|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Feb 17, 2024 0:19:56 GMT
And more from the attached article: Kemp is a named witness in the indictment. Trump’s comments citing him, expressing a desire to end the case, and attacking Georgia could be seen as a possible violation of Trump’s bond agreement. *** Trump is barred from obstructing the administration of justice, making direct or indirect threats against witnesses, or communicating directly or indirectly to witnesses. Kemp is a named witness and Trump is leaning his political muscle on him implying he is allowing a “stench” in Georgia and that state is not “great” at the moment. *** It is concerning that Trump not only wants the case to be terminated, but wants it “permanently erased from everyone’s memory.” Trump has been reposting articles recently scrubbed of anything he doesn’t like. This kind of behavior hints at what he may do about negative reporting if he returns to office. www.meidastouch.com/news/trump-appeals-to-brian-kemp-wants-rico-case-permanently-erased-from-everyones-memory
Of course he will he has already talked about imprisoning reporters that report unfavorable things about him if he gets reelected.
One of my many fears is that he could easily bomb the National Archives building destroying our fully documented history. Although there should be duplicates other places, we should have learned after the fire destroyed so many military records in 1973!! |
|
|
|
Post by morecowbell on Feb 17, 2024 6:04:40 GMT
Collin Rugg @collinrugg JUST IN: MSNBC admits defeat, says Fani Willis will be disqualified because she allegedly “lied to the court.” “This is epic, this is monumental... Fani Willis lied to the court, it’s game over for her. She will be disqualified.” MSNBC was reacting to statements from Willis' former friend Robin Yeartie who said she has no doubt Willis and prosecutor Nathan Wade had a “romantic” relationship in 2019 & on. This suggests Willis lied to the court when she claimed there was no romantic relationship in 2021 between the two. “You have no doubt that their romantic relationship was in effect from 2019 until the last time you spoke with her?” attorney Ashleigh Merchant asked. “No doubt,” Yeartie replied. x.com/CollinRugg/status/1758190385803960746?s=20 |
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Feb 17, 2024 11:38:44 GMT
Big IF
|
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Feb 17, 2024 14:39:46 GMT
So the contention here is that Willis, Wade, and Willis' father all perjured themselves, risking the end of their careers in Willis' and Wade's cases, and not that the former/friend co-worker was paid off by someone in the Trump camp (which has a well-documented history of paying people off) to make stuff up? To cast a "kiss and hug" (a greeting often common between friends) as something more than it was?
The contention is that somehow this drama negates the recorded phone call where Trump asked them to find him eleven thousand some votes?
That after Trump's racist comments about both Willis and Letitia James and his repeated attempts to attack those who hold him accountable, that this line of accusation designed to defame and humiliate Willis is completely legitimate?
OK. I guess if you're completely delusional, you might believe that.
None of it negates what Trump did in trying to overturn a legitimate election. He simply doesn't want to be held accountable for it, and indeed doesn't think he should have to be because he's special.
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,862 
|
Post by lizacreates on Feb 17, 2024 16:02:15 GMT
So the contention here is that Willis, Wade, and Willis' father all perjured themselves, risking the end of their careers in Willis' and Wade's cases, and not that the former/friend co-worker was paid off by someone in the Trump camp (which has a well-documented history of paying people off) to make stuff up? To cast a "kiss and hug" (a greeting often common between friends) as something more than it was? The contention is that somehow this drama negates the recorded phone call where Trump asked them to find him eleven thousand some votes? That after Trump's racist comments about both Willis and Letitia James and his repeated attempts to attack those who hold him accountable, that this line of accusation designed to defame and humiliate Willis is completely legitimate? OK. I guess if you're completely delusional, you might believe that. None of it negates what Trump did in trying to overturn a legitimate election. He simply doesn't want to be held accountable for it, and indeed doesn't think he should have to be because he's special. No, none of it negates what Trump did. The RICO case, IMO, is a strong one. But, the allegations, IF proven, will endanger the case. The issue is misconduct, which is one of the bases of conflict of interest in a prosecution, and grounds for removal. A defendant, no matter how hateful he is, has rights. And he has the right to file a motion for removal if there’s evidence of conflict of interest. That’s what it is, whether anyone of us likes it or not. No one knows 100% what the truth is—if there was corruption or not. I don’t. I’ve already said I’m conflicted. It doesn’t mean I’m advocating for the collapse of the case. And race has nothing to do with this. Even if Willis is lily white, defense would still pursue this. |
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Feb 17, 2024 16:21:47 GMT
