Can a Leftist Tugtard explain what Trump did that merits a $454 million seizure of assets?

Bob_C said:
The irony of H's dumb argument what about the people that didn't get loans, is that by forcing someone to pay $475m puts any existing loans that Trump has at potential risk. Which would make that bank's existing credit tighten up and which would actually prevent them from future loans to other companies being made. The excessive fine creates the actual market risk scenario that NY says it wanted to prevent.
Click to expand...
"Daddy's too big to fail!", screeched Bob_C.
 
No idea exactly what he is worth, but go ahead and have the government fine a bank 10-20% of their value, payable within 30 days and just see what happens.
 
Bob_C said:
The irony of H's dumb argument what about the people that didn't get loans, is that by forcing someone to pay $475m puts any existing loans that Trump has at potential risk. Which would make that bank's existing credit tighten up and which would actually prevent them from future loans to other companies being made. The excessive fine creates the actual market risk scenario that NY says it wanted to prevent.
Click to expand...
The dazzler is such a capitalists. So JP Morgan is so unsophisticated that with all their real attorneys, MBAs and real estate investment bankers that Trump stole their loan money away from some undetermined borrower who didn't get a loan. Trump got loans at the market price. The market determined the loan amount to Trump and the terms as did the market for every other borrower. There was no damage to the public. If you look at the dazzler's cited cases, they all have specific damaged parties.
 
WestlinnDuck said:
Bob_C said:
The irony of H's dumb argument what about the people that didn't get loans, is that by forcing someone to pay $475m puts any existing loans that Trump has at potential risk. Which would make that bank's existing credit tighten up and which would actually prevent them from future loans to other companies being made. The excessive fine creates the actual market risk scenario that NY says it wanted to prevent.
Click to expand...
The dazzler is such a capitalists. So JP Morgan is so unsophisticated that with all their real attorneys, MBAs and real estate investment bankers that Trump stole their loan money away from some undetermined borrower who didn't get a loan. Trump got loans at the market price. The market determined the loan amount to Trump and the terms as did the market for every other borrower. There was no damage to the public. If you look at the dazzler's cited cases, they all have specific damaged parties.
Click to expand...
States rights anarchist libertarian says NY can't choose to punish business fraud when the victims are unidentified.
We don't know, of course, who precisely lost opportunities Daddy obtained through his frauds.
 
Last edited:
HHusky said:
WestlinnDuck said:
Bob_C said:
The irony of H's dumb argument what about the people that didn't get loans, is that by forcing someone to pay $475m puts any existing loans that Trump has at potential risk. Which would make that bank's existing credit tighten up and which would actually prevent them from future loans to other companies being made. The excessive fine creates the actual market risk scenario that NY says it wanted to prevent.
Click to expand...
The dazzler is such a capitalists. So JP Morgan is so unsophisticated that with all their real attorneys, MBAs and real estate investment bankers that Trump stole their loan money away from some undetermined borrower who didn't get a loan. Trump got loans at the market price. The market determined the loan amount to Trump and the terms as did the market for every other borrower. There was no damage to the public. If you look at the dazzler's cited cases, they all have specific damaged parties.
Click to expand...
States rights anarchist libertarian says NY can't choose to punish business fraud when the victims are unidentified.
We don't know, of course, who precisely lost opportunities Daddy obtained through his frauds.
Click to expand...
Yeah, Libertarians are really asking for more government intervention in financial transactions between two willing parties. Jesus Christ.
 
RaceBannon said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1772351647861104916

https://twitter.com/x/status/1772320454067314994
Click to expand...
On the 60th Anniversary of the Beatles coming to America, Race channels his inner 13-year-old girl.
Daddy's rich!!!

image.png
 
HHusky said:
WestlinnDuck said:
Bob_C said:
The irony of H's dumb argument what about the people that didn't get loans, is that by forcing someone to pay $475m puts any existing loans that Trump has at potential risk. Which would make that bank's existing credit tighten up and which would actually prevent them from future loans to other companies being made. The excessive fine creates the actual market risk scenario that NY says it wanted to prevent.
Click to expand...
The dazzler is such a capitalists. So JP Morgan is so unsophisticated that with all their real attorneys, MBAs and real estate investment bankers that Trump stole their loan money away from some undetermined borrower who didn't get a loan. Trump got loans at the market price. The market determined the loan amount to Trump and the terms as did the market for every other borrower. There was no damage to the public. If you look at the dazzler's cited cases, they all have specific damaged parties.
Click to expand...
States rights anarchist libertarian says NY can't choose to punish business fraud when the victims are unidentified.
We don't know, of course, who precisely lost opportunities Daddy obtained through his frauds.
Click to expand...
So no evidence. That's what I thought
 
