing to say about Biden getting millions of dollars in bribes and extortion from foreign entities.

 

[beast blazer]

No one can honestly say that Trump would be prosecuted for this if it weren't politically motivated. The fact that all of these came on at once the year before the election, it's pretty clearly a coordinated attack. And it's petty BS.

In the "fraud" case, they assert that Trump should have listed his assets based on the tax assesment value, not the real market value. But if it's being put up for collateral in a loan, that makes no sense. That property is worth hundreds of millions easily. If you were to get a loan against the value of your home, it would be at the real market value, not the tax assessed value.

Let's leave that aside, and say there is some legalese reason why he should have used the tax assessed value. Who is the aggreived party? It would be the bank if anyone, but they are not the one pushing this. Also, the $450 million dollar punishment is insane.

They also issued a summary judgment, with no trial.

This has made many businesses afraid to operate in New York. Imagine the implications if the government can come down on you that hard if you're a political opponent.

 

[oldfisherman]

There is no way to prove something like this. It sounds good, but it’s complete horseshit.

Wrong! again.

Banks keep detailed records of all loan applications. I am not a legal expert, so I do not know all of the ways the court can obtain these records. But one way comes to mind.

A person that was denied funds from the bank after Trump's loan was approved, can file a lawsuit against Trump for obtaining the funds fraudulantly. And, include the bank in the case for mismanagment of those funds.

During the discovery phase of this lawsuit. All of the bank records related to this case can be obtained.

While searching the records. A list of people that were also denied funds can be obtained. A letter can then be sent to these people giving them the opportunity to join this lawsuit claiming damages, or, file their own lawsuit. There is a possibility of a class action lawsuit here.

Here is another twist to the above lawsuits. Say a person that was denied the funds proves he met the requirments to recieve the funds, because, he recieved the funds from another bank. Now Trumps bank also becomes a victim of Trumps fraudulant application. The bank was damaged because they lost customers, and their future business.

The real horseshit here is the faulty claims there were no victims. When in fact, Trump damanged many people, including his bank.

 

[jonnyboy]

Wrong! again.

Banks keep detailed records of all loan applications. I am not a legal expert, so I do not know all of the ways the court can obtain these records. But one way comes to mind.

A person that was denied funds from the bank after Trump's loan was approved, can file a lawsuit against Trump for obtaining the funds fraudulantly. And, include the bank in the case for mismanagment of those funds.

During the discovery phase of this lawsuit. All of the bank records related to this case can be obtained.

While searching the records. A list of people that were also denied funds can be obtained. A letter can then be sent to these people giving them the opportunity to join this lawsuit claiming damages, or, file their own lawsuit. There is a possibility of a class action lawsuit here.

Here is another twist to the above lawsuits. Say a person that was denied the funds proves he met the requirments to recieve the funds, because, he recieved the funds from another bank. Now Trumps bank also becomes a victim of Trumps fraudulant application. The bank was damaged because they lost customers, and their future business.

The real horseshit here is the faulty claims there were no victims. When in fact, Trump damanged many people, including his bank.

Wow. Lots of hypotheticals here. Why didn’t they choose to employ any of these tactics to prove their claim then? You are just naming off a bunch of shit that didn’t happen and saying “they could maybe possibly have potentially did these things” Yeah, well, they didn’t. So there is still zero proof of anything you are trying to claim. Dude not even the prosecutor tried to make these claims. You should’ve marched into court the last second to deliver the goods lol.
Really silly argument here man. All those words to say nothing and prove nothing still.

 

[Galakelife]

Wrong! again.

Banks keep detailed records of all loan applications. I am not a legal expert, so I do not know all of the ways the court can obtain these records. But one way comes to mind.

A person that was denied funds from the bank after Trump's loan was approved, can file a lawsuit against Trump for obtaining the funds fraudulantly. And, include the bank in the case for mismanagment of those funds.

During the discovery phase of this lawsuit. All of the bank records related to this case can be obtained.

