Mike Mcdee

3 hours ago, TGHusker said:

Buttt Kari - aren't you heart broken why Donald won't be able to go - because he tried to cover up an adultress affair

Seems like the 'family values party' has lost its way - don't you think

15 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

What a f#&%ing joke. His son has never done anything with him. But, we are all supposed to be heart broken over this. 
 

 

That's kind of what I was thinking. The reason he's in this mess is because he cheated on Barron's mom while she was pregnant with him. What are the odds that DJT knows what high school Baron goes to? 

1 hour ago, teachercd said:

I was thinking about this as well.  I hope the defeat is just the end of trump and not him being like "Well, we are getting ready to run again in 28"

Part of me thinks the only reason he is currently running is because he wants to avoid any and all jail time. That's why he is asking for immunity from the Supreme Court. The fact that he is asking for immunity makes me think he believes there is a chance he is convicted and may face consequences. So if he looses later this year, he may be in jail and thus won't be able to run in 28. 

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

For those of you with trading accounts, is there a way to short this stock? It feels like this will dip below $10.

Heard this morning that Frankie will be announcing on Monday on 1620 with Gary. Sounds like he has a list of 4, but it really is down to CU and Nebraska. 

30 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

It's mind boggling.  

 

If I were a member of that church, I wouldn't ever step foot in it again.

I'm pretty sure the congregation is there specifically because of the church's stance in politics.

4 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

He's just simply a disgusting human being that should NOT be given any form of stage to spew is vitriol crap.

And a Church is giving him that stage here in Nebraska.

18 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

 

Why is this guy speaking at a church?

47 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Everything you said in your post I agree with which is why I’m glad you are agreeing with how silly the Leticia James case is.   Bringing in John Stewart and his situation was meant to highlight things from a different perspective.  
 

The over-inflation of property value is very nebulous thing to say because value is basically what someone is willing to pay.   In the case of the banks, it seems they were willing to accept the value presented to them based on the fact they accepted the deal and were willing to continue to deal with Trump.   
 

The factual representation of a property being wrong (overinflation of square footage)  is something I could get behind.  That said, I would have to believe those types of cases have been brought before and it would be nice to see the fines in those cases.   
 

From my understanding, correct me if I’m wrong, this is the first time NY has used this type of case before and I have a hard time believing it’s a first of its kind case.  

https://apnews.com/article/trump-fraud-business-law-courts-banks-lending-punishment-2ee9e509a28c24d0cda92da2f9a9b689

 

 

 

 

This case amounts to lawfare, unless LJ starts inquiries into every other developer in NYC and the values they present for their properties. 

The reason people like Tim brought Stewart into this is because they thought they were pointing out the hypocrisy of him calling out Trump. That's what internet personalities like him do; digital dunking on someone. But like I said, they are two different scenarios. I work in a field adjacent and we rely on the property owners to at least be somewhat close in their applications. So much so that the signature pages state "To the best of your knowledge" about statements of fact. There is an allowance with in reason. The magnitude of difference here lead the judge to determine intentional fraud. There are some wild parts to this case, I'll grant you that. But according to the law, it's fraud. Whether an appeals court will overturn it remains to be seen. 

59 minutes ago, teachercd said:

I am totally for anyone making as much money as they can.  If they do it illegally and you hate one person for doing it, then you have to hate everyone that does it.

 

I wish I would sell my house for 10 times what it is worth.

That's the thing. It's worth what the market will bear. So if someone makes you an offer, that is the market price. If you want a buyer to offer you 10 times what you paid for your house, you can sh!t in one hand and wish in the other and see which one fills up first. Stewart's wish hand just happened to fill.  And again, the two examples discussed are vastly different circumstances. 

double.

14 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

So since this instance was a focal point of John’s show, one would think he would retroactively pay the city for the lost property taxes John evaded by not matching the true property value better with the assessed value while he owned it.  
 

In the interest of fiscal conservatism, which it sounds like you care deeply about, it’s also possible a prosecutor might take a few high profile examples like this and use them as a loss leader (who knows, it’s very possible the prosecutors office comes out ahead in monetary value) while winning some civil verdicts so other wealthy millionaire celebrities not “paying their fair share” may be proactive in the future and get their properties re-assessed thereby bringing in more revenue thereby having a net positive overall.  
 

And since we know Governments don’t really care about fiscal conservatism, if nothing else, wealthy millionaire Democrats finally get to pay their fair share of property taxes! 

