I confess to back pedaling into Trump territory when I wanted to leave discussions about him in the garbage can. My thread on the read-only break room site has 9,600 replies so I thought I'd bring up a new one.
He's not going away.
Haberman's book is out based on interviews. I won't read it, but the excerpts are interesting. Especially what he says about McConnell, a description that's against the Terms of Service here, but I actually don't disagree with. LOL
Quote
“At one point, Trump made a candid admission that was as jarring as it was ultimately unsurprising. ‘The question I get asked more than any other question: “If you had it to do again, would you have done it?”’Trump said of running for president. ‘The answer is, yeah, I think so. Because here’s the way I look at it. I have so many rich friends and nobody knows who they are.’ … Reflecting on the meaning of having been president of the United States, his first impulse was not to mention public service, or what he felt he’d accomplished, only that it appeared to be a vehicle for fame, and that many experiences were only worth having if someone else envied them.”
Trump estimated that his "brand" alone is worth "maybe $10 billion.”
He called it "the most valuable asset I have" and attributed his political success to the ubiquity of his name and persona.
"I became president because of the brand, OK,” Trump said. "I became president. I think it's the hottest brand in the world.”
Trump apparently admitted that he was elected by republican voters because of his celebrity, not apparently because of his policy ideas.
Quote
At that first deposition, Trump invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and refused to answer questions more than 400 times. Trump said he did so because he was certain politically motivated prosecutors would use his answers as a basis for criminal charges.
By April, Trump changed his mind and responded to even simple questions at such length that his interrogator, James' deputy Kevin Wallace, suggested he was trying to run out the clock.
"Chris, we're going to be here until midnight if your client answers every question with an eight-minute speech,” he said to one of Trump's lawyers, Christopher Kise.
Trump, though, seemed aware there was a risk in going on and on.
In the middle of one of his protracted answers, expounding on the greatness of one of his golf courses, Trump said: "You are going to let me go on, hoping that I make a mistake. And that's OK. That's the way it is. Perry Mason. Perry Mason.”
Sometimes when I listen to Trump's rambling, nearly incoherent speeches, or read the transcripts, I'm struck by how his patterns of speech are so suggestive of disordered thought and associative looseness.
The state AG had brought charges that indicate that the people is the state are the victims. It will be an interesting defense for Trump to use in court.
These charges are certainly the least of his legal concerns just now.
That's not what the reporting from credible media sources say:
"James is suing the Trumps for allegedly defrauding banks, insurance companies and others with the use of false financial statements."
But, I know since you've spoken on the topic you must be well-informed, as always. I'm sure you've read things such as the filing document and motions for summary judgment. Those all should lay out who the alleged victims of the fraud were and what damages they supposedly suffered?
I'm also interested in your opinion of why the state is suing him and the alleged victims are not?
Some interesting opinions from Turley regarding the testimony of Meadows and Raffensberger. Especially in regards to the Trump call to Raffensburger.
'Despite the recent attack in the Washington Post, it is not the merits of Trump's claims but the use of the call as a criminal act that drew my criticism. The call was misrepresented by the Post and the transcript later showed that Trump was not simply demanding that votes be added to the count but rather asking for another recount or continued investigation. Again, I disagreed with that position but the words about the finding of 11,780 votes was in reference to what he was seeking in a continued investigation. Critics were enraged by the suggestion that Trump was making the case for a recount as opposed to just demanding the addition of votes to the tally or fraudulent findings."
But, I know since you've spoken on the topic you must be well-informed, as always. I'm sure you've read things such as the filing document and motions for summary judgment. Those all should lay out who the alleged victims of the fraud were and what damages they supposedly suffered?
I'm also interested in your opinion of why the state is suing him and the alleged victims are not?
The charges read The People of the State of New York vs DJT.
Quote
"The People of the State of New York allege that Donald J. Trump repeatedly and fraudulently falsified New York business records to conceal crimes that hid damaging information from the voting public during the 2016 presidential election,” said District Attorney Bragg. "Manhattan is home to the country's most significant business market. We cannot allow New York businesses to manipulate their records to cover up criminal conduct. As the Statement of Facts describes, the trail of money and lies exposes a pattern that, the People allege, violates one of New York's basic and fundamental business laws. As this office has done time and time again, we today uphold our solemn responsibility to ensure that everyone stands equal before the law.”