While searching the records. A list of people that were also denied funds can be obtained. A letter can then be sent to these people giving them the opportunity to join this lawsuit claiming damages, or, file their own lawsuit. There is a possibility of a class action lawsuit here.

Here is another twist to the above lawsuits. Say a person that was denied the funds proves he met the requirments to recieve the funds, because, he recieved the funds from another bank. Now Trumps bank also becomes a victim of Trumps fraudulant application. The bank was damaged because they lost customers, and their future business.

The real horseshit here is the faulty claims there were no victims. When in fact, Trump damanged many people, including his bank.

You literally think somewhere in the records it says Mrs. XYZ cant have a loan because we gave it all to Donald Trump. You are grasping there, also he paid them all back so now the bank has more money to loan to people since he paid interest.

 

[UncleCliffy'sDaddy]

How have any current events lead you to the conclusion that Trump is somehow ‘favored’ by the justice system? What reality do you exist in?

Actually, what reality do YOU live in??? Any American who does not believe that justice in this country goes to the highest bidder (and always has) is either ignorant or an idiot. Pick your poison. Or at least wake the fuck up.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Coming from a woman who will have absolutely nothing to say about Biden getting millions of dollars in bribes and extortion from foreign entities.

That's the name of the game. I'd love it if any elite who were caught doing those things was held accountable.

 

[jonnyboy]

Actually, what reality do YOU live in??? Any American who does not believe that justice in this country goes to the highest bidder (and always has) is either ignorant or an idiot. Pick your poison. Or at least wake the fuck up.

I was speaking of Trump specifically. No, the justice system is not doing him any favors right now. It’s clearly being weaponized against him for political reasons. You are speaking in vague and general terms to try and make a point. I don’t think anyone disagrees that those with money and power enjoy shortcuts the rest of us don’t have access to. I mean unless you bring up Biden lol. No corruption there though. The fact his upstanding son was involved with corrupt Ukrainian gas dealers who are involved with the corrupt Ukrainian government when he wasn’t busy smoking crack and fucking Ukrainian prostitutes with a guns to their heads and taking pictures of it has nothing to do with us sending billions to Ukraine now. There is no buying influence or access in that particular instance.

 

[jonnyboy]

You literally think somewhere in the records it says Mrs. XYZ cant have a loan because we gave it all to Donald Trump. You are grasping there, also he paid them all back so now the bank has more money to loan to people since he paid interest.

Whoa whoa whoa easy bud. That isn’t how banks work. They aren’t in it for profit. They simply lend their money out for free and hope people pay it back. They are like a generous social non-profit, not a business that grows by making large deals. When someone borrows a large amount from them it means they have to close their doors and cease doing business until payed back. It’s not like they’re insured and backed by the government through the FDIC or something. They are on their own.

 

[Phatguysrule]

I was speaking of Trump specifically. No, the justice system is not doing him any favors right now. It’s clearly being weaponized against him for political reasons. You are speaking in vague and general terms to try and make a point. I don’t think anyone disagrees that those with money and power enjoy shortcuts the rest of us don’t have access to. I mean unless you bring up Biden lol. No corruption there though. The fact his upstanding son was involved with corrupt Ukrainian gas dealers who are involved with the corrupt Ukrainian government when he wasn’t busy smoking crack and fucking Ukrainian prostitutes with a guns to their heads and taking pictures of it has nothing to do with us sending billions to Ukraine now. There is no buying influence or access in that particular instance.

Maybe the justice system is targeting Trump because he's been more blatant more often, and with greater sums than others?

Maybe he's too big of criminal for the justice system to look the other way?

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Again, what does any of this have to do with Jon Stewart?

And why does @jonnyboy hate midget porn?

 

[barfo]

No one can honestly say that Trump would be prosecuted for this if it weren't politically motivated.

Trump made himself a target. Most criminals try to hide their criminality and keep a low profile; he did the opposite.

