We know…. Political witch-hunt.

[RiverguyVT]

Government confirms two sets of laws by saying to other businesses have nothing to worry about since they aren’t Trump

LOL

Can’t make this stuff up



https://thepostmillennial.com/kathy-hoc ... civil-case

[HokieHam]

[UpstateSCHokie]

Calabresi is no Trump fan.

The civil fraud judgment against Donald Trump is a travesty and an unjust political act rivaled only in American politics by the killing of former Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton by Vice President Aaron Burr. If the New York State appellate courts do not reverse this judgment, the U.S. Supreme Court MUST grant cert on this case and reverse Judge Engeron's outrageous decisions. National, presidential politics will be permanently altered if a local State's legal system can be used in this way against candidates for President of the United States. This case raises a national issue of profound importance and if the New York State appellate courts do not address it, the U.S. Supreme Court MUST!

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/02/18/pr ... ork-state/

[HokieHam]

Calabresi is no Trump fan.

The civil fraud judgment against Donald Trump is a travesty and an unjust political act rivaled only in American politics by the killing of former Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton by Vice President Aaron Burr. If the New York State appellate courts do not reverse this judgment, the U.S. Supreme Court MUST grant cert on this case and reverse Judge Engeron's outrageous decisions. National, presidential politics will be permanently altered if a local State's legal system can be used in this way against candidates for President of the United States. This case raises a national issue of profound importance and if the New York State appellate courts do not address it, the U.S. Supreme Court MUST!

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/02/18/pr ... ork-state/

Only UI don’t see where this is going to go. Only UI don’t believe this was political.

[RiverguyVT]

Calabresi is no Trump fan.

The civil fraud judgment against Donald Trump is a travesty and an unjust political act rivaled only in American politics by the killing of former Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton by Vice President Aaron Burr. If the New York State appellate courts do not reverse this judgment, the U.S. Supreme Court MUST grant cert on this case and reverse Judge Engeron's outrageous decisions. National, presidential politics will be permanently altered if a local State's legal system can be used in this way against candidates for President of the United States. This case raises a national issue of profound importance and if the New York State appellate courts do not address it, the U.S. Supreme Court MUST!

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/02/18/pr ... ork-state/

Only UI don’t see where this is going to go. Only UI don’t believe this was political.

The P, our very own 8, mocks the very notion, while another grants that it was political but just nonetheless.

[hokie80]

Calabresi is no Trump fan.

The civil fraud judgment against Donald Trump is a travesty and an unjust political act rivaled only in American politics by the killing of former Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton by Vice President Aaron Burr. If the New York State appellate courts do not reverse this judgment, the U.S. Supreme Court MUST grant cert on this case and reverse Judge Engeron's outrageous decisions. National, presidential politics will be permanently altered if a local State's legal system can be used in this way against candidates for President of the United States. This case raises a national issue of profound importance and if the New York State appellate courts do not address it, the U.S. Supreme Court MUST!

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/02/18/pr ... ork-state/

Only UI don’t see where this is going to go. Only UI don’t believe this was political.

The P, our very own 8, mocks the very notion, while another grants that it was political but just nonetheless.

Whining trumptard fool.

I hope he at least gives you a reach around.

[HokieHam]

Calabresi is no Trump fan.

The civil fraud judgment against Donald Trump is a travesty and an unjust political act rivaled only in American politics by the killing of former Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton by Vice President Aaron Burr. If the New York State appellate courts do not reverse this judgment, the U.S. Supreme Court MUST grant cert on this case and reverse Judge Engeron's outrageous decisions. National, presidential politics will be permanently altered if a local State's legal system can be used in this way against candidates for President of the United States. This case raises a national issue of profound importance and if the New York State appellate courts do not address it, the U.S. Supreme Court MUST!

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/02/18/pr ... ork-state/

Only UI don’t see where this is going to go. Only UI don’t believe this was political.

The P, our very own 8, mocks the very notion, while another grants that it was political but just nonetheless.

[HokieFanDC]

Calabresi is no Trump fan.

The civil fraud judgment against Donald Trump is a travesty and an unjust political act rivaled only in American politics by the killing of former Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton by Vice President Aaron Burr. If the New York State appellate courts do not reverse this judgment, the U.S. Supreme Court MUST grant cert on this case and reverse Judge Engeron's outrageous decisions. National, presidential politics will be permanently altered if a local State's legal system can be used in this way against candidates for President of the United States. This case raises a national issue of profound importance and if the New York State appellate courts do not address it, the U.S. Supreme Court MUST!

