Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,291,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

Page 125 of 125 FirstFirst ... 2575115123124125
Results 9,301 to 9,319 of 9319
  1. #9301
    Quote Originally Posted by mojo
    It's repeating a claim that the judge ruled was not a legal position before the trial even started.
    So either the judge and proceedings are biased against him or he has terrible lawyers who haven't got the bollocks to advise Trump properly, which means telling him what he doesn't want to hear. If what he's saying is reasonable evidence, then it's not reasonable for the judge to dismiss it. On the other hand, if it's not reasonable evidence, then his lawyers really do need to get control of their client.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  2. #9302
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,316
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    So either the judge and proceedings are biased against him or he has terrible lawyers who haven't got the bollocks to advise Trump properly, which means telling him what he doesn't want to hear. If what he's saying is reasonable evidence, then it's not reasonable for the judge to dismiss it. On the other hand, if it's not reasonable evidence, then his lawyers really do need to get control of their client.
    His claim is that since [the forms he submitted to various financial institutions claiming the value of his properties] contained a phrase like, "these are all guesses / do your own research" means that he's not committed fraud by the false claims in those documents.

    The judge ruled before the trial began that this is nonsense.

    Note: this is not a criminal trial. The burden of evidence is "more than likely" not "beyond a reasonable doubt."

    And of course Trump's lawyers are crap. No decent lawyer would take him as a client. Not only is he obviously guilty of what he's standing trial for... he has this nasty habit of not paying his lawyers over the past many years. Maybe not all his lawyers, but certainly there are some high profile cases where that's been public news.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  3. #9303
    He also famously doesn't listen to his lawyers either. So for all we know, they did tell him 'nonononono, don't read that out,' and he did it anyways.

    I'm also seriously disappointed this is not being televised.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission...then we should explode him.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  4. #9304
    I do like how the first thing that springs to Ong's mind is that the judge is biased. The second is that Trump has bad lawyers. Absolutely nothing about the wisdom of ignoring the court's explicit instructions and doing whatever you want in court as if that's ever going to fly.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission...then we should explode him.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  5. #9305
    Quote Originally Posted by poop
    I do like how the first thing that springs to Ong's mind is that the judge is biased.
    I do like how the first thing you do is challenge what I said when anyone with basic reading comprehension would more than likely conclude that I was offering one highly unlikely scenario followed by a highly likely one. I guess you had to work hard to find a reason to argue with that small comment of mine.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  6. #9306
    Quote Originally Posted by mojo
    His claim is that since [the forms he submitted to various financial institutions claiming the value of his properties] contained a phrase like, "these are all guesses / do your own research" means that he's not committed fraud by the false claims in those documents.
    If this is not a criminal court then idk what the fuck he's even doing engaging with this shitshow.

    If he has committed fraud, that is a criminal act and he should face a criminal court with the standard of proof that comes with such courts.

    And there *might* be a legal argument that adding disclaimers to finance reports is enough to avoid committing fraud. But it really is going to depend on the language used. Fraud is wilfully misleading another to gain a financial benefit. But that is what he should be paying his lawyers for, to prepare such reports in ways that he can legally defend.

    And of course Trump's lawyers are crap. No decent lawyer would take him as a client. Not only is he obviously guilty of what he's standing trial for...
    Well, "obviously guilty" is not something a lawyer should be considering. It's not his job to decide if his client is guilty or not. It's his job to decide if his client has a legal defence to the allegations.

    But yeah, pay your fucking lawyers dude, especially if you're going to try to commit legal fraud.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  7. #9307
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,316
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    If this is not a criminal court then idk what the fuck he's even doing engaging with this shitshow.
    If a defendant in a civil suit chooses not to defend themselves at the trial, that is their right.
    In so doing, the court precedent is to rule unfavorably against the defendant on all counts.

    In this specific trial, the judge already ruled Trump guilty before the trial began. That is well established to be "normal" for civil cases. It doesn't always go like that, but Trump's lawyers waived the right to a jury. In so doing, it is up to the judge to determine innocence or guilt.

    The trial is not to determine innocence or guilt, that's already been decided, it is to determine the severity of consequences for the fraud that was committed.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    If he has committed fraud, that is a criminal act and he should face a criminal court with the standard of proof that comes with such courts.
    IDK the particulars of the differences between civil fraud and criminal fraud, but these charges have been pressed by the New York Attorney General as civil charges, as I understand it.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    And there *might* be a legal argument that adding disclaimers to finance reports is enough to avoid committing fraud. But it really is going to depend on the language used. Fraud is wilfully misleading another to gain a financial benefit. But that is what he should be paying his lawyers for, to prepare such reports in ways that he can legally defend.
    The real issue for Trump is A) he is a noted real estate mogul and the false claims (only some of which are subjective) are well within the expected expertise of someone with those credentials and B) He's on record (audio and visual) of stating that he uses these documents to secure financial loans and opportunities.

