What election interference?

Not in the least. But if they commit non-crimes Justice should keep their hands off.

 

Who did he defraud?? Name one.

 

you mean like Hunter's buying a gun non crime?

 

The People of New York.

The same victim when
someone gets a speeding ticket or
someone gets arrested for DUI or
someone is cited for pissing on a tree.

 

Trump (not 'someone'):

"I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody,
and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK?"

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-i-could-shoot-somebody-and-i-wouldnt-lose-any-voters/​

 

Trump is not above the law, and holding him to the law is not corruption. The immunity from the law that you and he are demanding would be the pinnacle of corruption.

 

is it a crime to lie on bank forms?

 

No! That's a terrible argument. First of all, because it's not true. The BANK was defrauded. Bank investors who would have benefited from... maybe a higher interest rate... were defrauded. Other applicants who might have to wait for their own approval, might be defrauded. This law was designed to PROTECT consumers and investors from fraud. It doesn't WHO they are.

However, that is besides my point. The difference between civil and criminal law is the gravity and types of punishments. And, for that reason, the requirements to prosecute. But they BOTH state an illegal action, and they BOTH state penalties for breaking the law.

Therefore, if you believe that ONE particular person who broke a civil law should not be punished because the victim is anonymous; if you are consistent you MUST also believe that breaking criminal law should also not be punished when the victim is anonymous.

Anybody who defends the rule of law would say that what an honest citizen would do is NOT shoot at somebody in the middle of 5th Avenue. And, on the same token, an honest citizen would NOT lie in their loan application. If one person is not punished for lying in their credit applications, why should other applicants be?

It makes no difference if the banks want to please Trump or not. Somebody out there could be asked to pay a higher interest to compensate for Trump's. And an investor in the bank could be swindled out of a part of his earnings. All because Trump lied. Makes no difference if these people can be addressed by name or not. And this is the reason WHY this specific law doesn't require a victim to be named.

If you don't like the law, you can lobby for it to be repealed. But you can't simplify JUSTIFY braking the law. But, if you do, one has to wonder what OTHER laws you would justify breaking only because the culprit is Trump.

 

Investors. Other loan applicants. Other banks... This law doesn't REQUIRE the specific victims to be named.

If you don't like the law, it's too late now to lobby to repeal it, like you're doing here. Because it becomes OBVIOUS that you are doing this for the sake of ONE individual. TOO obvious. And that's sad!

 

In the purest of senses, the Court System is an anathema and a betrayal of the values of the American Revolution. Remember, that it was principally to declare independence from GB, and that all citizens are equal under the law. But a Judge and a court is not equal, but superior within its own confines.

The principle of 'contempt' arises from kings and queens: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3501&context=ilj

It quite literally runs against the concept of equal men and women. To be truly equal, we must tolerate disrespect as much as we enjoy the respect of our peers. We can't force people to like 'us', but that's what the courts can do. And when you force people to like you or respect you, it's a fake liking and a fake respect.

Respect is lost when you try to force others to respect you. Had the Courts decided that any trials should happen in 2025 and beyond, Trump would have no recourse for election interference claims, nor would the people heed them. And Justice would have prevailed.

But the courts see themselves as more important than the country and even the government itself these days.

 

If Comer came up with actual evidence, he'd have proceeded with criminal indictment. Do you think he would have considered the implications of the election? I think - if that actually came to pass - it would be important for everyone to know the truth before election day.

 

I don't know if Hunter's buying a gun was a crime or not, and I don't particularly care.

 

Cite or list the damages that the people of NY suffered.

 

Trump left office on January 20, 2020. The Democrats had almost two years to bring these suits. Yet they did nothing until the campaign season. Their timing is obvious. They are using the courts as campaign weapons.

Do you think the Democrats would have brought any of these suits if Trump were not running in 2024?

 

here you go...

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24120504-engoron-decision-sept-2023

 

Doesn't answer my question at all. Besides, what lie? Why the non sequitur hypothetical?

 

Bribed Joe fools no one.

THEY’RE NOT WRONG: Voters charge Biden wants to ‘jail’ Trump before election, 56%-30%.

Even the posters here who claim that Bribed Joe isn't trying to win the election by jailing Trump, know full well that he is.

'By nearly 2-to-1, voters believe President Joe Biden is using the Justice Department to hobble former President Donald Trump and jail him so that he can’t win the fall election.'



'What’s more, voters said they believe Biden is playing a key role in driving the investigations of his rival. Some 58% said Biden has a role. '

Trying to win by jailing their opponent is what 3rd world dictators in shithole countries do.

'asked voters if Biden should pull his prosecutors back and let the election play out. Voters, by an even bigger margin, said they would applaud such a move, 58% to 34%.'

'despite the punishing criminal and civil cases facing Trump, the Republican has expanded his lead over Biden in the last month.'

'Trump now leads nationally at 49% to 43%, up from 47% to 43% last month.'

'In addition to feeling that Biden is persecuting his foe, voters also feel that “Bidenomics” is sinking them. A majority of voters said they are struggling under inflation, and 83% said the president’s economic program has “impacted” them.'

We'll see if Bribed Joe can rig two elections in a row.

 

I might have been less than correct in ascribing the thinking of AG James. It is more probable she filed a civil suit because the burden of proof is less and in a regular courtroom she probably knew she had a long row to hoe.

You cannot have fraud without someone suffering damages from actually being defrauded. If a third party paid a higher interest rate because of the loan the bank made to Trump (it's obvious you do not know how banks decide on rates, but I'll play along) and they could show gross misinformation then that third party could civilly sue Trump, and good luck to their proving their case -- again in a regular court. By the way, in a normal court you also have to prove knowledge of the misinformation and a conscious intent to defraud -- none of which occurred in this case -- in addition to damages incurred by the victim

 

I guess I don't know for sure, but if the laws on fraud in the state of NY do not require specific damages incurred by specific defrauded victims, to the best of my knowledge that is different from every other state and federal law, and certainly should be sh*tcanned, Trump or no Trump. Otherwise the State can sue anybody anytime they want and they, the state, gets to pocket all of the fines! What a deal!! Probably why the exodus of businesses from NY picked up materially after this judgement.

 

The only people who think that anyone lost anything when Trump borrowed and repaid the money, with interest, are the New York Attorney General, who ran on the platform "to get Trump," and the grandstanding judge who should be removed from office and disbarred.

 

Comer cannot criminally indict anyone.

 

It is not certain but I believe most if not all of these suits would have been filed even if Trump wasn't running. This is a bona fide purge going on and purges want the opposition GONE, not just not run again.
I agree the timing of the well coordinated indictments was specifically designed for the most interference in the 2024 election.

 

but the 2nd?

 

Thanks, that was helpful. It verified a guess I made in another post that AFAIK NY State is the only state that does not require specific damages incurred by a specific victim to prove fraud, as does Federal law. Maybe this ruling is what caused the recent uptick in businesses exiting NY.

 

Yeah, right.

Businesses committing Fraud Leaving New York Out of Fear of Getting Caught

great headline.