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/02/18/pr ... ork-state/

Only UI don’t see where this is going to go. Only UI don’t believe this was political.

The P, our very own 8, mocks the very notion, while another grants that it was political but just nonetheless.

Does someone need to look up the meaning of the word "just", for you? My opinion on the ruling is that the monetary penalty was way too high, ie "not just", and that the oversight restrictions were appropriate, which is 100% accurate.

[UpstateSCHokie]

Calabresi is no Trump fan.

The civil fraud judgment against Donald Trump is a travesty and an unjust political act rivaled only in American politics by the killing of former Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton by Vice President Aaron Burr. If the New York State appellate courts do not reverse this judgment, the U.S. Supreme Court MUST grant cert on this case and reverse Judge Engeron's outrageous decisions. National, presidential politics will be permanently altered if a local State's legal system can be used in this way against candidates for President of the United States. This case raises a national issue of profound importance and if the New York State appellate courts do not address it, the U.S. Supreme Court MUST!

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/02/18/pr ... ork-state/

Only UI don’t see where this is going to go. Only UI don’t believe this was political.

Talk about lack of self awareness.

[RiverguyVT]

Calabresi is no Trump fan.

The civil fraud judgment against Donald Trump is a travesty and an unjust political act rivaled only in American politics by the killing of former Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton by Vice President Aaron Burr. If the New York State appellate courts do not reverse this judgment, the U.S. Supreme Court MUST grant cert on this case and reverse Judge Engeron's outrageous decisions. National, presidential politics will be permanently altered if a local State's legal system can be used in this way against candidates for President of the United States. This case raises a national issue of profound importance and if the New York State appellate courts do not address it, the U.S. Supreme Court MUST!

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/02/18/pr ... ork-state/

Only UI don’t see where this is going to go. Only UI don’t believe this was political.

The P, our very own 8, mocks the very notion, while another grants that it was political but just nonetheless.

Does someone need to look up the meaning of the word "just", for you? My opinion on the ruling is that the monetary penalty was way too high, ie "not just", and that the oversight restrictions were appropriate, which is 100% accurate.

...like I said.

[RiverguyVT]

[HokieFanDC]

Calabresi is no Trump fan.

The civil fraud judgment against Donald Trump is a travesty and an unjust political act rivaled only in American politics by the killing of former Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton by Vice President Aaron Burr. If the New York State appellate courts do not reverse this judgment, the U.S. Supreme Court MUST grant cert on this case and reverse Judge Engeron's outrageous decisions. National, presidential politics will be permanently altered if a local State's legal system can be used in this way against candidates for President of the United States. This case raises a national issue of profound importance and if the New York State appellate courts do not address it, the U.S. Supreme Court MUST!

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/02/18/pr ... ork-state/

Only UI don’t see where this is going to go. Only UI don’t believe this was political.

The P, our very own 8, mocks the very notion, while another grants that it was political but just nonetheless.

Does someone need to look up the meaning of the word "just", for you? My opinion on the ruling is that the monetary penalty was way too high, ie "not just", and that the oversight restrictions were appropriate, which is 100% accurate.

...like I said.

If you think what the Trump Org did is not worthy of putting guardrails around how they do business, you either don't know what they did, or just think it's OK for anyone to fabricate anything they want, anytime they want.

The things that the Trump org did are the reason that their accounting firm wasn't able to detect that their financial statements were inaccurate/misstated. All those financial statements you reviewed?
There is some non-zero % of those that were fabricated. To do that, you have to have people with the ability and authority to create a paper trail to back up the false assertions made in the financial statements. You're saying that it's OK for people to misstate their financial statements. Odd take for someone who relied on them for decades.

[RiverguyVT]

Calabresi is no Trump fan.

Only UI don’t see where this is going to go. Only UI don’t believe this was political.

The P, our very own 8, mocks the very notion, while another grants that it was political but just nonetheless.

Does someone need to look up the meaning of the word "just", for you? My opinion on the ruling is that the monetary penalty was way too high, ie "not just", and that the oversight restrictions were appropriate, which is 100% accurate.

...like I said.

If you think what the Trump Org did is not worthy of putting guardrails around how they do business, you either don't know what they did, or just think it's OK for anyone to fabricate anything they want, anytime they want.