HHusky said:
Blueduck said:
HHusky said:
Doogles said:
175 million is still outrageous, it's not a win to have to fork over that amount.
Click to expand...
I don't know where you practice law, but posting a bond to stay collection of an amount more than twice as large is a win everywhere else.
Click to expand...
It's usually a 10% bond with guarantors or bondsman in every state that I'm familiar with, but I'm not sure what the going rate is for witchhunts in New York
Click to expand...
No, it isn't a "10% bond" usually, if ever. The bond is usually for the full amount, plus anticipated interest, attorneys' fees, and costs.
If we take him at his word, Daddy couldn't an insurer or guarantor for the amount of the judgment.
Click to expand...

Semantics...
Excuse me for leaving out "of the" bond.

Yes, The cash amount a defendant USUALLY has to put up is 10% of the bond when the bondsman or guarantor (bank) cosigner guarantees the full amount to the court.
That's what a Bondsman Guarantor does when you don't have the full amount in cash.
The defendant or cosigner or bank has assets or cash that would be put up as collateral that would be forfeited (in this case no bank wanted any part of 460mil ) in the event the defendant loses on appeal and could not meet the judgement amount.
You can spout off whatever you want but that has been MY experience/ understanding and that's all I represented in my comment.
Again, this is some serious corrupt kangaroo court bullshit and I don't know what is normal in a multimultimillion dollar shakedown witchhunt case in New York but it's already gotten knocked down by appeal because it was obviously beyond unfair.
That is the ultimate point and you're clearly butthurt.
 
Last edited:
The amount was calculated in the opinion. It didn't require more than grade school arithmetic (addition mostly) and referenced the record.
You gals should read it.
 
HHusky said:
WestlinnDuck said:
Bob_C said:
The irony of H's dumb argument what about the people that didn't get loans, is that by forcing someone to pay $475m puts any existing loans that Trump has at potential risk. Which would make that bank's existing credit tighten up and which would actually prevent them from future loans to other companies being made. The excessive fine creates the actual market risk scenario that NY says it wanted to prevent.
Click to expand...
The dazzler is such a capitalists. So JP Morgan is so unsophisticated that with all their real attorneys, MBAs and real estate investment bankers that Trump stole their loan money away from some undetermined borrower who didn't get a loan. Trump got loans at the market price. The market determined the loan amount to Trump and the terms as did the market for every other borrower. There was no damage to the public. If you look at the dazzler's cited cases, they all have specific damaged parties.
Click to expand...
States rights anarchist libertarian says NY can't choose to punish business fraud when the victims are unidentified.
We don't know, of course, who precisely lost opportunities Daddy obtained through his frauds.
Click to expand...
Just stick to your misogynistic insults, you complete retard.
Hilariously inept. Good thing Daddy has his retirement for you.
 
HHusky said:
Blueduck said:
HHusky said:
Doogles said:
175 million is still outrageous, it's not a win to have to fork over that amount.
Click to expand...
I don't know where you practice law, but posting a bond to stay collection of an amount more than twice as large is a win everywhere else.
Click to expand...
It's usually a 10% bond with guarantors or bondsman in every state that I'm familiar with, but I'm not sure what the going rate is for witchhunts in New York
Click to expand...
No, it isn't a "10% bond" usually, if ever. The bond is usually for the full amount, plus anticipated interest, attorneys' fees, and costs.
If we take him at his word, Daddy couldn't an insurer or guarantor for the amount of the judgment.
Click to expand...
Without knowing New York State law, which you don’t either, Retard, typically bond can be bailed at 10% but you’re so far in on Fascism now that you’re just grasping at anything and you’re getting the Tug beatdown of the year so far.
This I typically when you disappear for a week to a month and then come back thinking nobody remembers just how unbelievably stupid you are when you try and engage in an actual discussion.
 
Madam, we're not talking about the price at which the bond can be obtained because Daddy wasn't regarded as a good enough risk by any bonding company.
 
I haven’t read most of this thread, but I assume most everyone, save one or two, is upset about a 2-tiered justice system.

As an undecided voter, this news doesn’t sway me much.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top