    So his claims of ignorance on either count are just not holding any sway in a court of law. The notion that such egregious misstatements about the square-footage of his home might be accidental are not believed. Trump openly admits that the objectively false statements in his filings are "mistakes" but insists his valuation of his properties several times bigger than anyone else's valuations are because those people are wrong. Which, again, isn't convincing anyone in the courts.

    The fact that he's already admitted to the undeniably false contents of his claims really hurts any argument that the other "mistakes" weren't intentional.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Well, "obviously guilty" is not something a lawyer should be considering. It's not his job to decide if his client is guilty or not. It's his job to decide if his client has a legal defence to the allegations.

    But yeah, pay your fucking lawyers dude, especially if you're going to try to commit legal fraud.
    I mean... the lawyers get to choose whether or not to take the job. They are not court appointed public defenders.

    If they look at the case and they're like, "I can't win that case." that's enough for most lawyers to not take it. Why waste their time and resources on a lost cause? Well, for the money, obv. But then when the client has a reputation of not paying his lawyers... well....
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  8. #9308
    There's clearly a USA/UK difference between the distinction of civil and criminal at play here. I mean, in the UK you don't get sued for criminal acts before getting criminally charged for it. If a British criminal court fails to successfully prosecute someone for an alleged crime, then as I understand it there is no hope of a civil case succeeding unless there is new evidence, and that new evidence would probably result in a criminal retrial before any civil proceedings took place.

    There might be an element of a lower threshold of proof for civil courts that result in exceptions, and I might also just be flat out wrong, but morally speaking if someone is guilty of a crime they should face a criminal court before a civil court.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  9. #9309
    I don't know anything about the details of this case, but based on what you're telling me it seems he's basically admitted to criminal fraud.

    I can understand why his lawyers would take him on, regardless of expected result or even the issues regarding being paid. It puts their name out there. Some might argue that being a Trump lawyer isn't good for your reputation, but that's for the lawyers to decide.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  10. #9310
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,316
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    A quick google search for difference between civil and criminal fraud has explained some things.

    A) you can't be tried for one then the other. The prosecutor has to pick one or the other. Often in these cases, the prosecutor can try to press both charges simultaneously, in the same trial, but the jury would only be able to convict on 1 of them.
    This can vary widely state by state.

    B) The civil charge doesn't even care about guilt. It only cares that harm was done. The defendant in a civil case cannot see personal punishment under the law, per se. The law is only there to determine if a fraud was committed and what appropriate compensation shall be awarded to the defrauded parties. (They may deem this a punishment, but legally, it's not classified that way.) Financial remuneration is the only expected outcome of a civil fraud case. The defendant cannot face prison time or any other legal punishment.

    C) The lack of criminal punishment removes the state's requirement to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the defendant committed fraud. Instead, the prosecution only needs to show that the defendant "more than likely" did the fraud.

    D) Civil fraud can be levied against someone who doesn't themself commit fraud, but whom has others commit fraud for them.


    That's the main differences I gleaned, anyway.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  11. #9311
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,316
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Happy Thanksgiving.

    It's a US holiday based on ... uhh... let's not talk about it.
    Just have a gratuitously obscene amount of food with your family or smth.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  12. #9312
    Personally I think that you guys shouldn't celebrate Thanksgiving. It's a British import and you decided all that time ago that you didn't want us to be your overlords.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  13. #9313
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,907
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Just dropping in to lock in my 2024 US presidential election predictions, which are as follows: Trump and Biden both die of dementia. It's Kamala Harris against Ron DeSantis. They somehow both lose, giving the title off POTUS to the Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson... Who is that even? Anyway, that's your new president. Mike Johnson. I'm pretty sure of it.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  14. #9314
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,316
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Trump voters prob. think it's fake news and vote him in, anyway.
    Some rich asshole turn out their new AI Trumpbot that rules us all from here on out.

    God Bless America!
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  15. #9315
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,907
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    good point
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  16. #9316
    Whenever I feel sad about living in a political shithole, I think to myself "at least I'm not American".
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  17. #9317
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    Trump and Biden both die of dementia.
    I lol'd.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission...then we should explode him.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  18. #9318
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Whenever I feel sad about living in a political shithole, I think to myself "at least I'm not American".
    Our PM just made a transphobic joke while the mother of a murdered trans teenager was a guest in the House of Commons. I'd say we're catching up. Still a ways to go though, Trump-level douchiness is a pretty high bar.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission...then we should explode him.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  19. #9319
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,316
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Whenever I feel sad about living in a political shithole, I think to myself "at least I'm not American".
    It's a shitshow, for sure.

    The good news is that most Americans that aren't on TV / the news / whatever big money platform are pretty sensible and nice people.

    I mean, don't bring up politics or they'll maybe transform into a total nutjob, but even then... most aren't that terrible. Just the typical hypocrisy I've seen around the world.

    Everyone wants the gov't to give them more stuff and fuck off less, but also, they mostly just want to be in charge so they can choose who gets fucked over. Which is fucked up, but altogether normal around the world, AFAICT.

    Seems totally madness to be all, "Ermagherd, I can't believe they treat me like this! They should actually be treating *those people* like this. SMH. So unfair." But there it is. Humans gonna human.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •