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 (edited)
2 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

Sleepy Donald.  Episode 59 bajillion in the series "Every Accusation is a Confession." 

This actually might be the thing that sinks his campaign.  We gotta have some video though. 

 

Just wait until Stormy testifies about the 45 seconds of the toadstool game they played. He'll fall asleep right afterward.

Edited by dcbc
  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
Just now, dcbc said:

This actually might be the thing that sinks his campaign.  We gotta have some video though.

I can hear the VoiceOver now:

Poor Donnie, he doesn't have the stamina to stay awake at his own criminal trial at 11am.  Will he be asleep when the Norks launch their nukes at us [at whatever parade of horribles here]?  

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
2 hours ago, Captainant said:

Oh wow, how completely unforeseeable! Trump is using a firehose of fraud to slow down the court and continue to delay justice with seemingly zero penalty? UNPOSSIBIBBLE!!!

Note to self: Anytime I am in legal trouble, just keep filing things. The legal system has to go through the motions. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
4 minutes ago, dcbc said:

This actually might be the thing that sinks his campaign.  We gotta have some video though. 

Just wait until Stormy testifies about the 45 seconds of the toadstool game they played. He'll fall asleep right afterward.

I know in the federal trials, no cameras.  But do New York State criminal courts allow cameras?  

Otherwise, you gotta rely on the court sketch art to capture the Art of the Nap.  But bad news and worse news.  His followers will claim it's a fake sketch and threaten the guy's family.  And the artist will run out of orange long before Trump wakes up anyway.  

Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Note to self: Anytime I am in legal trouble, just keep filing things. The legal system has to go through the motions. 

 

Or just don't cross every 'T' nor dot every 'I' and you're then allowed to "correct" your mistake, which (I am Jack's complete lack of surprise) takes more time.

This is very calculated. It's basically the court-equivalent to icing the puck or killing a penalty in hockey.

Edited by C-Man
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
11 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Note to self: Anytime I am in legal trouble, just keep filing things. The legal system has to go through the motions. 

 

Unless you're expecting to be elected President and become immune (or be able to grant yourself a pardon), it just means you end up paying more in legal fees over stuff you're going to lose. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
2 hours ago, The Dog said:

whole thread from threadreaderapp: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1780104944164446396.html?utm_campaign=topunroll

  Hide contents
BREAKING NEWS: Early signs suggest that Trump’s Monday night bond filing *may* have again misled the court. It says Hankey now has a security interest of $175M in “DJT Trust”—but Hankey’s Axos Bank *already* has a $100M interest in DJT Trust. Is Trump double-dipping? @KatiePhang
Image
Image
1/ Some wondered why Trump went to Hankey’s Knight rather than Hankey’s Axos. It certainly *could* be to swindle the court into thinking him having $175M secured with Hankey is sufficient, when it fact he likely needs at least *$275M* in that Trust to not be misleading the court. 
2/ And this is early research—Axos has lent to Trump multiple times, so we’ve no idea how many times he’s used DJT Trust as liquid collateral (including any double-dipping). We *do* know Trump has Bud Light stock in the Trust, which is why he now opposes his MAGAs’ boycott of it. 
3/ The documents I posted are from the website of the New York Attorney General, by the way. 
4/ We also need to know if Ivanka is now (or still) a trustee of DJT Trust, as Hankey’s Axos Bank *also* lends to her spousal unit—in the form of Jared—and so one wonders if any of Jared’s loan paperwork with Axos Bank includes Ivanka’s assets, which could be more double-dipping. 
5/ Is it possible that the Trump Schwab account known as the “DJT [Revocable] Trust” has the $275M *minimum* Trump needs to be in it? Uh...sure. But you certainly would *not* think it does from this 2023 financial disclosure. The math is not mathing, here.
6/ Here is the same document at the NYT. int.nyt.com/data/documentt…
7/ Okay, so this is looking very bad for Donald Trump. He says in his Monday night filing that the Schwab account has $175.3 million *in total*, so *if* Axos Bank is depending on that same account for a (semi-)liquid $100M in collateral on another loan, this bond filing is DOA.
Image
Image
8/ You’ve got to be kidding me. The collateral Trump says he gave Hankey a security interest in...

...is the same fund he used to pay off Stormy Daniels. So the use of *that very funding source* is the subject of a *criminal trial* right now.