What have you read about the matter? Do you think that the people of the State of New York have an interest in law breaking by prominent businesses operated in the state? Your remarks sound like you don't believe that "we the people" might get a say in these sort of broad civil matters, why not?
Specializes in Vents, Telemetry, Home Care, Home infusion.
Easy 11 page read -- page 6 starts list of differences in property values Trump claimed vs other valuations of same property.... and other issues of fraud.
This action arises out of a three-year investigation conducted by plaintiff, the Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York ("OAG"), into the business practices of defendants from 2011 through 2021. OAG alleges that defendant Donald J. Trump ("Mr. Trump") and the other named defendants engaged in ongoing and extensive acts of fraud in the preparation and submission of Mr. Trump's annual Statements of Financial Condition (the "SFCs"), violating New York Executive Law § 63(12) and a multitude of state criminal laws.
What have you read about the matter? Do you think that the people of the State of New York have an interest in law breaking by prominent businesses operated in the state? Your remarks sound like you don't believe that "we the people" might get a say in these sort of broad civil matters, why not?
Easy 11 page read -- page 6 starts list of differences in property values Trump claimed vs other valuations of same property.... and other issues of fraud.
Haven't read the indictment but I understand it hinges on fabricated business records. Who is harmed? The people of New York State, for one, who have a right to accurate business records in order to make sound business decisions and do reliable research. Fabricated records also impact tax revenue by unfairly reducing tax liability which has to be made up by honest businesses and citizens. The State also has a compelling interest in challenging corrupt business practices on behalf of a law-abiding public who don't have millions and years to spend on litigation. Either the rules apply to everyone or they don't
What have you read about the matter? Do you think that the people of the State of New York have an interest in law breaking by prominent businesses operated in the state? Your remarks sound like you don't believe that "we the people" might get a say in these sort of broad civil matters, why not?
Oops. I cited the wrong NY indictment. Sorry. Thanks NRSKARENRN
Beerman said:
That's not the same case.
Oops. My bad. Fortunately, NRSKARENRN posted the correct case for you. So many indictments make it confusing.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Beerman said:
Some interesting opinions from Turley regarding the testimony of Meadows and Raffensberger. Especially in regards to the Trump call to Raffensburger.
'Despite the recent attack in the Washington Post, it is not the merits of Trump's claims but the use of the call as a criminal act that drew my criticism. The call was misrepresented by the Post and the transcript later showed that Trump was not simply demanding that votes be added to the count but rather asking for another recount or continued investigation. Again, I disagreed with that position but the words about the finding of 11,780 votes was in reference to what he was seeking in a continued investigation. Critics were enraged by the suggestion that Trump was making the case for a recount as opposed to just demanding the addition of votes to the tally or fraudulent findings."
That's a well stated case. I wonder why he didn't mention the inconsistencies in Meadows testimony. The white house chief of staff doesn't really have any campaign or election related duties, right?
Oops. I cited the wrong NY indictment. Sorry. Thanks NRSKARENRN
Oops. My bad. Fortunately, NRSKARENRN posted the correct case for you. So many indictments make it confusing.
That's the right case, but that's not an indictment. It's a civil case. The indictment is a criminal case. It seems you may not be aware of the difference.
Haven't read the indictment but I understand it hinges on fabricated business records. Who is harmed? The people of New York State, for one, who have a right to accurate business records in order to make sound business decisions and do reliable research. Fabricated records a impact tax revenue by unfairly reducing tax liability which has to be made up by honest businesses and citizens. The State also has a compelling interest in challenging corrupt business practices on behalf of a law-abiding public who don't have millions and years to spend on litigation. Either the rules apply to everyone or they don't
I haven't been speaking of the indictment. That is a criminal case.
toomuchbaloney
16,135 Posts
https://apnews.com/article/trump-deposition-attorney-general-new-york-63f4708b27a52a1e544e3caa6f63fa3b
Trump apparently admitted that he was elected by republican voters because of his celebrity, not apparently because of his policy ideas.
Sometimes when I listen to Trump's rambling, nearly incoherent speeches, or read the transcripts, I'm struck by how his patterns of speech are so suggestive of disordered thought and associative looseness.