So the contention here is that Willis, Wade, and Willis' father all perjured themselves, risking the end of their careers in Willis' and Wade's cases, and not that the former/friend co-worker was paid off by someone in the Trump camp (which has a well-documented history of paying people off) to make stuff up? To cast a "kiss and hug" (a greeting often common between friends) as something more than it was? The contention is that somehow this drama negates the recorded phone call where Trump asked them to find him eleven thousand some votes? That after Trump's racist comments about both Willis and Letitia James and his repeated attempts to attack those who hold him accountable, that this line of accusation designed to defame and humiliate Willis is completely legitimate? OK. I guess if you're completely delusional, you might believe that. None of it negates what Trump did in trying to overturn a legitimate election. He simply doesn't want to be held accountable for it, and indeed doesn't think he should have to be because he's special. No, none of it negates what Trump did. The RICO case, IMO, is a strong one. But, the allegations, IF proven, will endanger the case. The issue is misconduct, which is one of the bases of conflict of interest in a prosecution, and grounds for removal. A defendant, no matter how hateful he is, has rights. And he has the right to file a motion for removal if there’s evidence of conflict of interest. That’s what it is, whether anyone of us likes it or not. No one knows 100% what the truth is—if there was corruption or not. I don’t. I’ve already said I’m conflicted. It doesn’t mean I’m advocating for the collapse of the case. And race has nothing to do with this. Even if Willis is lily white, defense would still pursue this. No, race is just one of the ways that Trump has chosen to attack both prosecutors. Point is that he has had to have gag orders placed to keep him from doing it in other venues. He has a history of baseless attacks. You don’t think the Trump camp would pay for fake testimony that makes Willis look corrupt? When he’s already paid hush money and traded pardons for silence in other cases? You think both Willis and Wade are willing to risk losing their jobs and law licenses? (ETA: Willis’ father, also a lawyer, could lose his license as well if he perjured himself.) Maybe, but it seems more likely to me that the corruption is coming from the side where we’ve seen it come many times before. Maybe time will tell. Has anyone else testified to this supposed ongoing relationship before Wade was appointed? |
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Feb 17, 2024 16:43:02 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Feb 17, 2024 16:53:47 GMT
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,862
|
Post by lizacreates on Feb 17, 2024 16:59:10 GMT
No, none of it negates what Trump did. The RICO case, IMO, is a strong one. But, the allegations, IF proven, will endanger the case. The issue is misconduct, which is one of the bases of conflict of interest in a prosecution, and grounds for removal. A defendant, no matter how hateful he is, has rights. And he has the right to file a motion for removal if there’s evidence of conflict of interest. That’s what it is, whether anyone of us likes it or not. No one knows 100% what the truth is—if there was corruption or not. I don’t. I’ve already said I’m conflicted. It doesn’t mean I’m advocating for the collapse of the case. And race has nothing to do with this. Even if Willis is lily white, defense would still pursue this. No, race is just one of the ways that Trump has chosen to attack both prosecutors. Point is that he has had to have gag orders placed to keep him from doing it in other venues. He has a history of baseless attacks. You don’t think the Trump camp would pay for fake testimony that makes Willis look corrupt? When he’s already paid hush money and traded pardons for silence in other cases? You think both Willis and Wade are willing to risk losing their jobs and law licenses? (ETA: Willis’ father, also a lawyer, could lose his license as well if he perjured himself.) Maybe, but it seems more likely to me that the corruption is coming from the side where we’ve seen it come many times before. Maybe time will tell. Has anyone else testified to this supposed ongoing relationship before Wade was appointed? (1) I know he has a history of baseless attacks. I’ve commented on many of them myself over the years. I’ve also commented on his obviously-racist attacks at James and Bragg. Trust me when I say I know he’s a racist. (2) You’re referring to Robin Yeartie. Was her testimony fake and paid for by Trump? I do not know. She may have an axe to grind because of the circumstances of her leaving the DA’s office. But a payoff? There is nothing so far that has surfaced that would indicate Yeartie had been paid to lie. (3) Do I think Willis and Wade are willing to risk their jobs? I already said prior: “On the other hand, it’s almost unbelievable to me that Willis and Wade, who are under oath, would jeopardize their careers by lying. That's why I don't know what to think.” (4) Has anyone else testified? Apart from Yeartie, there will be an ex parte in camera hearing between the judge and Terrance Bradley. (Not for public viewing but will be in public record that hearing occurred.) It was necessitated because it surfaced that Wade lied on his response to defense motion. His claim on the motion is contrary to his interrogatory response in his divorce case. Bradley was cagey in answering some of the questions. To me, it was obvious he did not want to answer questions about when Willis and Wade began their relationship. The judge, apparently, felt the same. Bradley kept invoking privilege (because he was Wade’s divorce atty). However, the attorney-client privilege applies to communications, not observations. Hence judge’s decision to hold another hearing (just with Bradley and his atty). We'll see what happens. |
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Feb 17, 2024 18:12:26 GMT
And then the sexual assault issue with Bradley comes into view....