Looking at the facts of the case Tim, he sold his penthouse for $18mm while it was valued at $1.8mm and assessed at I think $850k. He probably had to pay the gains on that sale. It then sold for $13mm later. Maybe the buyer over paid because it was a celebrities house. They can't write off that loss if it was their primary home. So some of the taxes were captured.

I get it. You don't like hypocrisy and want everyone held accountable to the same standards. The problem these two situations are not the same. Assessed value rarely if ever equates to market value. Nor do assessors increase assessed value to match sale price. I know this because I'm good friends with our county assessor and they have told me so. Assessed valuation changes occur when overall neighborhood marked trends dictate an adjustment, or if there is a material change to the property. Trump over inflated the value of his properties (and factual characteristics of the properties) to represent a better Loan To Value ratio, thus earning him a more competitive rate. Stewart sold his home to a willing buyer for asking price.

17 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

They looked up the records   A bank loan doesn’t matter in terms of property value.  I’m sure you are aware, a mortgage isn’t required to have an assessed tax value.  Leticia Jane’s should be all over this.  NY lost money here.  Amirite

So since this is a civil case that involves money, one would have to evaluate how much it would cost the state of New York to prosecute this crime on an individual case by case basis and how much lost revenue could be captured. If it is more than the cost to litigate, then it is a net negative for the state. Sounds like a prosecutor would go after winnable cases that yield more than the cost. Sounds like good fiscal conservativism.

2 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

I’ve been working in Hastings, Lincoln and Omaha this week so listening to the radio a lot while driving.  This story has been talked about, and the guy seems like quite the scum bag. 

He is.

5 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Don't know anything about her.  But, if I lived there, I'd be voting for her over him.

 

 

 

It's Hastings, so I don't see a woman, let alone a (D), getting elected here. I've sat on committees and heard nominations to boards get voted down due to the fact the applicant was a woman. I'll do my part though.

I've spoken to people at the capitol that can't wait for his term to be over. He's my district rep. and I agree with their sentiment. The guy is a terrible human. I don't know if his replacement options are any better, but the Unicameral will be better off without him. He doesn't have the decency to resign because he also lacks the ability to feel shame.

13 hours ago, TGHusker said:

https://www.gatheringplace.org/

 

https://www.burnbbq.net/
 

https://tedscafe.com/
 

https://andopizza.com/location/broken-arrow/
 

https://www.rosedistrict.com/eat-1

 

https://www.okaquarium.org/

 

https://jenksriverwalk.com/

 

not sure how long you will be here but this should give you a start. If the concert is downtown then there are many ideas in the Tulsa Arts District including the Woody Guthrie and Bob Dylan museums the Tulsa Race Museum. 

 

 

 

Thanks boss. Knew I could count on a fellow Husker to help. I think we are going to go to the aquarium and the Rose District for food for sure. Concert is at the Mabee Center, so Sunday we will probably be around that area mostly.

2 hours ago, TGHusker said:

Yep - a couple metro Tulsa ones as well  All of the blue lines below.  They aren''t showing the newest one around NW and West Tulsa

 

@TGHuskerHey, I'm headed down to Tulsa to the Brandon Lake concert this Sunday. Any good recommendations? Food must haves, kids stuff? I know it's off topic, so feel free to move it mods

5 minutes ago, teachercd said:

Well...we could FINALLY get what I have been pushing for...A law that allows us to pick our age.  Since "age is just a number" and "you are only as old as you feel" which does in fact push it to the soft sciences of a social construct.  

 

Get ready Little League World Series!!!!  HERE I COME!

How many injuries are going to result in this adventure you are taking? I mean, I can play catch and jog around the bases, but that blown hammy ain't going to feel as young as you think it's going to feel.

26 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

My previous voting for Trump had no bearing on what The Big Guy is/has gone through.   It wasn’t an issue in 2020 because people like you proclaimed the laptop to be Russian Disinformation despite the IC agencies telling you differently.   Your extreme partisanship prevents you from acknowledging basic facts.  
 

Your poor political choices also made you believe and probably currently still do that Russia was the cause of the 2016 Trump win and that he collided with Russia.  Your extreme political partisanship keeps you voting for the old man who can’t remember anything.   Unlike you, I will be writing in a candidates name (Ron DeSantis).   You will be voting for a mush brain with a 38% approval rating who gave us an extremely awful border situation and foreign policy disasters.  Congrats!!!!!   