The fact that all of these came on at once the year before the election, it's pretty clearly a coordinated attack. And it's petty BS.

Many of us wish these had been charged earlier. If they had, Trump could be quietly serving time in prison instead of selling bibles.

In the "fraud" case, they assert that Trump should have listed his assets based on the tax assesment value, not the real market value.

That's simply incorrect. There was no requirement or expectation that the properties be listed at their tax assessed value.
However, there are accounting rules that needed to be followed, and weren't.

But if it's being put up for collateral in a loan, that makes no sense. That property is worth hundreds of millions easily. If you were to get a loan against the value of your home, it would be at the real market value, not the tax assessed value.

You are arguing against a strawman here.

Let's leave that aside, and say there is some legalese reason why he should have used the tax assessed value. Who is the aggreived party? It would be the bank if anyone, but they are not the one pushing this.

Easy question, it's the State of New York. That's who sued him.

Also, the $450 million dollar punishment is insane.

That's the amount the judge determined he stole. Maybe if he'd been more honest, he'd have less to pay back.

They also issued a summary judgment, with no trial.

Because there is a very clear paper trail. The central facts in the case are documented.

This has made many businesses afraid to operate in New York.

Criminal businesses, yes. That's part of the point. To discourage criminals from operating in NYS.

Imagine the implications if the government can come down on you that hard if you're a political opponent.

It's not hard to imagine, since Trump has promised to do exactly that if he somehow gets back in office.

barfo

 

[CJ_is_Gone]

Wrong!

There would be no victims, IF, the bank had unlimited funds to loan. It did not.

Honest business people's loans were denied because of the reduced funds available, due to Trumps fraudulant application.

Trump damaged many honest people by denying them the opportunity to get a loan.

This is absolute garbage, and shows how little you know about our financial system. The ONLY restriction on banks lending capacity is having enough collateral to maintain leverage ratios.

Each bank does a risk/reward calculation based on the specific circumstances and then decided if they will do the loan. This is where the vast majority of 'money creation' comes from.

If a bank sees a big enough opportunity, they will find a way to make the loan.... they never 'run out of money'

 

[Kano John]

If a bank sees a big enough opportunity, they will find a way to make the loan.... they never 'run out of money'[/QUOTE]

I'm sorry but banks do "run out of money". When debts exceed assets in excess of being recoverable they fail! At least 5 major banks failed in 2023 alone.

 

[CJ_is_Gone]

If a bank sees a big enough opportunity, they will find a way to make the loan.... they never 'run out of money'

I'm sorry but banks do "run out of money". When debts exceed assets in excess of being recoverable they fail! At least 5 major banks failed in 2023 alone.

Yes, some banks fail. The reason is that the value of the collateral that they have drops and they are not able to maintain their leverage ratios... they made bad loans or choices.

The primary reason for Silicon Valley's demise is that they were holding low interest T-Bills. As the interest rates rose, the value of those assets dropped sharply. Some people noticed & started withdrawing money from the bank... which exhaserbated the dropping of collateral held by the bank. When the banks leverage ratios exceeded allowable limits - they were deemed insolvent and taken over.

But technically, they never ran out of money. Even one the last day before being taken over, they bank was still lending money.

 

[barfo]

It's splitting hairs a bit here - yes, they were shut down instead of running out of money, but it's pretty clear that if they'd stayed open, the bank run would have continued and then they literally would have run out of money.

Back to the point, banks don't have infinite backing to make infinite amounts of loans. They prioritize the loans that seem like they are the best bets, and turn down those that aren't. The fact that there isn't a rigid, bright red line to decide doesn't mean they don't make a call about which loans to approve and which to deny.
So if false information causes them to prioritize loan applications incorrectly, that's fraud.

Alternatively, the property could be eligible for a loan on the merits, but the fraud caused the bank to offer a lower interest rate on the loan.

Court determined that both of those scenarios happened (on different properties) in the Trump case.

barfo