Jump to content

Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty


Recommended Posts

Posted
1 hour ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

Now we are into trophies and perfect loans:

 

Screenshot2023-10-12124902.thumb.png.bdcefd2531566b53a55a66f7e3144e11.png

Ah yes, the always above reproach Deutsche Bank, which has never been invoved directly in the US Financial Crisis, which has literally be fined for doing business with US Sanctioned countries, LITERAL FUCKING ESPIONAGE, Russian Money laundering, Bribery, the Libor Scandal...

THE BEST LOAN OFFICERS. SMARTEST LAWYERS. What are their fines up to at this point, 10 billion? 20?

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Drool 1
Posted
1 minute ago, texasdago said:

Waiting for him to post his high school ROTC wrestling trophy to show he's healthy and willing to go the mat to fight Joe Biden.

What are the worst trophies in the history of sport?

I knew a couple in Miami Beach that had that same sculpture used as a design for their soup bowls at formal dinners.  

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Posted
11 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:


Does that trophy say “Trump Old Post Office LLC”?

It looks like the trophy has the loan amount and the date it was issued:  July 23, 2014. 


 

 

Here's a better pic

 

9661eccb05eb20ca.jpg

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
12 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

Here's a better pic

 

9661eccb05eb20ca.jpg

 

Your honor, there's no written proof that my client overvalued the asset for leverage purposes or to mislead/misguide the capital stack partners on the property deal.  

"Counselor, I'm looking right at the written proof of $170,000,000.  That's not what the comps or tax rolls or FMV data suggest."

Your honor, as I said...there's no written proof.  What you're looking at is not in print, it's 'Etched.'  A PERFECT ETCH!

  • Haha 2
Posted
18 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

I don’t know if the wwe or the henning family own the rights to the Mr perfect persona, but one of them should sue trump for using it without license. 

WWE pretty sure. 

Posted

Maybe this was already discussed somewhere, but is the defense really going to involve the subtle difference between  "'support' the Constitution" and "'preserve, protect and defend' the Constitution".  Maybe we can get the court to define the definition of "is" again...

 

 

  • Haha 1
  • Rage+1 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, kevwun said:

That's called the "Our client is fucked." defense.  One of the definitions of support is to uphold or defend as valid or right.

How would one defend the Constitution without also supporting it? "Well I don't like it, but I swore an oath dammit, so I'm gonna defend it anyway!". 

Posted
2 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

Now we are into trophies and perfect loans:

 

Screenshot2023-10-12124902.thumb.png.bdcefd2531566b53a55a66f7e3144e11.png

 

1 hour ago, YGIFS said:

I have seen every kind of bullshit vanity business "award" or plackard or deskpiece or paperweight.  I've had to make up so many fucking stupid ones to stroke the ego of so many shitbags we've done business with.  But I was today year's old when I saw somebody post a photograph of "Trophy for Most Perfect CRE Loan", and it was a fucking U.S. President.  

I mean, this takes "Participation Trophy" to whole other level.  I hope his snowflake legions understand what this means.  He literally got a trophy for participating in paying back a loan he took out in the first place.  It's one step away from giving somebody a Matchbox Car model of the car they're currently making payments on at your dealership.  It's that ridiculous.  But of course, in MAGA fashion, a dozen stupids will get that same trophy tattoo'd on themselves before the month is out.  "Hey, make sure you get the number of windows correct!"  

 

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:


Does that trophy say “Trump Old Post Office LLC”?

It looks like the trophy has the loan amount and the date it was issued:  July 23, 2014. 
 

That's because it's not a fucking "trophy."  It's a "tombstone."  They aren't "awarded," or any shit like that.  They are printed to memorialize a thing that happened (so, in that respect, they aren't any different than the t-shirt the local Delta Upsilon Mu fellas printed up to memorialize their "Tits for Tots!" stripper fundraiser party) -- in this case, they are printed to memorialize the closing of a deal.  It's routine:

Quote

Although many believe that deal toys are more fun and creative than a traditional financial tombstone, the terms are used almost always interchangeably. These plaques and other types of trophies are typically used in finance and property deals and are usually presented at a closing ceremony or dinner.

Exhibit # eleventy billion in how he's the dumbest motherfucker ever supported by the dumbest motherfuckers ever.  If you vote for Trump, you are among the dumbest people who ever lived, and I am including in that assessment all prior members of the entire genus Homo, including that dumb short bitch Lucy.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Red Five said:

How would one defend the Constitution without also supporting it? "Well I don't like it, but I swore an oath dammit, so I'm gonna defend it anyway!". 

thief-nicholas-cage.gif

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 3
Posted
3 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

I don’t know if the wwe or the henning family own the rights to the Mr perfect persona, but one of them should sue trump for using it without license. 

* Hennig

Posted
8 hours ago, 'stache said:

"No one forgot to check a box," Justice Engoron said.

Head off that ineffective assistance appeal and potential malpractice claim.  Nice work, Judge.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
4 hours ago, YGIFS said:

I knew a couple in Miami Beach that had that same sculpture used as a design for their soup bowls at formal dinners.  

Per chance did they have a butler named Agador Spartacus?

 

/jou bad mane

  • Haha 3
Posted
3 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Uh, I am apparently missing a shit-ton of trophies.  I demand redress!

Not in direct response, but it reminds me of a  friend who proudly displayed her "Worst Bowler Trophy" with scorecard in her office.  It's okay to display that shit ironically.

Posted

Allen Weisselberg, the longtime chief financial officer of the Trump Organization, lied in sworn testimony on Tuesday when questioned about Donald Trump’s penthouse atop Trump Tower.

 

Weisselberg was on the stand as part of a $250 million lawsuit that the New York attorney general is waging against Trump and his associates, including Weisselberg, accusing them of lying about Trump’s net worth to financial institutions. To arrive at inflated figures, the Trump Organization used demonstrably incorrect facts, such as valuing Trump’s penthouse as if it contained 30,000 square feet, when it in fact consisted of 10,996.

 

Under questioning, Weisselberg acknowledged that the 30,000-square-foot figure was wrong. He tried to suggest, however, that he had little to do with the bogus calculation, batting away a series of questions about the financial documents and discussions with Forbes, which has been valuing Trump’s fortune since 1982. “I never focused on the triplex, to be honest with you,” Weisselberg said. “It was almost de minimis relative to his net worth, so I really didn’t focus on it.”

 

He repeated similar lines as his testimony continued. “I never focused on the apartment Mr. Trump owned,” he said at one point. At another: “I didn’t correlate the square footage of Donald’s apartment. I never focused on it. It was always in my mind a de minimis asset of the overall of Donald J. Trump’s statement of financial condition. That was never a concern of mine. I never even thought about the apartment. It was de minimis in my mind.”

 

But that’s not true. A review of old emails and notes, some of which the attorney general’s office does not possess, show that Weisselberg absolutely thought about Trump’s apartment—and played a key role in trying to convince Forbes over the course of several years that it was worth more than it really was. Given the fact that these discussions continued for years, and that Weisselberg took a very detailed approach in reviewing Trump’s assets with Forbes, it defies all logic to think he truly believes what he is now saying in court.

 

The saga started in 2009, on a relatively friendly note. Forbes had been valuing Trump’s fortune for decades at that point, though some of his smaller assets remained absent from the overall calculation. Weisselberg and Trump summoned a Forbes reporter to a meeting, according to the reporter’s notes. The reporter was hesitant to add Trump’s personal home to the valuation, something Trump and his underlings seemed to be okay with at the time. “They understand if we don’t want to include the penthouse at Trump Tower,” the reporter noted.

Three years later, in 2012, a different reporter wrote, “Allen asked why we count large private estates for other billionaires and not Trump. He said we should be including his NY penthouse. He thinks it’s worth more [than] $88m.” Weisselberg had a point. The penthouse wasn’t worth $88 million, but it was worth something. The reporter added it to the calculation with an estimated $64 million valuation.

Weisselberg kept pushing. The next year, a reporter explained, “Now Allen says it’s worth $200M, and there’s no debt.” Believing the penthouse was nearly 30,000 square feet, the figure that the Trump Organization would eventually claim on its internal documents, the reporter decided to bump up the estimate to $90 million.

A year later, in 2014, Weisselberg once again weighed in on the value. “Now Allen says it’s $163m with 0 debt,” a reporter wrote in her notes. “He is sending us sales records for One57”—a luxury apartment building nearby, which Trump’s financial statements also referenced—“and then applying a per-square-foot rate, based on 30k sf.”

The reporter opted to leave the valuation at $90 million in her calculation and sent a summary of her estimates to Weisselberg and his deputy, Jeff McConney. Weisselberg then set up a phone call, which was followed by an email exchange, titled “Mr. Trump’s penthouse.” “Hi Jeff, Allen— I just wanted to let you know that I was not able to bump up the value of Mr. Trump’s penthouse this time. While I understand your point that it may indeed sell for more than $90 million due to its large square footage, this is still an untested market. Since no apartment in New York is known to have sold for more than that sum to date, we’re not comfortable upping the number at this time.” Weisselberg replied at 5:02 p.m. on a September Friday, delving into the weeds on the penthouse. “Thank you for the response, but keep in mind that his apartment is a triplex which consists of 6 apartments.”

In 2015, Trump hosted three Forbes journalists inside Trump Tower, with Weisselberg by his side. “This is the entire floor of Trump Tower, just so you know,” Trump said, showing off his penthouse. “Now, this wraps all around the building. All around the elevators. And I have three times three. So there’s like 11,000 feet on a floor. So I have three. So 33,000—and I have the roof.”

The next year, Forbes uncovered property records that showed that the penthouse was only 10,996 square feet, not 30,000 square feet or 33,000 square feet. Reporters reached out to Weisselberg and others at the Trump Organization to ask about the discrepancy, emails that are now being used as evidence in the case.

Even after receiving those messages, the Trump Organization apparently continued to value the penthouse on its documents as if it had 30,000 square feet. It wasn’t until after Forbes published a story in May 2017, exposing the lie publicly, that the Trump Organization seemed to change its internal documents, reducing the square footage to 10,996.

Weisselberg was demoted from his role as CFO after he was criminally charged in a separate tax case in 2021. He remained with the Trump Organization until January, when he was sentenced to five months in jail as the result of the other case, which also implicated the Trump Organization. Weisselberg signed a separation agreement with the firm that month, which promises to pay him $2 million over two years, if he complies with his obligations under the agreement.

An attorney for Weisselberg did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Weisselberg is expected to retake the stand in the attorney general’s case to continue his testimony in the coming days.

 

 
Follow me on Twitter or LinkedInCheck out some of my other work hereSend me a secure tip
 
Posted
1 minute ago, Bookman said:

I mean, it could have all just been a big misunderstanding. He could have been thinking of varas instead of feet.

the varas were de minimis 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 3
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Dutchrudder said:

Maybe this was already discussed somewhere, but is the defense really going to involve the subtle difference between  "'support' the Constitution" and "'preserve, protect and defend' the Constitution".  Maybe we can get the court to define the definition of "is" again...

 

 

Here's why that's not quite as shitty an argument as it sounds like.  The relevant wording of the 14th Amendment is:

who, having previously taken an oath, as [a member of Congress]1, or as an officer of the United States, or as [a member of any State legislature]2, or as [an executive or judicial officer of any State]3, to support the Constitution of the United States,  . . .

The President is clearly not 1, 2, or 3, so the question is, is he an "officer of the United States"?  And the answer to that is not as clear as it might seem.  In fact, it's an unanswered question as to whether the removal statute applies to Trump or not.  And one that comes up with some frequency.

We have a hierarchy of federal (and state for that matter) officials:

  • Elected officials
  • Officials  appointed by POTUS and confirmed by the Senate (these almost always are "officers")
  • Inferior officers (those appointed by POTUS or others and not confirmed)
  • Employees

So, many times, you have to answer to which of the above does the statute/law/amendment apply when it uses a dumbass term like "officers" instead of "elected and appointed officials and employees of state or federal government" (or "waters of the United States," fucking Congress).

And, the Constitution specifies the oath of office of the President as "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution.  It does not set out the oaths for Reps or Senators but does say "support" the Constitution.

I don't know enough constitutional history to know if that was an intended difference in the original document, but suspect it might have been.

So, the "support" vs. "preserve, protect, defend," which is unique to the presidential oath is perhaps a clue that the drafters of the 14th did not intend "officers" to include the President.

Or, they were just drunk and stupid as shit and not paying attention to what they were doing.  The 14th Amendment rivals the Second in lack of clarity and linguistic WHAT THE FUCK?  

 

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Here's why that's not quite as shitty an argument as it sounds like.  The relevant wording of the 14th Amendment is:

who, having previously taken an oath, as [a member of Congress]1, or as an officer of the United States, or as [a member of any State legislature]2, or as [an executive or judicial officer of any State]3, to support the Constitution of the United States,  . . .

The President is clearly not 1, 2, or 3, so the question is, is he an "officer of the United States"?  And the answer to that is not as clear as it might seem.  In fact, it's an unanswered question as to whether the removal statute applies to Trump or not.  And one that comes up with some frequency.

We have a hierarchy of federal (and state for that matter) officials:

  • Elected officials
  • Officials  appointed by POTUS and confirmed by the Senate (these almost always are "officers")
  • Inferior officers (those appointed by POTUS or others and not confirmed)
  • Employees

So, many times, you have to answer to which of the above does the statute/law/amendment apply when it uses a dumbass term like "officers" instead of "elected and appointed officials and employees of state or federal government" (or "waters of the United States," fucking Congress).

And, the Constitution specifies the oath of office of the President as "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution.  It does not set out the oaths for Reps or Senators but does say "support" the Constitution.

I don't know enough constitutional history to know if that was an intended difference in the original document, but suspect it might have been.

So, the "support" vs. "preserve, protect, defend," which is unique to the presidential oath is perhaps a clue that the drafters of the 14th did not intend "officers" to include the President.

Or, they were just drunk and stupid as shit and not paying attention to what they were doing.  The 14th Amendment rivals the Second in lack of clarity and linguistic WHAT THE FUCK?  

 

Oh, Jesus Titty Fucking Christ

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 4
Posted (edited)
44 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

200w.gif?cid=6c09b9525h50pn48jkna5jd13zv

The point being the 14th Amendment is drafted so imprecisely as to be goddamn near useless, a lot like the Second.

And that's without even touching on "shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof"  As determined by whom?  What the fuck.  What the fucking fuck.  

We're lucky you can even base a Civil Rights Act on that piece of shit.

Noone is ever going to be barred from office under that provision unless convicted of a crime of insurrection, rebellion, or treason.  Because it's a useless piece of shit.

With shitass drafting like this is it any wonder the Supreme Court is calvinball?

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Here's why that's not quite as shitty an argument as it sounds like.  The relevant wording of the 14th Amendment is:

who, having previously taken an oath, as a 1, or as an officer of the United States, or as [a member of any State legislature]2, or as [an executive or judicial officer of any State]3, to support the Constitution of the United States,  . . .

The President is clearly not 1, 2, or 3, so the question is, is he an "officer of the United States"?  And the answer to that is not as clear as it might seem.  In fact, it's an unanswered question as to whether the removal statute applies to Trump or not.  And one that comes up with some frequency.

Because we have a hierarchy of federal (and state for that matter) officials:

  • Elected officials
  • Officials (these almost always are "officers") appointed by POTUS and confirmed by the Senate
  • Inferior officers (those appointed by POTUS or others and not confirmed)
  • Employees

So, many times, you have to answer to which of the above does the statute/law/amendment apply?  

And, the Constitution specifies the oath of office of the President as "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution.  It does not set out the oaths for Reps or Senators but does say "support" the Constitution.

I don't know enough constitutional history to know if that was an intended difference in the original document, but suspect it might have been.

So, the "support" vs. "preserve, protect, defend," which is unique to the presidential oath is perhaps a clue that the drafters of the 14th did not intend "officers" to include the President.

Or, they were just drunk and stupid as shit and not paying attention to what they were doing.  The 14th Amendment rivals the Second in lack of clarity and linguistic WHAT THE FUCK?  

 

I think even the most insane ramblings of our "originalist" Supreme Court Justices couldn't find a way to say the founders did not intend for the President to "support" the constitution. The idea that any of those things are mutually exclusive, or not inclusive of each other would require a special set of gold medal winning mental gymnastics to try to defend.

Again though, this all goes back to the root of the problem, the Founders never expected the voting populace to elect someone so fucking stupid, careless, selfish and corrupt. They also didn't think that Congress would allow someone like that to continue to serve in that office. 

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Drool 1
Posted (edited)
34 minutes ago, Dutchrudder said:

I think even the most insane ramblings of our "originalist" Supreme Court Justices couldn't find a way to say the founders did not intend for the President to "support" the constitution. The idea that any of those things are mutually exclusive, or not inclusive of each other would require a special set of gold medal winning mental gymnastics to try to defend.