The things that the Trump org did are the reason that their accounting firm wasn't able to detect that their financial statements were inaccurate/misstated. All those financial statements you reviewed?
There is some non-zero % of those that were fabricated. To do that, you have to have people with the ability and authority to create a paper trail to back up the false assertions made in the financial statements. You're saying that it's OK for people to misstate their financial statements. Odd take for someone who relied on them for decades.

Internal statements.
You've shown in this thread:
1- you have no idea how/what/(anything) about R.E. developer financial statements
2- You support unequal application of the law, depending upon who the accused is.
3- You don't understand the precedents this ruling would create
4- Mild support for government setting value of private properties.

[HokieHam]

A gang has more legitimacy at this point……..

[HokieHam]

Judge Engoron’s retribution

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/dai ... e_vignette

[HokieJoe]

A gang has more legitimacy at this point……..

Yep.

[HokieJoe]

Judge Engoron’s retribution

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/dai ... e_vignette

LaQueefa James is a moron.

This illegitimate president,” James said, “he’s not my president. He’s an illegitimate president. His days are numbered. His days are numbered. … We’ve got to be ready to mobilize, and we’ve got to get ready to agitate and irritate until victory is won or, more importantly, until Trump is defeated. … We will all rise up and resist this man … and ultimately we’ll bring him down. … I’m going to give [Trump] the same level of respect that [Trump] gave President Obama, and that is absolutely no respect at all. … Donald Trump has got to go. Hey, hey! Ho, ho! Donald Trump has got to go! … The days of Trump are numbered.” On at least one occasion, a crowd yelled to James, “Lock him up!” Starting a call-and-response, James responded, “What?” “Lock him up!” the crowd yelled. “What?” “Lock him up!” And on it went.

[HokieFanDC]

Only UI don’t see where this is going to go. Only UI don’t believe this was political.

The P, our very own 8, mocks the very notion, while another grants that it was political but just nonetheless.

Does someone need to look up the meaning of the word "just", for you? My opinion on the ruling is that the monetary penalty was way too high, ie "not just", and that the oversight restrictions were appropriate, which is 100% accurate.

...like I said.

If you think what the Trump Org did is not worthy of putting guardrails around how they do business, you either don't know what they did, or just think it's OK for anyone to fabricate anything they want, anytime they want.

The things that the Trump org did are the reason that their accounting firm wasn't able to detect that their financial statements were inaccurate/misstated. All those financial statements you reviewed?
There is some non-zero % of those that were fabricated. To do that, you have to have people with the ability and authority to create a paper trail to back up the false assertions made in the financial statements. You're saying that it's OK for people to misstate their financial statements. Odd take for someone who relied on them for decades.

Internal statements.
You've shown in this thread:
1- you have no idea how/what/(anything) about R.E. developer financial statements
2- You support unequal application of the law, depending upon who the accused is.
3- You don't understand the precedents this ruling would create
4- Mild support for government setting value of private properties.

What's your point about internal financial statements? Your standard post, without context, just makes it look like you think it's OK to fabricate documents since they aren't required to be publicly released.

1- Another blanket claim. It's what you do when you can't explain your claim. There's nothing about RE financial statements that makes them different than any other company's financial statements. They should all be an accurate representation of the company's income, assets, and cash flows. Trump Inc's financial statements were not accurate, and not even close. They fabricated documents to back up their false representations. You keep on trying to turn the discussion to the back and forth they have with lenders/insurance companies, etc., about asset valuation. That's not the issue with Trump Inc. It's the falsification of the underlying documents to inflate their worth.
2- Nope. You have absolutely zero evidence to back up that claim.
3- I understand the bad precedent that the fine would bring about. I disagree with you about there being a precedent wrt financial controls.
4- Zero support. That's just you making up stupid crap.

[HokieFanDC]

Judge Engoron’s retribution

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/dai ... e_vignette

That's the most reasonable take on this that I've read.

[RiverguyVT]

The P, our very own 8, mocks the very notion, while another grants that it was political but just nonetheless.

Does someone need to look up the meaning of the word "just", for you? My opinion on the ruling is that the monetary penalty was way too high, ie "not just", and that the oversight restrictions were appropriate, which is 100% accurate.

...like I said.

If you think what the Trump Org did is not worthy of putting guardrails around how they do business, you either don't know what they did, or just think it's OK for anyone to fabricate anything they want, anytime they want.