 

Someone explain this to me like I'm 5. The 11/8/21 Letter of Interest appearing to set out possible terms for $100M loan lists the collateral as 725 4th Ave., New York, NY, which I believe to be Trump Tower. The $175M bond filings say it is secured by collateral in the form of a Schwab account with $175M in cash. What does Trump Tower being used as collateral on a $100M loan a couple years ago have to do with a Schwab account being pledged to secure the $175M bond?

Posted

There's too much focus on "how could he possibly fall asleep during something this important?!" and not enough on "maybe our highly curated image of workaholic Donald Trump is incorrect and he's just a normal, old fuck who falls asleep a lot."

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, gernblansten said:

Someone explain this to me like I'm 5. The 11/8/21 Letter of Interest appearing to set out possible terms for $100M loan lists the collateral as 725 4th Ave., New York, NY, which I believe to be Trump Tower. The $175M bond filings say it is secured by collateral in the form of a Schwab account with $175M in cash. What does Trump Tower being used as collateral on a $100M loan a couple years ago have to do with a Schwab account being pledged to secure the $175M bond?

IMG_5326.gif.b0d825515a9a6a0557c56a00748d32af.gif

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 4
Posted
13 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

So how much is it costing him to secure this bond with that account instead of just using the account to pay the bond? And why?

Why?  Because the bonding fee is the only thing they're getting from him.  He'll move that money out before they can collect on it and leave Knight holding the bag.  And Knight will be really, really surprised.  Because he promised he wouldn't do that.  And Knight will go under.  The end.

Posted
13 hours ago, The Dog said:

Remember the problem wasn’t Trump’s collateral - it was Knights ability to pay if he stiffed them (which he will).

And with only $139 million in equity, Knight cannot satisfy the bond on their own.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 2
Posted
5 minutes ago, dcbc said:

This actually might be the thing that sinks his campaign.  We gotta have some video though. 

Lol, right. The audio of his “grab ‘em by the pussy” comment didn’t do it. Video of him shooting someone on Fifth Ave wouldn’t do it. His base is bereft of standards, values, or fixed principles of any kind. No decent person supports Trump.

Its sad but true. It also makes them totally predictable. There is no bottom. Nothing that will change their minds. 

Posted
13 hours ago, Jiggy-Z said:

Don't know, but my twin brother got in a wreck with their lead singer back in the late 80s. It was Butthole Surfer guys fault and he didn't have insurance so he gave my brother a bunch of cash on the spot.

It was just a fender bender, but my asshole brother pocketed the $ and never got the bumper fixed.

Butthole Surfers went to Trinity.  That is where the band was formed.  Fun fact.

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, gernblansten said:

Someone explain this to me like I'm 5. The 11/8/21 Letter of Interest appearing to set out possible terms for $100M loan lists the collateral as 725 4th Ave., New York, NY, which I believe to be Trump Tower. The $175M bond filings say it is secured by collateral in the form of a Schwab account with $175M in cash. What does Trump Tower being used as collateral on a $100M loan a couple years ago have to do with a Schwab account being pledged to secure the $175M bond?

The LOI says it is secured by the assets of the DJT Trust.  The Schwab account appears to be an asset of the DJT Trust.

So, they are second in priority to themselves, at least according to the LOI.

So, if the LOI embodies the true security interests pursuant to that loan AND the loan defaults before a claim matures on the bond (the appeal affirms the judgment in excess of $175M), then they are under- or unsecured on the bond.

But, as long as the bond/undertaking obligates Knight to pay on the bond, the conditions of their security interests against Trump are pretty much irrelevant unless there's evidence they don't have the assets to pay.  If Knight has the money to pay and wants to make a dumb deal with Trump, that's I think pretty much their business.

 

 

Edited by TwiceHorn
Posted
23 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The LOI says it is secured by the assets of the DJT Trust.  The Schwab account appears to be an asset of the DJT Trust.

So, they are second in priority to themselves, at least according to the LOI.

So, if the LOI embodies the true security interests pursuant to that loan AND the loan defaults before a claim matures on the bond (the appeal affirms the judgment in excess of $175M), then they are under- or unsecured on the bond.

But, as long as the bond/undertaking obligates Knight to pay on the bond, the conditions of their security interests against Trump are pretty much irrelevant unless there's evidence they don't have the assets to pay.  If Knight has the money to pay and wants to make a dumb deal with Trump, that's I think pretty much their business.

