ex-President Trump

Other borrowers who couldn't get the loan or had to pay higher interest rates. Other businesses which had trouble competing with Trump when he had a cheaper source of capital than they had. Stockholders in the bank who could have profited more if Trump had paid more interest.

To repeat myself. The risk was higher. Misrepresenting risk on legal documents is fraud.

Doesn't matter if the bet paid off this time.

+1

Just because you don't like the victim doesn't mean there wasn't one. And when the victims are banks and/or corporations, do you think there's any chance that ends up costing others?

But the beauty here is that you think it's so important to point out the victimlessness (apparently I made that word up) of Trump's crime that you needed to drop it in the middle of an entirely unrelated mod forum issue.

Only a Trumper thinks unproven voter fraud means everything and proven bank fraud means nothing.

But but the laptop ….
Who was the victim ?

lozen who's the victim in the Fani Willis "scandal"? you seem to understand the concept when it comes to things you want to punish..

it's not the government or the taxpayer that money was going out the door to someone regardless of who it was and by all accounts they are getting what they paid for.

Lozen IS a victim in the Fani Willis case. White cultural conservatives that don't have college degrees are perpetual victims. That's the point of their culture at this point. It's the migrants our Biden's our our fault that their life isn't great.

And Donald Trump is going to fix it! L-O-L

losin took the day off. Vic, take notes

Trump takes credit for legislation signed by Obama.

Putting his name on other people's work is the Trump business model.

SCOTUS just ruled unanimously that Colorado can not remove President Trump from the ballot. I wonder where those CO justices are today who made the original treasonous ruling? ; )

Probably at a Starbucks enjoying the huge troll they pulled on the Trumpers......

They can only wish and beg they were.

I think webster would have a difference of opinion with you as he describes a riot as a violent disturbance of the peace by a crowd and a protest is a statement or action expressing disapproval to something. So the main difference between the two are one explicit states violence while the other doesn't.

As the above poster said at least 19 deaths were recorded during the BLM riots while 1/6ers killed 0 people. There were ~200-500 times more injuries during the BLM riots than 1/6. There were untold billions of dollars more in property damages from BLM than 1/6.

If you want to justify one cause and not the other in your mind that is fine, but calling BLM a protest and 1/6 a riot is factually incorrect.

It is alarming that it got all the way to the SCOTUS. I am still surprised there weren't 50+ dem politicians who stood up to say this is wrong and we should allow the people decide.

I can't imagine a scenario where I would want someone from the opposite party off the ballot. I don't care what that person did let the other party nominate them and then let's campaign on the awful stuff he/she did.

For example, of everyone who has run for president in the last 50 years I think bernie sanders is the closest candidate I would ever consider as being so bad for the country we shouldn't even take the risk of him being president, but he is so bad that I would want him to be the other parties candidate because his odds of winning a national election are significantly less than 1%.

This lawsuit was brought on behalf of Republicans, so it wasn't the opposite party wanting to remove him.

This statement is totally misleading. It was not "brought on" by republicans.

The CO justices were appointed by a democratic governor. The chief justice is from the republican party. If I said it once I said it a thousand times there are just as many, if not more, corrupt bought out blackmailed and controlled puppet republicans as there are democrats.

I would say that the democrats weaponized the justice system to arrest it's political opponents but that would be giving them much too much credit. They're wayyy too dumb to do it themselves, it's the puppet masters of the democratic party, a world wide entity/enemy, not the democrats themselves.

Uhh, you know judges don't bring lawsuits, right? They decide them. Plaintiffs bring lawsuits. I think you might need to brush up on the roles that various actors play within the theatre of justice.

It’s funny how all the maga have the traits of confusion in their narrative …

Cull the sinners, bro, with a little help from Q

Go forth .... and sin no more

confused by some - the instruction - to mean..... go forth and cull the sinners with a little assistance from conspiracy theory du jour

I mean, I'm as wayward as the next 2 guys. but it's inconceivable, the hold this deranged conman has over so many

Trannies and Marxism sells, and unlike peace, lots are buying

Here's your boy lmao

It was demonstrably brought on behalf of a group of Republicans. There is nothing misleading about that statement.

https://coloradonewsline.com/2023/09/19/...
https://www.citizensforethics.org/news/p...

And were voted in subsequently to keep their appointed office.

Of course you would, even though, again, it was demonstrably a group of Republicans that sued to have him remove. Don't let that stop you from lying though.

I think homeslice is just confused about what a judge is. He seems to think judges bring lawsuits.