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,862
|
Post by lizacreates on Feb 17, 2024 18:44:34 GMT
And then the sexual assault issue with Bradley comes into view.... And the supposed payoff to the accuser. According to Bradley, when he left the partnership (with Wade and another lawyer), he had money in the partnership escrow and it was his understanding it was given to the accuser after he left. However, none of that has bearing on the actual issue. It’s being used to challenge his credibility. |
|
|
|
Post by morecowbell on Feb 17, 2024 19:07:27 GMT
No, race is just one of the ways that Trump has chosen to attack both prosecutors. Point is that he has had to have gag orders placed to keep him from doing it in other venues. He has a history of baseless attacks. You don’t think the Trump camp would pay for fake testimony that makes Willis look corrupt? When he’s already paid hush money and traded pardons for silence in other cases? You think both Willis and Wade are willing to risk losing their jobs and law licenses? (ETA: Willis’ father, also a lawyer, could lose his license as well if he perjured himself.) Maybe, but it seems more likely to me that the corruption is coming from the side where we’ve seen it come many times before. Maybe time will tell. Has anyone else testified to this supposed ongoing relationship before Wade was appointed? (1) I know he has a history of baseless attacks. I’ve commented on many of them myself over the years. I’ve also commented on his obviously-racist attacks at James and Bragg. Trust me when I say I know he’s a racist. (2) You’re referring to Robin Yeartie. Was her testimony fake and paid for by Trump? I do not know. She may have an axe to grind because of the circumstances of her leaving the DA’s office. But a payoff? There is nothing so far that has surfaced that would indicate Yeartie had been paid to lie. (3) Do I think Willis and Wade are willing to risk their jobs? I already said prior: “On the other hand, it’s almost unbelievable to me that Willis and Wade, who are under oath, would jeopardize their careers by lying. That's why I don't know what to think.” (4) Has anyone else testified? Apart from Yeartie, there will be an ex parte in camera hearing between the judge and Terrance Bradley. (Not for public viewing but will be in public record that hearing occurred.) It was necessitated because it surfaced that Wade lied on his response to defense motion. His claim on the motion is contrary to his interrogatory response in his divorce case. Bradley was cagey in answering some of the questions. To me, it was obvious he did not want to answer questions about when Willis and Wade began their relationship. The judge, apparently, felt the same. Bradley kept invoking privilege (because he was Wade’s divorce atty). However, the attorney-client privilege applies to communications, not observations. Hence judge’s decision to hold another hearing (just with Bradley and his atty). We'll see what happens. It would seem they are, since it has already shown that Wade is lying. |
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Feb 17, 2024 19:53:36 GMT
Sorry, but this is funny. The hordes are making plans...
