How to say the trial was a political hit without saying it was a political hit

submitted by passionflounderPaper tiger from twitter.com

all 14 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]GuyWhite 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

There are a lot of folks who should be packing to leave New York. Because any one of them could be next.

[–]passionflounderPaper tiger[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Quite correct.

The fact that the "fraud" was in fact common practice in the process of applying for loan and it's the lender's responsibility to do due diligence via assessment to confirm the stated value and when appropriate, adjust.

The loan was granted and paid off... NO victim of the alleged fraud.

This was the deployment of a weaponized justice system against a political enemy. This confirms that there is no equal protection under the law by the precedent set with this.

If it is allowed to stand, it will be repeated and expanded. Who will be the next enemy of the State?

[–]GuyWhite 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Nig York State also has gone after the NRA. I believe the NRA moved their incorporation to Texas

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Most folks haven't committed fraud. Certainly not to the extent of the guilty in this case.

[–]twolanterns 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

so many lies and crimes - destruction of the countries justice system

time for these poisoners to go - they can live in their commune apart from all good people and be poetically afflicted by their own evil

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Well that tweet's got more spin than PSR J1748−2446ad

What she actually said:

Hochul said: “Law-abiding and rule-following New Yorkers who are businesspeople have nothing to worry about because they’re very different than Donald Trump and his behavior.”

[–]iamonlyoneman 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

The rule is "we'll lend you money and do our own diligence thanks for paying us back have a nice day"

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

If you're claiming that it's not fraud to lie to banks because they'll do their own diligence, you're wrong.

[–]iamonlyoneman 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

You're claiming to believe there was a lie, which is contrary to the evidence I saw LOL

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

So for instance, you think his New York apartment actually was three times the size for the banks than it was for the tax department?

[–]iamonlyoneman 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I actually don't think about it at all, thanks for asking

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

So you "saw" the evidence and you thought that evidence was contrary to the fact that it was a lie ... Without thinking about it at all?

Difficult to believe. But you be you.

Those of us that thought about it found the evidence to show there was fraud. As did the court.

[–]iamonlyoneman 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Sure, partisan hacks are gonna hack

[–]westway9 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Uh, that author looks nothing like Pepe. Who is this charlatan?!