I think Hilary lost because she was such a flawed candidate. First of all, she is a Clinton. Secondly, she is a woman. There are segments of this population that will never be ready for women in authority. I served on a board that had never had a woman. We voted one on and the next day, three members tendered their resignation. This was about 10 years ago. Third, Hilary ignored entire states due to her own hubris. Once DJT won the Republican primary, she felt she had it in the bag. Fourth, like many have said, Trump found an audience and voting block that was previously non-participant. 

While I can appreciate your decision not to vote for DJT, can you acknowledge others fear of what a second term of DJT would look like? You may think they are unfounded fears and that the guardrails will hold our representative democracy together. DJT has stated his intentions and has shown himself to be someone who is building a platform based on vengeance, self enrichment, and self preservation. 

1 hour ago, teachercd said:

Of course I do!

 

He is trying to be on both sides of the fence, which is fine but it doesn't work.  You also totally know what he is talking about.  We all do.  It is easy to understand.  He is not being sneaky or nefarious about it.  

 

 

From my understanding it's a math issue. There are very few voters who will vote the opposite from 2020. That would be a 2 vote swing. Minus for one candidate and plus one for the other. He just thinks it will be an issue of minus one vote cast by not voting at all. The candidate who wins will be the one who can get the "meh" voters out for them. The bases will show out on 11/5. Can you get the voters who will decide to come out if it's a nice day and the lines aren't too long?

10 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Well this is her directly stating she took money from her campaign and kept cash from that.  FYI.  I don’t follow this account nor care about the commentary listed.  It’s just from looking through the trending tweets on her.  

 

 

It's cutting out the part that she took out $50,000 from her personal retirement to fund her initial campaign. Did she put all of that $50k into her campaign or did she keep some of it as liquid cash? The context before and after this clip are that she kept it as cash. I know it's easy to pick out clips, but I literally watched her testimony yesterday. If the defense had took it to mean she took money from campaign funds they would have pounced. They didn't which leads me to believe they read it as kept cash out at the same time as helping fund her own campaign. Arduous litigation may be boring for most folks, but I enjoyed yesterdays and I had a slow day in my office. 

And I know that both left leaning and right leaning media outlets will edit these types of things for clicks and engagement. Source material is the best and usually tells the whole picture.

2 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

I believe it could be both…..

 

Sounds like it’s not factual to say they dated before this Trump trial started to take place.   She hired this gentleman she was seeing to help prosecute even though he has zero experience in dealing with a RICO case (from what I understood and please correct me if I’m wrong).  Now I understand lawyers have to get experience at some point with certain types of cases, but is the highest profile case EVER the place to hire an in-experienced lawyer (unless you are Trump, HA) I would think not.   I also wouldn’t mind knowing his billable hours for the two years prior to this trial and the billable hours generated since this trial by him.   If his billable’s have gone up extensively, would it be fair to say his lover was the cause of that using state tax dollars on a case he doesn’t have experience with (again if wrong let me know)?  
 

So then, he has potentially lots more income that is able to used to go on vacations and trips from the tax payer gig he has and she possibly doesn’t pay her half of the expenses because if can’t be proven she did (or didn’t).   
 

again, I also believe she stated the took an amount of a cash from her campaign and kept it at her house to use as expenses.  I’ve always thought that was a no-no.  Let me know if I’m wrong about that.  

To the bold, I don't know about the 2 years before and 2 years after, he was asked the split between his work for the state and Fulton County, and income derived from his private practice. He testified it was a 50/50 split as far as income. As far as time consumption, it was 99% for the state and Fulton County and 1% to his private practice. He testified he was paid before taxes and expenses roughly around $100,000 for the 2022 or 23 year. Just doing the math, he and his partners were paid at the $150/hour rate if you are assuming 2080 hours of work. 

The underlined portion I know is wrong. She testified that she couldn't identify exactly where the cash came from because it was an accumulation over years. The defense attorney was wanting her to get very detailed as to providing a receipt for withdraw that could be traced back to for the cash's source. She stated she wouldn't have an exact withdraw receipt because, again the cash was an accumulation of cash on hand at the home over years. 

As far as the experience factor, I missed his bona fides. He did teach a class that she attended in 2019 I believe. He became a trusted colleague and someone she felt could help. 

I again state, I don't know if the optics are the best to be dating a subordinate in this high profile of a case. But the defense team for the most part has failed, in my eyes, to draw a direct correlation between the money paid to Wade and wrong doing. Nor any gifts to Willis from Wade that would rise to the level of impropriety. 