The things that the Trump org did are the reason that their accounting firm wasn't able to detect that their financial statements were inaccurate/misstated. All those financial statements you reviewed?
There is some non-zero % of those that were fabricated. To do that, you have to have people with the ability and authority to create a paper trail to back up the false assertions made in the financial statements. You're saying that it's OK for people to misstate their financial statements. Odd take for someone who relied on them for decades.

Internal statements.
You've shown in this thread:
1- you have no idea how/what/(anything) about R.E. developer financial statements
2- You support unequal application of the law, depending upon who the accused is.
3- You don't understand the precedents this ruling would create
4- Mild support for government setting value of private properties.

What's your point about internal financial statements? Your standard post, without context, just makes it look like you think it's OK to fabricate documents since they aren't required to be publicly released.

1- Another blanket claim. It's what you do when you can't explain your claim. There's nothing about RE financial statements that makes them different than any other company's financial statements. They should all be an accurate representation of the company's income, assets, and cash flows. Trump Inc's financial statements were not accurate, and not even close. They fabricated documents to back up their false representations. You keep on trying to turn the discussion to the back and forth they have with lenders/insurance companies, etc., about asset valuation. That's not the issue with Trump Inc. It's the falsification of the underlying documents to inflate their worth.
2- Nope. You have absolutely zero evidence to back up that claim.
3- I understand the bad precedent that the fine would bring about. I disagree with you about there being a precedent wrt financial controls.
4- Zero support. That's just you making up stupid crap.

LOL
Read the thread.
I'm 100% dead on.

[HokieFanDC]

Does someone need to look up the meaning of the word "just", for you? My opinion on the ruling is that the monetary penalty was way too high, ie "not just", and that the oversight restrictions were appropriate, which is 100% accurate.

...like I said.

If you think what the Trump Org did is not worthy of putting guardrails around how they do business, you either don't know what they did, or just think it's OK for anyone to fabricate anything they want, anytime they want.

The things that the Trump org did are the reason that their accounting firm wasn't able to detect that their financial statements were inaccurate/misstated. All those financial statements you reviewed?
There is some non-zero % of those that were fabricated. To do that, you have to have people with the ability and authority to create a paper trail to back up the false assertions made in the financial statements. You're saying that it's OK for people to misstate their financial statements. Odd take for someone who relied on them for decades.

Internal statements.
You've shown in this thread:
1- you have no idea how/what/(anything) about R.E. developer financial statements
2- You support unequal application of the law, depending upon who the accused is.
3- You don't understand the precedents this ruling would create
4- Mild support for government setting value of private properties.

What's your point about internal financial statements? Your standard post, without context, just makes it look like you think it's OK to fabricate documents since they aren't required to be publicly released.

1- Another blanket claim. It's what you do when you can't explain your claim. There's nothing about RE financial statements that makes them different than any other company's financial statements. They should all be an accurate representation of the company's income, assets, and cash flows. Trump Inc's financial statements were not accurate, and not even close. They fabricated documents to back up their false representations. You keep on trying to turn the discussion to the back and forth they have with lenders/insurance companies, etc., about asset valuation. That's not the issue with Trump Inc. It's the falsification of the underlying documents to inflate their worth.
2- Nope. You have absolutely zero evidence to back up that claim.
3- I understand the bad precedent that the fine would bring about. I disagree with you about there being a precedent wrt financial controls.
4- Zero support. That's just you making up stupid crap.

LOL
Read the thread.
I'm 100% dead on.

I don't need to reread the thread. You don't have anything of substance to say. You just repeat the same meaningless tripe.

[RiverguyVT]

[
I don't need to reread the thread. You don't have anything of substance to say. You just repeat the same meaningless tripe.

You’d do well to re-read it.
Don’t mistake a short post for not having already made points.

I’ll give you a long post, but only later when I’m not giving quizzes on quadratic equations

Maybe tonight.

Yes, every single one of my points stand.
Every single one.

[Major Kong]

You’d do well to re-read it.
Don’t mistake a short post for not having already made points.

I’ll give you a long post, but only later when I’m not giving quizzes on quadratic equations

Maybe tonight.

Yes, every single one of my points stand.
Every single one.

equ.png (7.61 KiB) Viewed 356 times

[RiverguyVT]

You’d do well to re-read it.
Don’t mistake a short post for not having already made points.

