Just so we're totally clear, if I handed knowingly deficient financials to a bank loan officer in pursuit of a loan it would not be considered a 'victimless crime'
People, and by this I mean broadly 'society' and 'various regulatory enforcement arms' would not be like, well, this is between you and the bank, obviously
If the point is, Donald Trump by being an ex-President is somehow immune from historic, long understood requirements not to knowingly defraud banks and hand them deficient financials, because that's your preference, that's fine, but like, in the real world, people get busted for that shit
At a certain point long past, you're not -describing the law for an audience- but -doing a lot of political advocacy with a legalist cover- and the latter is just annoying as fuck, knock it off
Trump is being deprived of property without due process of law, by the illegitimate means of being tried in a court of law based on a law duly passed and enacted by the state legislature, which is not due process unless I, personally, like the law and think he should be prosecuted
🎵We're the
libertarians
we really
like the police
and laws need
to be enforced
except maybe
sometimes not
(say)
(how old is she?)
(how old is she?)
(oh nevermind)🎶
Favorably comparing Trump’s financial practices to the desire of 19th-century butchers to choke a public waterway with blood and rotting offal is a bold strategy, let’s see if it pays off for ‘em.
The other thing about this is, Trump's "we all made money, no foul" argument.
Isn't business always eager to educate the rest of us about opportunity costs? Having made some amount of interest, is not the point.
Bank fraud statutes are generally written so that bank reliance isn't an issue, the question is, did you intend to lie to the bank with your disclosure, and they did, and that's the crime. That's all of the crime. They did it because they're rich and thought they were immune
I -am- talking about the insane Volokh conspiracy article wherein he takes his complaints about bank fraud statutes generally and twists it into what I can only described as a high pitched squeal of annoyance held for several minutes. I think he compared it to a bill of attainder? Which it is not?
God, remember back when Volokh and Reason weren’t *just* shills for the far-right?
I mean, they always were shills, but at least they used to do other stuff too.
Oh! For a while there was a bunch of “advice” to essentially open a company, take out a bunch of loans without the intent of ever paying them back, pay yourself the loans as salary, and then have the company declare bankruptcy.
The light is whatever color a former president/presidential candidate says it is; therefore, it is impossible for him to run a red light. To accuse him of doing so is FAKE NEWS and ELECTION INTEFERENCE.
Somewhere in the 80s and 90s, there was a legitimate(?) and honest(?) real estate developer, who did *not* get their projects funded because Trump Org had occupied/dominated the loan portfolios of various banks. Fraudulently.
“Crowding out legitimate businesses” seems harmful, but what do I know.
My one tiny bit of hope is that if he loses again, and causes the GOP to lose the house too, chances are that the GOP will completely dump his ass to the curb and he will lose all protections he has enjoyed as a result of being a candidate that these giant corporations must fondle just in case.