|
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Feb 17, 2024 19:56:03 GMT
And then the sexual assault issue with Bradley comes into view.... And the supposed payoff to the accuser. According to Bradley, when he left the partnership (with Wade and another lawyer), he had money in the partnership escrow and it was his understanding it was given to the accuser after he left. However, none of that has bearing on the actual issue. It’s being used to challenge his credibility. Of course! |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Feb 17, 2024 23:48:47 GMT
I thought this was an excellent point regarding the fraud case and Trump's false claim that no one was hurt. www.nytimes.com/2024/02/17/opinion/letters/trump-civil-fraud-case.htmlTo the Editor:To maintain a healthy banking system and economy, it is important to debunk Donald Trump’s persistent claim that his fraudulent asset valuations were harmless as they caused no financial injury to his lenders.If we sit on our hands and do nothing about borrowers and banks taking and making loans backed by overvalued assets, we heighten the catastrophic risk of a bank going insolvent due to having inadequate, overvalued collateral to secure large loans if and when a default occurs.Tolerance of this is a threat to the banking system as a whole and to the national economy because what starts as a single bank failure can metastasize into a cascade of banking system crashes.The heightening of catastrophic risk to the national economy is a far cry from being harmless.William AugustCambridge, Mass. |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Feb 17, 2024 23:55:39 GMT
Couldn't happen to a more deserving criminal www.nytimes.com/2024/02/17/nyregion/trump-civil-cases-millions.htmlA $450 Million Blow to Trump’s Finances, and His Identity
A huge penalty for deceiving lenders about the value of his properties and his own net worth, if upheld, leaves Donald J. Trump in a perilous financial position.
“We have a lot of cash,” Donald J. Trump boasted 10 months ago, under oath, claiming that the number was “going up very substantially every month.”
But whatever cash he had may soon be gone.
On Friday, the judge overseeing Mr. Trump’s civil fraud case issued a final ruling that inflicted a staggering financial penalty. With interest, the former president has been ordered to pay New York State about $450 million, a sum that threatens to wipe out a stockpile of cash, stocks and bonds that he amassed since leaving the White House, according to a New York Times review of Mr. Trump’s financial records. He will have only 30 days or so to either come up with the money or persuade an outside company to post a bond.
All told, the judge’s decision poses unprecedented threats to Mr. Trump’s finances, his family business and his ego at a critical time for the former president. Although Mr. Trump will not go bankrupt and the Trump Organization will not go out of business, the company’s loudest hype man could for now become a silent partner in his hometown properties. The organization will be another real estate company in a city full of them — this one facing unusual new constraints that could impede its ability to compete.
But the Friday ruling, in which Justice Engoron found that the former president orchestrated a conspiracy to deceive lenders about the value of his assets, is a twofold attack on Mr. Trump’s very identity. The judge, siding with the New York attorney general, told the world that Mr. Trump had inflated his net worth — a cornerstone of his billionaire public persona — and then personally deflated it to the tune of several hundred million dollars.
The ruling, in combination with the looming criminal trials, will only intensify the chaos that has long swirled around Mr. Trump. In the coming months, the former president will be running for the White House while the law tries to catch up with him.
While Mr. Trump appeals the financial penalty, he will have to either come up with the money or secure a bond within 30 days of when the court enters a judgment against him. If he obtains it from a bonding company — rather than posting the bond himself — he will not have to pay the penalty until his appeal is resolved.
The company providing the bond essentially assures the state that Mr. Trump has the money to pay the judgment, and prevents it from collecting while appeals are heard. The bond company will require Mr. Trump to pledge collateral and pay a premium.
His lawyers are already contacting companies that might post the bond, according to two people with knowledge of the matter, though it is unclear if and when they will reach a deal.
If the penalty is upheld on appeal, the money will most likely come out of Mr. Trump’s own pocket, rather than from political contributions.
The penalty in Friday’s decision, when combined with an $83.3 million judgment Mr. Trump is facing from a defamation trial involving the writer E. Jean Carroll, adds up to more than half a billion dollars, eclipsing his current collection of cash. Even for someone who measures his net worth in the billions, that sum could leave Mr. Trump more financially vulnerable than he has been in decades.
The former president derives much of his net worth from his properties, and if he runs out of cash, he might have to sell or mortgage one. Although he will not go bankrupt, because the value of those buildings far exceeds the penalty imposed by Justice Engoron, selling any real estate would be a personal affront to the former president, who glories in his properties. It also might not be easy: It often takes time to find a buyer willing to pay a good price.
Justice Engoron’s other punishments took more direct aim at the Trump Organization’s way of doing business — most notably, extending the appointment of the independent monitor, Barbara Jones.
