Trump convicted of fraud - Again

@wajoma said
You have right to live your life free from force, threats of force and fraud.

It is the role of goobermint to protect you from force, threats of force and fraud.

Bill and Don have an equal amount of assets and earning income as well as other measures of credit worthiness. Both apply for a loan at Bank A.

Bill submits truthful and accurate Statements of Financial Condition as part of his application.

Don submits SFCs that he knows to be false that exaggerate his assets and other items i.e. commits fraud.

Don gets his loan; Bill is rejected.

IF the government does nothing, has it protected Bill from fraud? Has it protected all future prospective borrowers from fraud IF it allows people who commit fraud to retain the gains of their fraud?

@no1marauder said
Bill and Don have an equal amount of assets and earning income as well as other measures of credit worthiness. Both apply for a loan at Bank A.

Bill submits truthful and accurate Statements of Financial Condition as part of his application.

Don submits SFCs that he knows to be false that exaggerate his assets and other items i.e. commits fraud.

Don gets his loan; ...[text shortened]... ective borrowers from fraud IF it allows people who commit fraud to retain the gains of their fraud?

No.1 said:

"A "Yes" or "No" will do."

Guess we're done.

@no1marauder said
Bill and Don have an equal amount of assets and earning income as well as other measures of credit worthiness. Both apply for a loan at Bank A.

Bill submits truthful and accurate Statements of Financial Condition as part of his application.

Don submits SFCs that he knows to be false that exaggerate his assets and other items i.e. commits fraud.

Don gets his loan; ...[text shortened]... ective borrowers from fraud IF it allows people who commit fraud to retain the gains of their fraud?

plagiarism now? I read this on another site not long ago 😳

@no1marauder said
That's not true. Both sides moved for summary judgment based on the discovery which had been provided over the last several years including documents, depositions and expert submissions. Plaintiff's motion was granted in part. You can read why here: https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/full-text-trump-civil-fraud-ruling-new-york-pdf-rcna117499

your “msnbc” link is a lie

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-trial-no-jury-fraud-new-york-judge-arthur-engoron/

@no1marauder said
On another note, will you admit that it requires an immense amount of hypocritical gall for right wingers like yourself who insisted that Hillary Clinton be charged with crimes months before the election in 2016 to now whine about "election interference" because candidate Trump is facing various legal proceedings?

😂😂😂

you compare clinton deleting phones, hard drives ect that was under congressional subpoena to a businessman conducting business.

you are a funny little twink

@wajoma said
No.1 said:

"A "Yes" or "No" will do."

Guess we're done.

I never got one of those either.

But your obvious dodging is answer enough.

@mott-the-hoople said
plagiarism now? I read this on another site not long ago 😳

I saw something similar somewhere; maybe on Twitter. It did not have the questions I asked AFAIK, however.

There was no good answer from Trump worshippers there either.

@mott-the-hoople said
your “msnbc” link is a lie

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-trial-no-jury-fraud-new-york-judge-arthur-engoron/

A "lie"? It's the actual decision of the Court I was referring to contained in the article.

Your article doesn't support your claim at all. True, there is no right to a jury trial in this equitable type of case but your claim the judge decided the case before any evidence was submitted is dead wrong.

@mott-the-hoople said
😂😂😂

you compare clinton deleting phones, hard drives ect that was under congressional subpoena to a businessman conducting business.

you are a funny little twink

Those debunked claims pale in comparison to attempting to overturn an election by illegal means, paying hush money to influence an election and then claiming it was a legitimate business expense, retaining classified documents after his term of office was over and then having others lie about it and a decades old pattern of fraudulent business dealings.

But I get it; to right wingers it's only "election interference" when Donald Trump is called to account.

@no1marauder said
Those debunked claims pale in comparison to attempting to overturn an election by illegal means, paying hush money to influence an election and then claiming it was a legitimate business expense, retaining classified documents after his term of office was over and then having others lie about it and a decades old pattern of fraudulent business dealings.

But I get it; to right wingers it's only "election interference" when Donald Trump is called to account.

nothing has been debunked about clinton you lying shytweasel

@mott-the-hoople said
nothing has been debunked about clinton you lying shytweasel

I'm sure you've read the Comey letter declining to charge and debunking any claim of purposeful destruction of evidence, so I won't bother to link to it again.

But also Trump's DOJ had four years to charge Hillary with ..................................... something but never did so.