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.”
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
heron said:
Why do you think large businesses and their advocates have worked so hard to gut the IRS? Literal centuries of legislative grooming have made it prohibitively expensive to hold big business accountable for their behavior. trump hasn't done anything that hasn't also been perpetrated by his betters. He's p.o.’d enough of us off that it's worth the millions it's costing to go after him.
I suspect that New York State has more than its share of such high-stakes fraud by virtue of being home to some of the richest and most powerful people (both biological and corporate) in the world. Think of it as Roy Cohn meets Social Darwinism
The citizens of New York need all the tools they can get - hence the law under which trump is being sued. If you disagree with the law, take it up with the New York legislature.
Also, I'll say it again: I don't buy the assumption that no one has been harmed. There's a reason why no US banks will lend to him. Deutsch Bank claims it got it's loan back, but they're no longer doing business with him, either. Banks and bankers lie.
The analysis presented is an interesting take on the historic nature of the case. It also hasn't convinced me that the lawsuit is unjust or that trump is the innocent victim of a left-wing holy war. John Galt he ain't.
Agreed. The analysis convinced me that there aren't enough of these legal cases pursued, not that Trump is a victim.
Also, I'll say it again: I don't buy the assumption that no one has been harmed. There's a reason why no US banks will lend to him. Deutsch Bank claims it got it's loan back, but they're no longer doing business with him, either. Banks and bankers lie.
It's a pretty strong and safe assumption. There was a long, publicized trial in which we didn't hear from any victims.
If you want to talk about wild assumptions....
I asked you earlier about your idea that he was probably undervalued his properties to save on property taxes. I pointed out that isn't how property taxes are assessed, and to do make sure I wasn't missing anything I asked if he's being accused of cheating on property taxes? I don't believe you ever replied.
Why would banks lie about being cheated on? Sounds like another wild assumption.
You are incorrect about banks not wanting to do business with him:
"He bounces back," says Barbara Res, a former Trump Organization executive who is not a fan and even urged people not to vote for him."
...
"If a guy brings me a property with good cash flow, a good location and good tenants, why do I care what his politics are?" says Mike Offit, a former Deutsche Bank lender to Trump who now consults on real estate finance. "Trump has good buildings and manages them well."
....
Interesting that his hotel sold for more then experts, not a judge, anticipated:
"But in the fall, Trump struck a deal to sell his money-losing Washington, D.C., hotel for far more than many observers expected. And a partnership he's involved with that owns two office towers recently took out new loans for far more than needed to pay off old ones coming due."
Why do you think large businesses and their advocates have worked so hard to gut the IRS? Literal centuries of legislative grooming have made it prohibitively expensive to hold big business accountable for their behavior. trump hasn't done anything that hasn't also been perpetrated by his betters. He's p.o.’d enough of us off that it's worth the millions it's costing to go after him.
I suspect that New York State has more than its share of such high-stakes fraud by virtue of being home to some of the richest and most powerful people (both biological and corporate) in the world. Think of it as Roy Cohn meets Social Darwinism
The citizens of New York need all the tools they can get - hence the law under which trump is being sued. If you disagree with the law, take it up with the New York legislature.
It is a bad law.
Took awhile to get there, but sounds to me like you're acknowledging and are OK with them going after Trump out of spite and for political reasons.
I applaud your honesty. What else can I say...
Just curious, that is a"biological" powerful person?
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Beerman said:
Indeed. We've never had political activists use the legal system to go after their adversaries in such a manner.
All because of Trump and their hatred of him.
We don't have political activists using the legal system to go after their adversaries now, either, but Trump sure does make claims like that. Of course, Trump is famous for making untrue claims. And lots of people believe those claims without even a shed of evidence.
All because of Trump and their devotion to him.
heron said:
Meanwhile, trump's lawyers in the civil fraud case have written to Judge Engoron, accusing Barbara Jones, the court-appointed monitor of the trump organization, of exaggeration and distortion in her report to the court on her work. They are claiming that she's angling for a permanent appointment so she can continue being paid millions in unnecessary fees.
Meanwhile, House democrats have produced a report on $7.8 million in foreign payments to trump's businesses while he was president.
As they say, accusation = confession. Always interesting to follow the money.
Wow. And, don't forget this serial attention-seeker won this case without any shred of evidence other than her word.
"During another stop on her media tour Monday night, Carroll was asked by Maddow about previous remarks she made suggesting that any money she would receive from Trump would go directly to "help shore up women's rights."Do you know what that might be, what that might look like?" Maddow asked.
"Yes, Rachel! Yes!" Carroll enthusiastically responded. "I had such, such great ideas for all the good I'm gonna do with this money."
"First thing Rachel, you and I are gonna go shopping!" she then exclaimed. "We're gonna get complete new wardrobes, new shoes, motorcycle for [Carroll's attorney Shawn] Crowley, a new fishing rod for Robbie [Carroll's attorney Roberta Kaplan]- Rachel, what do you want? A penthouse? It's yours, Rachel! Penthouse and France? You want France? You want to go fishing in France? No?"
We don't have political activists using the legal system to go after their adversaries now, either, but Trump sure does make claims like that. Of course, Trump is famous for making untrue claims. And lots of people believe those claims without even a shed of evidence.
All because of Trump and their devotion to him.
I don't need to believe Trump. I can see it with my own eyes. It's plain as day in the New York cases we've discussed here.
Curious, what evidence in the E Jean Carroll cases compelled you to believe her story? For another poster, it was good enough that Trump wasn't able to prove it didn't happen. Is that your thought, as well?
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Beerman said:
Maybe so.
If it's not for political reasons, why do you suppose Trump is being made the poster child?
He sort of made himself center of all attention and made some pretty inflammatory and questionable claims for someone whose finances, apparently, looked so shady. Are prosecutors supposed to ignore public claims that, when fact checked, reveal creative bookkeeping practices? It seems like you are an advocate for ignoring irregularities or evidence of crime if the suspected criminal is a political figure. Or, maybe only if the political figure is Trump. It's not clear.
Honestly, in terms of making Trump "the poster child", it is Trump himself that casts himself in that role, not the prosecutors or the courts. He is the one marketing his legal troubles.
Trump makes it a media spectacle, every courtroom is a campaign media opportunity with him in the spotlight as the victim of a conspiracy to take him down because Biden is scared, or something similar. Trump needs his voting base to question the process, the judges, the prosecutors, the grand juries and the juries. Trump needs that because he loses his court cases about election interference or election fraud, or total immunity, or sexual abuse and defamation. He needs his fans to believe that ALL OF IT is politically motivated nonsense, unfair and unfounded in fact. He needs that from his voting base because Trump brought his shady and unethical habits and business practices to DC and ran them out of the White House. He invited the scrutiny. Now he needs blind devotion from his voting base while the legal system looks for accountability.
He's gonna get that devotion from his most committed voters.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Beerman said:
Yes, I know. He deserves what he's getting. Trump isn't above the law. But, who cares if he's treated below the law...
I care.
So far there hasn't been any evidence that Trump has been treated unfairly, although many legal analysts and experts do agree that judges have been giving Trump extraordinary leeway when it comes to his very agitating and inflammatory language about his court cases and the people involved. Most agree that they cannot think of another person who wouldn't have been punished by now for their belligerent discourse.
Maybe you can make a more specific case for how Trump has been treated "below the law" so that we can discuss your perception.
toomuchbaloney
16,095 Posts
Agreed. The analysis convinced me that there aren't enough of these legal cases pursued, not that Trump is a victim.