New York Attorney General takes initial step to prepare to seize Trump assets

In fact, it's rejected, at least for now.

 

Those damn financial statements, eh? lol

"Documents for Donald Trump's $175 million bond in his New York civil fraud case were rejected by a court because a current financial statement was not included.

On Wednesday, a message on the New York State Supreme Court's electronic filing system showed Trump's "Bond/Undertaking" had been "returned for correction."

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-fo...es-1886609

 

UH OH! His personal financial statement might embarrass the **** out of him.

Where's the $500 million that he claimed that he had?

 

No victim. Repeat after me. The banks says it was okay with the loan, and would do it again. NO F-ing VICTIM.

 

Who is the victim is someone speeds on an empty road?

If your only excuse is “sure, what he did was a crime but no one is saying they were harmed so it shouldn’t count” then — ok

 

There is no such thing as an empty road. People are always pulling onto "empty" roads. Can you yield to a speeding vehicle? If a speeding vehicle is coming over a hill, and a car pulls out in front of it, did the speeding vehicle cause an undue hazard if there's an accident? Short answer ... yes.

 

That’s a great argument, and stuff! I’m sure he’ll use it on appeal and win big!

 

Oh — so now you are saying that it doesn’t matter if there is no actual victim but if a victim could eventually be caused due to such behavior.

Congratulations — you just invalided your prior position and came to the correct one.

 

There is a victim, you just fail to understand the legal concept of inherent danger to others. Fail on your part, again.

 

Setting aside the fact that this is already nonsensical, let's assume you actually had thought about this for two seconds. So, why is it okay to drive drunk? It's okay so long as you don't hit anyone, according to you, because there is no victim. In fact, you are arguing that it is legal for someone to fire a gun at Trump, so long as they miss. Try thinking about this harder.

 

No. You said that a victim is only a victim if they are harmed. You said that if it is only a RISK of harm, then there is no victim. Did you finally learn?

 

Who is the victim on a completely vacant road?

I am not the one arguing against numerous levels of court precedent. That would be you

 

Oh, ok. I wonder why nobody but Trumpers entertain this argument.