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

From what I understand, and please correct me if I am getting this wrong…..

 

She hired her paramour for this case (they have admitted to being together prior to the case starting) and he is cashing in above what his experience level is for this type of case.   Again, if I have that incorrect please let me know.  
 

She seems to have admitted to taking “lots of cash” out of her election campaign for personnel expenditures and I’ve always thought this was campaign finance issues.   I may be wrong here and please let me know.   
 

How do we know she even paid him back since this seems to be one of the few areas where she pays things in cash.   It looks like a funneling system that they used money paid to him for personnel vacations.  Again good be wrong but “experts” being interviewed are implying this.  
 

Do I care that he cheated on his wife?  No.   With her? If it weren’t related to him being hired for the case I would say no?  Since he’s in the case, that seems pretty relevant.  

I could see them being viewed as a funneling system, but the amounts don't add up. She stated that the most she reimbursed was $4k. There were three vacations in question. Napa vacation, Belize vacation, and I think a cruise. The other issue is, they are trying to say two things about these vacations. Either they weren't reimbursed and she obtained illegal contributions. Or she reimbursed him and it's a funneling scheme. It can't be both. The legal system is based on what can be proven. Not what someone could imply. As far as the funds origination, there has to be some sort of link between her taking the funds out and then using them for personal gain. I haven't heard that brought up either yesterday or today yet.

As far as hiring her significant other and being over paid for his qualifications, they addressed that was well. He signed a contract to do work. Was only allowed to charge a capped amount of hours. He went through invoices and it showed that he worked significantly more on the case and was unpaid because of the cap. Again, if the assumption is that he was then repaid through these vacations, it's not enough. Her testimony stated that she had contracted several lawyers at rates of between $150-$300/ hour. Not an outrageous number for lawyers. 

As far as him cheating, again, he was the one who suffered the infidelity that irretrievably broke their marriage. And I don't know that I would equate dating to being a paramour. 

I'll admit it's not the cleanest of looks to have them dating and working together. But I don't see how the judge, based on facts entered into evidence, removes her from the RICO case.

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

Is that what’s going on jj?  Is it really?    The most liberal of networks is saying Willis is toast and you complain about me?     Maybe, possibly, could be something else in that “relationship with a man” that is unethical/illegal?   Sorta kinda?   
 

But JJ’s gotta shoot the messenger.   No not the liberal news media messenger saying the same things as Archy.   Nope.   He’s gotta skip that and get his weekly digs in.   
 

 

So I actually watched most of this yesterday. I don't agree with the MSNBC personality at all. The line of questioning from the defense caused them to trip over their own laces several times. The "putting it on his business credit card" isn't the gotcha they think. I use mine for everything as well. Then when tax time comes, I present them to the accountant and he tells me what I can and can't deduct. All good. The insinuation of cash at her home was from ill gotten means is preposterous. I have cash in my home at all times in case of emergencies. My in-laws have told us that they have about $25k in their home as a safe guard against some banking emergency. It's somewhat of a generational thing. Going after Wade about how much the state of Georgia or Fulton County paid him fell flat as well. His partnership was paid the $300k and then it was divided between the partners. So while yes, he was in possession of the whole amount at one point, he only kept his 1/3 of it. It all equaled out to what he filed on his financial disclosure. 

@Archy1221in your eyes, what about their relationship was unethical? Was it that he was married? His wife cheated on him in 2015 at which point he told her that they would divorce once their youngest went to college. He stayed around for the family. Kept it a 2 parent home while his kids were still growing. Was it the trips they took? She says she reimbursed him because she wanted to pay her own way. I've known several women who have echoed this same mentality. Especially women who have gone through a divorce and were either an equal earner or the primary breadwinner. 

In all honesty, Judge McAfee is the one who will decide if she should be removed from the case. His interactions with defense council didn't really lead me to believe he was leaning toward throwing her off. 

4 minutes ago, teachercd said:

Sorry man...a normie is a normie.

 

remember, those weirdos think that they are doing the right thing too.  Just like the normies on the other side think they are doing the right thing.  

 

 

I'm just a normie that feels like my public education was pretty good. I'm not an educator so if a teacher wants to teach my kid a subject a certain way, by all means, teach away. Read a book, go for it. Change math making me feel stupid now, but if you can make it make sense to my kids, knock your socks off. Just so we're clear, I agree with your stance on us normies getting involved in education. Trust your teachers or change schools/home school your kids. You do you boo.