Trump Legal Troubles

[TGHusker]

So Trump's private judicial system (only apply if you are super rich or pretend to be) has lowered his bond to $175m if he can pay it in 10 days.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/rcna144659

 

 

Quote

 

N.Y. appeals court reduces Trump's bond in his civil fraud case to $175 million, a victory for the former president

The court also gave Trump an additional 10 days to post the bond, which the former president said Monday he would pay.

 

 

 Meanwhile:

 

Trump’s New York hush money case is set for trial April 15

https://apnews.com/article/trump-hush-money-trial-new-york-b8fb980a6ec745e918a13e676b7f1460

 

Meanwhile #2

Quote

 

Donald Trump is comparing himself to Jesus Christ in one of his most bizarre social media posts yet.

In a brazen post on Truth Social, Trump wrote, "Received this morning—Beautiful, thank you!" and then a message supposedly sent by one of his supporters, which read, "It’s ironic that Christ walked through His greatest persecution the very week they are trying to steal your property from you. But have you seen this verse…?"

He then added a passage from the Bible, specifically from the Plea for Judgement of False Accusers. The passage read: "They have also surrounded me with words of hatred,/ And fought against me without a cause./4 In return for my love they are my accusers,/ But I give myself to prayer./ 5 Thus they have rewarded me evil for good, /And hatred for my love.

 

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/us-news/breaking-donald-trump-says-christ-32437140

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

[Archy1221]

This is too rich and quite funny.  
 

https://nypost.com/2024/03/27/real-estate/jon-stewart-found-to-have-overvalued-his-nyc-home-by-829/

 

Records also show that Stewart paid significantly lower property taxes, which were calculated based on that assessor valuation price — precisely what he called Trump out for doing in his Monday monologue.
 

Meanwhile, the New York assessor valuation on Stewart’s former penthouse is the exact same citation method and metric that New York Attorney General Letitia James used to value Trump’s private and personal properties, and then sued him for inflating those assets.

[NebraskaHarry]

What bank loans did Stewart receive based on the evaluation of his former penthouse? 

 

[Archy1221]

8 minutes ago, NebraskaHarry said:

What bank loans did Stewart receive based on the evaluation of his former penthouse? 

 

How much in property taxes did NY lose by John not making sure the assessed value better match up with the true value.  
 

We don’t know if John took loans out or not btw. 

[NebraskaHarry]

1 minute ago, Archy1221 said:

How much in property taxes did NY lose by John not making sure the assessed value matched the true value.  
 

We don’t know if John took loans out or not btw. 

Well until you or someone figures that out, I'm not sure we have anything here.

[Archy1221]

44 minutes ago, NebraskaHarry said:

Well until you or someone figures that out, I'm not sure we have anything here.

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

[Mike Mcdee]

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.

[Archy1221]

11 minutes ago, Mike Mcdee said:

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.

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! 

[Mike Mcdee]

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.

Edited March 28 by Mike Mcdee
deeper explanation of statement

[Archy1221]

8 hours ago, Mike Mcdee said:

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. 

 

[Mike Mcdee]

double.

 

[teachercd]

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.

[Mike Mcdee]

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. 

[teachercd]

Just now, Mike Mcdee said:

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. 

Yeah, like I am going to s#!t in my hand again.  Nice try!