A former federal judge, Ms. Jones will be the equivalent of a corporate babysitter for the next three years. Justice Engoron granted her additional authority — he called it “enhanced monitorship” — and asked her to recommend an independent compliance director who will oversee the company’s financial reporting from within its ranks.
Already, Ms. Jones has been an irritant for the Trump Organization, reviewing its transactions and keeping an eye out for fraud. The company has paid her millions of dollars for her work and will have to pay millions more.
Ms. Jones could second-guess any new deals for the business and her presence could scare away potential partners, further constraining a company that has been stuck in neutral since Mr. Trump ascended to the White House in 2017.
Justice Engoron also choked off the company’s access to the New York banking system, prohibiting it from obtaining loans from banks chartered in the state for the next three years. The company already has loans from out-of-state lenders, but this restriction will nonetheless undermine any hopes of growth in the near future.
Still, the myth of the successful businessman who gave it all up to serve the American people as president is a staple of Mr. Trump’s campaign speeches. Those lines may land differently if his company is broadly understood not as a gilded business empire, but as a troubled real estate company. |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Feb 18, 2024 0:08:06 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by morecowbell on Feb 18, 2024 7:36:47 GMT
I thought this was an excellent point regarding the fraud case and Trump's false claim that no one was hurt. It's NOT an excellent point, because no one WAS hurt. This is lawfare. William August hasn't debunked it and Trump DIDN’T cause financial injury to anyone. The bank involved said, there was no problem, they enjoyed doing business with Trump and are looking forward to doing more business with him. The bank's very process doesn’t allow that to happen. Do you seriously think the bank takes anyone's WORD for it? No, they do not. They check it for themselves. That is the process of a loan officer. This is lawfare. When the very process is for the loan officer to make sure for themselves that the value is correct, then we do NOT "heighten catastrophic risk". No, that's nothing but bullshit propaganda. That just isnt happening. Ask yourself, who is Trump paying this $355 million to? |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Feb 18, 2024 12:31:37 GMT
There were victims in addition to the banks- taxpayers. Trump devalued properties to avoid paying taxes. Regardless of your personal opinion about a lack of victims, a court of law found him guilty of fraud and fined him. Trump admitted in November that the estimates he gave banks were not always accurate. What he did was illegal. Under NY law, James did not have to prove there were victims. Is this really someone you want in charge of the country? A convicted criminal? Someone with no ethics, values, morals or integrity who lies and cheats? Someone who is a terrible businessman, badly managing his own company? Someone who declared bankruptcy 6 times? www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2024-02-16/analysis-trumps-civil-fraud-verdict-appeal-may-hinge-on-no-victims-defenseIn Friday's decision, Engoron said that repaying loans secured on false pretenses "does not extinguish the harm that false statements inflict on the marketplace." |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Feb 18, 2024 12:44:35 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Feb 18, 2024 13:05:59 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Feb 18, 2024 17:30:50 GMT
His own words get him every time!
Hopefully they will totally sink him!
|
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Feb 18, 2024 22:23:19 GMT
I thought this was an excellent point regarding the fraud case and Trump's false claim that no one was hurt. It's NOT an excellent point, because no one WAS hurt. This is lawfare. William August hasn't debunked it and Trump DIDN’T cause financial injury to anyone. The bank involved said, there was no problem, they enjoyed doing business with Trump and are looking forward to doing more business with him. The bank's very process doesn’t allow that to happen. Do you seriously think the bank takes anyone's WORD for it? No, they do not. They check it for themselves. That is the process of a loan officer. This is lawfare. When the very process is for the loan officer to make sure for themselves that the value is correct, then we do NOT "heighten catastrophic risk". No, that's nothing but bullshit propaganda. That just isnt happening. Ask yourself, who is Trump paying this $355 million to? Still carrying water for the beloved of white nationalists and christo-fascists, I see. We see you. Do you think he’ll send you a thank you card? At least you’ve taken off the gloves and stopped trying to maintain your pretense of rational impartiality. I suppose you maintain that Trump also should not be prosecuted for his election crimes in Georgia because he was unsuccessful and thus, “no one was hurt.” There are a lot of crimes we prosecute because they are against our laws, even though no one is imminently hurt. Unlawful ownership of a weapon, for example. Treason and espionage - even if no one is hurt. Even drug possession. Don’t you all claim to be the party of law and order? |
|
twinsmomfla99
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,119
|
Post by twinsmomfla99 on Feb 18, 2024 22:37:46 GMT
I thought this was an excellent point regarding the fraud case and Trump's false claim that no one was hurt. It's NOT an excellent point, because no one WAS hurt. This is lawfare. William August hasn't debunked it and Trump DIDN’T cause financial injury to anyone. The bank involved said, there was no problem, they enjoyed doing business with Trump and are looking forward to doing more business with him. The bank's very process doesn’t allow that to happen. Do you seriously think the bank takes anyone's WORD for it? No, they do not. They check it for themselves. That is the process of a loan officer. This is lawfare. When the very process is for the loan officer to make sure for themselves that the value is correct, then we do NOT "heighten catastrophic risk". No, that's nothing but bullshit propaganda. That just isnt happening. Ask yourself, who is Trump paying this $355 million to? So if I drive drunk, but I don’t get into an accident, did I still break the law? I mean, no one got hurt, right? |
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Feb 18, 2024 23:51:33 GMT
twinsmomfla99 how many people would be thrilled to have their charges gone!!