Again though, this all goes back to the root of the problem, the Founders never expected the voting populace to elect someone so fucking stupid, careless, selfish and corrupt. They also didn't think that Congress would allow someone like that to continue to serve in that office. 

Actually, the argument above is a "textualist" argument.

Which is ironic because unless it's the Constitution, fascist conservative judges believe nothing is relevant but the text, no legislative history, no nothing.  Pure textualism.  "We assume Congress meant what it wrote."

But with the Constitution, it's intent of the framers, mostly ascertained by what was supposedly customary at the time of drafting, which is even more nebulous than legislative intent. The earlier name for "originalism" was "original intent," which meant perusing the Federalist, the Convention "transcripts," etc. to ascertain what the founders/drafters meant, absolutely no different from legislative intent in regular legislation.  But over the last few years, it has morphed into this new thing that barely relies on the founders' stated intentions from the above sources, but just pretends its 1789.

And, again, I suspect the difference in the oaths was intentional.  Legislative types, who draft laws to supplement and enable the Constitution, must "support" it.  Executive officials, who have no such role, but must only "take care," must preserve, protect, and defend.

What that really means for the 14th Amendment is not clear.  

Edited by TwiceHorn
Posted

On a more sanguine note relating to ambiguous and imprecise drafting, old statutes and old court decisions are wondrously poorly organized, often quite poorly written, except maybe in the "pithiest" parts, and carry a lot of excess verbiage, i.e. are "prolix," especially as compared to similar things of the last half century or so.

I tend to think people aren't much smarter today or more capable than in years past.  Empowered to do things better and more easily, sure.  

Maybe it's just appreciation for how loose wording can come back to haunt you, in these days where anything and everything is litigated to death, but it's kind of an odd phenomenon.

Posted
I think even the most insane ramblings of our "originalist" Supreme Court Justices couldn't find a way to say the founders did not intend for the President to "support" the constitution. The idea that any of those things are mutually exclusive, or not inclusive of each other would require a special set of gold medal winning mental gymnastics to try to defend.
Again though, this all goes back to the root of the problem, the Founders never expected the voting populace to elect someone so fucking stupid, careless, selfish and corrupt. They also didn't think that Congress would allow someone like that to continue to serve in that office. 
Yet here we are, 3 years later with zero additional guardrails installed and nothing done to prevent the same insurrection group from doing it again for a wanna be king. The framers would have hashed something out whilst drunk, with quills. Or more likely just convicted and executed fat boy post haste.
  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 4
Posted
On a more sanguine note relating to ambiguous and imprecise drafting, old statutes and old court decisions are wondrously poorly organized, often quite poorly written, except maybe in the "pithiest" parts, and carry a lot of excess verbiage, i.e. are "prolix," especially as compared to similar things of the last half century or so.
I tend to think people aren't much smarter today or more capable than in years past.  Empowered to do things better and more easily, sure.  
Maybe it's just appreciation for how loose wording can come back to haunt you, in these days where anything and everything is litigated to death, but it's kind of an odd phenomenon.
So glad I decided not to pursue law further.
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
12 minutes ago, Born to Run said:

So glad I decided not to pursue law further.

I had a six hour mediation today with two defendants that ended at 9 PM, with one defendant - who had offered X amount to settle - later rescinding the offer because the other defendant has the same insurance company (although there are two different adjusters).  The adjuster walked back the offer because he thought he would look bad to his boss because the other adjuster was taking a hard line. FML

So this hits close to home

  • Like 1
Posted
24 minutes ago, Born to Run said:
2 hours ago, Dutchrudder said:
I think even the most insane ramblings of our "originalist" Supreme Court Justices couldn't find a way to say the founders did not intend for the President to "support" the constitution. The idea that any of those things are mutually exclusive, or not inclusive of each other would require a special set of gold medal winning mental gymnastics to try to defend.
Again though, this all goes back to the root of the problem, the Founders never expected the voting populace to elect someone so fucking stupid, careless, selfish and corrupt. They also didn't think that Congress would allow someone like that to continue to serve in that office. 

Yet here we are, 3 years later with zero additional guardrails installed and nothing done to prevent the same insurrection group from doing it again for a wanna be king. The framers would have hashed something out whilst drunk, with quills. Or more likely just convicted and executed fat boy post haste.

Well, to have additional guardrails, you'd have to have a functioning congress.  And it would help if approximately half of each house vehemently oppose the guardrails because it's their man blowing past them.



×
×
  • Create New...