I’ll give you a long post, but only later when I’m not giving quizzes on quadratic equations

Maybe tonight.

Yes, every single one of my points stand.
Every single one.

equ.png

I treated my classes to this one:
(check it out...)

[RiverguyVT]

Warning: Maybe my longest post ever




1- you have no idea how/what/(anything) about R.E. developer financial statements

1- There's nothing about RE financial statements that makes them different than any other company's financial statements

Sure there is. For starters, just about every venture entered in to creates a new entity. Very few other industries operate that way. Mattel doesn’t create a new LLC every time they roll a Barbie off the line. This can create a developer’s birds nest of receivables, payables and equities between entities, and statements on every one of those entities. Another aspect of developers is that they don’t really “make” anything so much as they resell what they’ve bought upon completion of zoning and permit approvals. Their raw material is land. Which usually appreciates, but whose value is entirely subjective. Entirely.

Appraisal valuations -now- for a developer hoping to sell land in the future have little to do with what that developer thinks he can get for that land. It is pure speculation. More than almost any biz I can imagine, developers are nothing if not speculative. Appraisals are not done for the developer’s benefit, but for the banks lending the developer money. So, their assets are a lot different than contractors, manufacturers, or retailers.

Speculators' financial statements are ALWAYS speculative.

Another difference on the balance sheet would be the extreme leverage position they take. Most developers retain almost no earnings into NW, but dole earnings out to stakeholders and as overheads. This is different from most companies (other than professional LLCs like law, cpa, or engineering firms or doctors offices -service industries). But even then, unlike professional orgs is the very extreme debt-to-equity ratio that most carry. Even floor-plan oriented auto dealers don’t come close to the D:Eq developers carry.

Most large firms get audits or at minimum, reviews. Developers rarely get either, and usually (almost always) go with internal statements, or compilations. I know you know how a CPAs cover to a compilation reads: (paraphrase) "Hey, we just put together what he gave us and make no warranty whatsoever on the information.."(/paraphrase)

These are just a few of the differences.





They should all be an accurate representation of the company's income, assets, and cash flows. Trump Inc's financial statements were not accurate, and not even close.

Define “accurate”. For whose purposes? Internal management’s or outside users? (“Yes” meaning both, is an acceptable answer, but…)

Analysts (like myself) always look at compilations and internals with a very skeptical eye. Yes, we knock valuations waaay back. I always imagined assets at a “fire sale” value (if worse came to worst) because my employer was the (sort of) creditor. In an action under indemnity, there is no way in the world that (say, Travelers) would get the same price for a piece of land that Trump would. For one, Travelers would be most interested in a fire sale themselves; whereas the developer would be more likely buy-hold-sell opportunistically.

My cutting real estate values in half in my analysis doesn’t mean that NVR was defrauding me. Nor were Sandler, R G Moore, Roe, Breeden, Wilton, Ford’s Colony et al... If the deal required it, I’d get an appraisal. And I’d most often knock that way back too. Much of this knock-back was judgement based and not formulaic.

My adjustments made the statements accurate… for me. And for my employer. We were usually a form of “unsecured” credit. We relied on the owner's individual backing (as in the Trump case) 99% of the time. Personal statements are just opinion-based as well.

For the developer, his use of the financial statement was much different from mine, because he would have different purposes behind his use.. So, for his use, the statements he created were accurate for internal management.

For someone hoping to invest in that LLC, he would use the statements much differently than I would, again with a different purpose. Banks aren’t unsecured; so banks would look at the statements differently than I would. They usually collateralize the asset in question against the loan. According the trial docs, most (all?) Trump creditors also got his personal guarantee (which likely had more influence on their decision than the various LLC positions). And banks are VERY sophisticated analysts of financial statements (especially where developers are concerned). Their use is yet different again,

None of that means the statements would have been “inaccurate” simply because different users have different purposes.

Falsification… It's the falsification of the underlying documents to inflate their worth...

A developer claiming a property is worth something different than what an appraiser does, is not “falsification”. The appraiser has a different purpose in his appraisal than the developer would have in carrying the property on his statements.. The bank would rely on the appraisal. The developer, not so much.

Again. This is very very standard in the biz of development.

You said:

And the second prong in this is that at the same time he was promoting those valuations in his financial statements to lenders and investors, he was issuing tax returns with valuations significantly less.

