- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Did the Judge just Win this For Letitia James? Some people think so.
Posted on 10/24/25 at 6:38 pm to beaux duke
Posted on 10/24/25 at 6:38 pm to beaux duke
quote:
imo this isn't a fix - the issue is this "case" is dumb as shite and clearly motivated by trump's delicate hurt feelings
Leticia James literally ran on “getting Trump”. The NY legislature then changed the SOL specifically to get Trump…then the judge didn’t know the difference between tax appraised value and fair market value in the jury instructions.
Can you please link us t a single post of yours criticizing those facts? Of course you can’t. But these actual crimes you think are dumb. You’re too dumb to know why.
Because you’re an uneducated hack.
This post was edited on 10/24/25 at 6:40 pm
1
Posted on 10/24/25 at 6:43 pm to JimEverett
quote:
Sorry, must have confused you with someone else.
No, that was I. You and Dukkbill gave me reasons to doubt that disqualifying Halligan was a slam dunk.
Thanks for the conversation, as always.
Posted on 10/24/25 at 6:45 pm to BBONDS25
quote:No question that James had a vendetta of her own.
Leticia James literally ran on “getting Trump”. The NY legislature then changed the SOL specifically to get Trump…then the judge didn’t know the difference between tax appraised value and fair market value in the jury instructions.
I question whether the SoL was changed to "get Trump." Seems clear to me that the change was aimed at Epstein. Opinions can differ, I suppose.
Wasn't the evidentiary problem you reference caused more by exclusion of Trump's expert witnesses than by not understanding "the difference between tax appraised value and fair market value?" As I recall, exclusion of Trump's experts (for discovery abuse, as I recall) left the court with very limited evidence as to valuations.
Posted on 10/24/25 at 6:47 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
I question whether the SoL was changed to "get Trump." Seems clear to me that the change was aimed at Epstein. Opinions can differ, I suppose.
The statutes used against Trump and Epstein aren’t the same.
quote:
Wasn't the evidentiary problem you reference caused more by exclusion of Trump's expert witnesses than by not understanding "the difference between tax appraised value and fair market value?" As I recall, exclusion of Trump's experts (for discovery abuse, as I recall) left the court with very limited evidence as to valuations.
If you need an expert to explain to you the difference between a
Tax appraised value and a fair market value you are a complete moron.
Posted on 10/24/25 at 6:50 pm to Nosevens
quote:
Wouldn’t Comey refuting his claims in public statements and judicial settings throughout the last 5 years show continuity ?
Good theory, but it's not illegal to lie generally. The false statement has to have been made under oath or to law enforcement in the course of an investigation.
Posted on 10/24/25 at 6:53 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
The only way that Trump could arrange prosecution of his personal, perceived Enemies List was to disregard the trained and experienced professionals and to (illegally) replace them with a former beauty queen who has not prosecuted a single criminal case in her entire career.
Interesting observation and theory.
The ex-beauty queen selection is odd, admittedly. I suspect surprises either way.
Does Trump have an "Enemies List" or "Justice List"?
You know who had "Lists"? Do the names 0bama, Biden and Clinton ring a bell? Are you familiar with their respective obsession for revenge, abuse of political power at any cost?
Posted on 10/24/25 at 7:02 pm to BBONDS25
quote:I may be misremembering (I've slept a few times since the case was in the headlines), but wasn't much of the case decided on summary judgment, leaving the judge with limited options as to what evidence could be considered?quote:If you need an expert to explain to you the difference between a Tax appraised value and a fair market value you are a complete moron.
Wasn't the evidentiary problem you reference caused more by exclusion of Trump's expert witnesses than by not understanding "the difference between tax appraised value and fair market value?" As I recall, exclusion of Trump's experts (for discovery abuse, as I recall) left the court with very limited evidence as to valuations.
My recollection is that Trump's attorneys were naughty in discovery, and it got their valuation expert excluded prior to the summary judgment hearing. As a result, the property tax valuations were the only evidence of "value" the court was legally able to consider in ruling on the MSJ.
Maybe I am thinking of a different case.
Posted on 10/24/25 at 7:07 pm to BBONDS25
quote:There are so many Trump cases that they all tend to run together in my mind.quote:The statutes used against Trump and Epstein aren’t the same.
I question whether the SoL was changed to "get Trump." Seems clear to me that the change was aimed at Epstein. Opinions can differ, I suppose.
We were discussing the bank fraud enforcement action, but I though you were talking about the extension of the SoL for "Me Too" cases, as related to the E. Jean Carroll lawsuit.
Seeing your reaction, I think you were talking about the hush money case, and not either the Carroll case OR the bank fraud case.
My bad.
Posted on 10/24/25 at 7:09 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
My recollection is that Trump's attorneys were naughty in discovery, and it got their valuation expert excluded prior to the summary judgment hearing. As a result, the property tax valuations were the only evidence of "value" the court was legally able to consider in ruling on the MSJ.
The judge stated in his dicta that MAL was worth 18MM. And no. I don’t recall a discovery in this case. In fact, the bank that was the “victim” testified on Trump’s behalf.
Posted on 10/24/25 at 7:09 pm to EphesianArmor
quote:I suspect that the answer to that question lies very much in the eye of the beholder.
Does Trump have an "Enemies List" or "Justice List"?
Posted on 10/24/25 at 7:14 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
This is the legal system nowadays:
Posted on 10/24/25 at 7:14 pm to BBONDS25
quote:Of course.
the bank that was the “victim” testified on Trump’s behalf.
As I recall from THAT case, one of the issues was whether "reliance" upon a misrepresentation was an element under the statute or whether a misrepresentation (even without reliance) could constitute a violation.
Intuitively, it almost seems that reliance MUST be an issue, but I read the statute pretty closely at the time, and I recall thinking that there was a strong argument that the STATUTE (as opposed to common law, for instance) did not include a reliance element.
Posted on 10/24/25 at 7:17 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
Trump's "List" is NOT quite the same as either the Klintoons or Bammies.
You know that, right?
You know that, right?
Posted on 10/24/25 at 7:19 pm to EphesianArmor
quote:I suspect that everyone sees his personal "list" as being "different," and entirely justified by circumstances.
Trump's "List" is NOT quite the same as either the Klintoons or Bammies.
You know that, right?
Posted on 10/24/25 at 7:27 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Just typical Trump admin chaos.
Honest question:
Do you have friends outside of the computer?
Posted on 10/24/25 at 7:29 pm to tadman
Yes. Many.
Posted on 10/24/25 at 7:50 pm to SlowFlowPro
You only ask rhetorical questions and, judging from your downvotes, everyone knows it.
Posted on 10/24/25 at 8:23 pm to LSUtoBOOT
quote:Rhetorical questions are generally intended to encourage people to think.
You only ask rhetorical questions
Is he having any success on that front?
Posted on 10/24/25 at 8:28 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
Rhetorical questions are generally intended to encourage people to think.
Not the definition that I intended, but the one below sums it up.
rhe·tor·i·cal ques·tion
/r??tôr?k(?)l 'kwesCH?n/
noun
a question asked in order to create a dramatic effect or to make a point rather than to get an answer.
"the presentation was characterized by impossibly long sentences and a succession of rhetorical questions"
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News