 

 

If the filing from yesterday is accurate, Knight doesn't have the money to just pay the $175 million.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
24 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The LOI says it is secured by the assets of the DJT Trust.  The Schwab account appears to be an asset of the DJT Trust.

So, they are second in priority to themselves, at least according to the LOI.

So, if the LOI embodies the true security interests pursuant to that loan AND the loan defaults before a claim matures on the bond (the appeal affirms the judgment in excess of $175M), then they are under- or unsecured on the bond.

But, as long as the bond/undertaking obligates Knight to pay on the bond, the conditions of their security interests against Trump are pretty much irrelevant unless there's evidence they don't have the assets to pay.  If Knight has the money to pay and wants to make a dumb deal with Trump, that's I think pretty much their business.

 

 

I think the point is they may not have 175M liquid to get fucked over by Trump and still be solvent in NYC, which is a good point.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Lol, right. The audio of his “grab ‘em by the pussy” comment didn’t do it. Video of him shooting someone on Fifth Ave wouldn’t do it. His base is bereft of standards, values, or fixed principles of any kind. No decent person supports Trump.

Its sad but true. It also makes them totally predictable. There is no bottom. Nothing that will change their minds. 

I left out the sarcasm punctuation.

  • Rage+1 1
Posted
1 minute ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

making comments to a prospective juror that his attorneys are challenging. Nothing happens. News at 11. 

 

 

 

what happened is the challenge by his lawyers was denied.

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted
14 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

😂😂😂

 

Isn’t this like an automatic contempt of court or something? The juror has to be excused now right? I mean the juror may hold a grudge against a defendant that confronts a juror.

This seems really big. Am I missing something?

I did serve on a jury a couple decades ago on a trial for two counts of aggravated assault. That’s the extent of my legal and courtroom experience.

Posted
8 minutes ago, The Dog said:

what happened is the challenge by his lawyers was denied.

The challenge was for cause, ie posting a “honking cheer video” the night of the election. Near as I can determine, that’s a video of cars honking.

  • Haha 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Willfully Horn said:

The challenge was for cause, ie posting a “honking cheer video” the night of the election. Near as I can determine, that’s a video of cars honking.

yes.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
35 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

#guilty

 

 

Objection.  The witness is unqualified to characterize what constitutes a "legal expense."  The evidence before the court conclusively demonstrates that he never once has paid a legal bill.

 

Edited by dcbc
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 3
Posted
19 minutes ago, GenXer said:

Isn’t this like an automatic contempt of court or something? The juror has to be excused now right? I mean the juror may hold a grudge against a defendant that confronts a juror.

This seems really big. Am I missing something?

I did serve on a jury a couple decades ago on a trial for two counts of aggravated assault. That’s the extent of my legal and courtroom experience.

It's highly unusual. Most defendants are not stupid enough to make antagonizing comments about or towards a potential juror. 

Lawyers actually spend some time coaching demeanor during a trial, but Trump just can't help himself, obviously. 

Pretty much everyone gets a warning before the hammer comes. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

It's highly unusual. Most defendants are not stupid enough to make antagonizing comments about or towards a potential juror. 

Lawyers actually spend some time coaching demeanor during a trial, but Trump just can't help himself, obviously. 

Pretty much everyone gets a warning before the hammer comes. 

The penalty is, at the very least, he has to burn a peremptory strike on her.

  • Like 1
Posted

It’s going to be fascinating to watch, because we know he can’t control himself. And this is going to last a long time. How many warnings will he get?

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

It's highly unusual. Most defendants are not stupid enough to make antagonizing comments about or towards a potential juror. 

Lawyers actually spend some time coaching demeanor during a trial, but Trump just can't help himself, obviously. 

Pretty much everyone gets a warning before the hammer comes. 

What sort of hammer are you referencing? If it is a fine, I’d argue the hammer is relative to assets. If he is removed from the courtroom, then I’d argue he gets what he wants.

There is historical precedent for a different hammer:

image.jpeg.1e3055faf664469e6ec888787016a303.jpeg

Edited by Willfully Horn
Accuracy
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Drool 1
Posted
It’s going to be fascinating to watch, because we know he can’t control himself. And this is going to last a long time. How many warnings will he get?

He wants nothing more than to be thrown in jail and brought into court in an orange jumpsuit and shackles.

PERSECUTION! ELECTION INTERFERENCE!!!1!1!1!1!1!!!!!!!!


×
×
  • Create New...