Tax returns have no bearing on managerial-use statements, other than that tax liability should be noted on a gaap statement's balance sheet (deferred taxes, etc). Tax valuations of the properties themselves would only rarely (if ever?) be the same as internal statements. Why would they be? What is the purpose of a tax return? -to compute taxes owed by law, with the objective to legally minimize (avoid*) taxation. What is the purpose of an internal statement? Managing.

*(avoidance is not evasion)



2- You support unequal application of the law, depending upon who the accused is.

Nope. You have absolutely zero evidence to back up that claim.

Well, let’s look at your posts. Before we do that, I will assert that my claim is evident in as much as you are not calling for the fines and injunctions of all NYC developers…no, all developers everywhere in the US, that operate the way that is customary for developers.

You have agreed that it was a political prosecution. A political prosecution cannot be just, by its very definition. But you support this one, this time... because, well dRuMPf~!

Your posts:

Totally agree with the oversight and business restrictions.

And yet, no other NYC developer (or anywhere else, for that matter)has been either charged similarly nor been subject to with what you “Totally agree”

…
Companies manipulate their asset valuations all the time, for their benefit. Most of them form some reasonable basis for those valuations, or at least try to. And yes, developers and commercial/real estate companies are more liberal in their valuations.
But, Trump had 4 major problems that did him in. One, he made himself a celebrity. Two, he made himself a celebrity politician. …
… An appeal to the overall low character of major city developers isn't convincing. Would Trump have been charged if he hadn't been POTUS? Probably not. But he chose to put himself in the spotlight, and he created enemies where there weren't any. Most real estate developers take a lower profile and spend their time contributing/giving bribes to political campaigns and local officials in order to get favorable permitting decisions and expedited permitting and inspections. Trump decided to take a different path.
I don't feel sorry for him.

Seems pretty clear you’re saying who the accused is matters very much. And, as you said, agree with his prosecution

My point about his celebrity status is that someone who was doing what he did with his financial statements and valuations, should have the forethought to not bring a lot of attention to himself. But he can't control himself. His mouth is his enemy. Is that alone a reason to prosecute him? No. But he's done plenty that is worth investigating.

^you say it isn’t about Trump, but then basically say that it is.^

As the Russians said, “give me the man and I’ll find the crime”.



3- You don't understand the precedents this ruling would create


3- I understand the bad precedent that the fine would bring about. I disagree with you about there being a precedent wrt financial controls.

Precedents-
include, but are not limited to:

• • Lawfare designed to take a presidential candidate out of the running. Period. That is all this is. As you said, there’d be no lawsuit if it wasn’t Trump.
  • The death of the developer business as we know it, if all developers would be expected to operate the way the NYC judge thinks
  • Government say-so on property valuations. The government’s position in this case is that Mar-a-Lago is worth $18 million.

Here is what $20 million will buy in that neighborhood:
https://www.mansionglobal.com/articles/ ... kets_miami

Do we really need to compare that to Mar-a-Lago?

• • Sarb-Ox would pale in comparison to this. No more internal statements? Really? While GAAP is a great idea, GAAP is not a requirement, at the point of a spear, for someone buying farm land that wants to pop in 6 homes for resale.

• • If this ruling would be applied equally to all NYC businesses, NYC would lose businesses at a rate that would make your head spin. But fear not. The governor agrees this is all because Trump is Trump.

• • It is okay to have a trial where the defendant is not allowed to offer evidence in a defense. Wowza!

• • A judge can declare guilt before trial begins.

• • The prosecutor is the beneficiary of the $$ “settlement”.

• • So many dumbfounding “merits of the case”… made up on the fly.

• • I could go on and on… the precedents being set are unimaginable and immeasurable.

4- Mild support for government setting value of private properties.

4- Zero support. That's just you making up stupid crap.

I’ve already quoted your full throated support for this verdict (except for the $-fines). The entirety of the case rests on the court arbitrarily saying the properties in question aren’t worth what Trump said the properties were worth, and that Trump has no right to carry the values he carried on internal statements and compilations. The case is a clear move toward government determining fair value.

Forget that the banks, insurance companies, investors, and other creditors have no claim, no damages, no complaints, no problems with the valuations. The judge and DA just don’t like the valuations, so prosecuted an entirely political case.

Your support of the verdict is defacto support for the government’s valuations over Trump’s. Mar a Lago… $18 million.

Yipes.


(mops brow.... whew! That was a lot)