|
|
jayfab
Drama Llama
procastinating
Posts: 5,618
|
Post by jayfab on Feb 19, 2024 0:02:16 GMT
I thought this was an excellent point regarding the fraud case and Trump's false claim that no one was hurt. It's NOT an excellent point, because no one WAS hurt. This is lawfare. William August hasn't debunked it and Trump DIDN’T cause financial injury to anyone. The bank involved said, there was no problem, they enjoyed doing business with Trump and are looking forward to doing more business with him. The bank's very process doesn’t allow that to happen. Do you seriously think the bank takes anyone's WORD for it? No, they do not. They check it for themselves. That is the process of a loan officer. This is lawfare. When the very process is for the loan officer to make sure for themselves that the value is correct, then we do NOT "heighten catastrophic risk". No, that's nothing but bullshit propaganda. That just isnt happening. Ask yourself, who is Trump paying this $355 million to? Wow, just wow. Justifying crime? |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Feb 19, 2024 1:04:59 GMT
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,862
|
Post by lizacreates on Feb 19, 2024 2:05:53 GMT
Fraud is fraud. It doesn’t necessitate a victim for it to be prosecuted. It’s the same in federal. No actual loss to a victim is required. There is no prerequisite that the “deception bear fruit for the wrongdoer or cause injury to the victim…” It is the scheme to defraud and the intent to defraud that are elements of the crime.
|
|
|
|
Post by morecowbell on Feb 19, 2024 3:31:40 GMT
It's NOT an excellent point, because no one WAS hurt. This is lawfare. William August hasn't debunked it and Trump DIDN’T cause financial injury to anyone. The bank involved said, there was no problem, they enjoyed doing business with Trump and are looking forward to doing more business with him. The bank's very process doesn’t allow that to happen. Do you seriously think the bank takes anyone's WORD for it? No, they do not. They check it for themselves. That is the process of a loan officer. This is lawfare. When the very process is for the loan officer to make sure for themselves that the value is correct, then we do NOT "heighten catastrophic risk". No, that's nothing but bullshit propaganda. That just isnt happening. Ask yourself, who is Trump paying this $355 million to? So if I drive drunk, but I don’t get into an accident, did I still break the law? I mean, no one got hurt, right? If you get in the car to drive drunk and the bank says no, our process is to put you in an Uber. And does so, then no, you haven't broken the law. |
|
|
|
Post by morecowbell on Feb 19, 2024 4:41:08 GMT
Kevin O’Leary said the ruling threatens the entire real estate industry.
"It's not healthy for the country because it’s wrong for everybody that participates.
That fact that he was found guilty, you might as well find guilty every real estate developer on Earth. I don’t understand where someone got hurt … What developer doesn’t ask for the highest price valued for any building they built?
If this judgment sticks. Every developer must be jailed. They must be found guilty. They must be put out of business. You can’t do this to one and not another. It’s not about Trump. It’s appalling. It’s unjust. I would go as far to say it’s un-American.
We’re just stunned. You have no idea. The shock wave sent through the real estate industry. Insane."
|
|
