Trump: Set to declare 2024 presidential bid tonight; will indictments follow soon?

[Dilip Panjwani]

(From Fox News political cartoons)

Remains to be seen whether MSM can fool Americans yet again...

[Bob Armstrong]

Americas - USA

Presidential/Other Election: Tues., Nov. 4, 2024.

Expected: Kamala Harris, VP vs Donald Trump, Former President

"The latest Bloomberg News/Morning Consult poll of seven battleground states — conducted after President Joe Biden dropped out of the race — shows Vice President Kamala Harris in a statistical tie with Republican nominee Donald Trump.

She holds a 1 percentage point advantage in a head-to-head matchup, an improvement over the 2-point deficit Biden faced against the Republican nominee last month, which was his best showing since October."

Washington Post - 24/7/30

Bob A

[Bob Gillanders]

I would say the momentum is now behind Kamala Harris.

I am delighted.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Bob G., You may be right about Trump, and I am not interested in defending him at all. However, what you need to understand is that most of the anti-Trump activities of the Democrats are very obviously senseless.

Those activities have propelled him to being the favourite to become the next POTUS. Good job, Democrats!

[Dilip Panjwani]

Bob G., You may be right about Trump, and I am not interested in defending him at all. However, what you need to understand is that most of the anti-Trump activities of the Democrats are very obviously senseless.

[Bob Gillanders]

And yet the bank, whose business it is to evaluate properties before lending, with help from not just 'a reasonable person', but expert appraisers, believed all of what he said, when it did not have to? And was the judge not just as 'outlandish' as Trump for first insisting on 454 million, when later 185 million was agreed to?

First of all, the judge was way too easy on Trump. He should have been jailed for contempt of court, but set that aside for the minute.

Second of all, the judge didn't agree to the lower amount (actually my mistake, it is 175 million, not 185 million), it was a ruling by an appeals court. And maybe Bob the lawyer can check on that, I believe it only relates to the bond amount, not the 454 million judgement. But I could be wrong.

Third of all, if you have no sympathy for the banks who should know better, I agree. Some of them should have been jailed over the 2008 financial meltdown instead of being bailed out. Nevertheless, the valuations supplied by Trump were fraudulent.

The main point is Trump is a liar. A constant and persistent liar.

Have you heard of the Trump University case? Trump was sued by hundreds of students and they won a judgement of $25,000,000. Fraud!

Defend Trump if you want, but .........

[Dilip Panjwani]

Many of the valuations he placed on various properties were outlandish, no way a reasonable person would characterize it as just boasting.

And yet the bank, whose business it is to evaluate properties before lending, with help from not just 'a reasonable person', but expert appraisers, believed all of what he said, when it did not have to? And was the judge not just as 'outlandish' as Trump for first insisting on 454 million, when later 185 million was agreed to?

[Dilip Panjwani]

ethics/morals.

Bob A

Don't you dare talk about ethics and morals after worshipping the totally stupid, unethical and immoral Marxism, Bob.
The biggest ethical/moral principle is 'Do no harm to others', as stated by the Natural Law... Understand, you Marxist?

[Bob Armstrong]

I fear if ever Dilip's Libertarian "Natural Law" is implemented (It seems it hasn't been in Argentina).

Donald Trump has 6 of his acts/actions now before the courts (4 Criminal cases - 1 dismissal now under appeal; 2 civil torts - on one of which he has been found guilty by a jury of peers).

Dilip's "Natural Law" assessments have been: Nothing wrong here!

Astounding......his "Natural Law" seems to have nothing to do with ethics/morals.

Bob A

[Bob Gillanders]

Trump likes to 'boast' all the time

Dilip, a certain amount of boasting maybe commonplace, but the courts found that Trump’s boasting amounted to fraud. Many of the valuations he placed on various properties were outlandish, no way a reasonable person would characterize it as just boasting. It was so pervasive and outrageous that the fine was $ 454,000,000. Then he boasted he had enough cash to pay the fine. But when it was time to pay, he didn’t have it, even after the judge reduced it to 185 million.

Trump is a liar. A constant and persistent liar.

The good news is Kamala Harris is now calling out his BS.

[Dilip Panjwani]

Dilip, is that what Trump said or is that what you think he said? In the course of any specific time period, a lender doesn't have an unlimited ability to make loans. If Trump was approved for loans on the basis of deliberately inflated property values, perhaps other (worthy) applicants were declined. Also, the bank's shareholders were hurt. Generally speaking, Banks risk rate their loans and price them according to perceived risk. An underpriced loan, other things being equal, means a reduction in profits which can cause a reduction in dividends, for example. If this was a victimless crime, as you suggest, it would likely be Trump's first such crime.

Peter,
It was publicized during the trial that Trump's documents to the bank clearly included the sentence that the bank was to verify the price on its own. And that bank has publicly stated that its deal with Trump turned out to be a good one for it.
Banks have experienced appraisers who do not need much time to appraise accurately (I have been confidently told by one such appraiser that the value of my house was much more than what I had thought and had been told by some friends and realtors, when I was asking for a loan on it, and he turned out to be right when I decided to sell it instead of seeking the loan). Also, Trump likes to 'boast' all the time, and banks with whom he has been dealing all his life would be aware of that :-)

[Peter McKillop]

.... "I believe my property is worth xyz, but it is up to you to check that out!"? ....

Dilip, is that what Trump said or is that what you think he said? In the course of any specific time period, a lender doesn't have an unlimited ability to make loans. If Trump was approved for loans on the basis of deliberately inflated property values, perhaps other (worthy) applicants were declined. Also, the bank's shareholders were hurt. Generally speaking, Banks risk rate their loans and price them according to perceived risk. An underpriced loan, other things being equal, means a reduction in profits which can cause a reduction in dividends, for example. If this was a victimless crime, as you suggest, it would likely be Trump's first such crime.

[Dilip Panjwani]

I guess the Americans didn't think to include a 'Conflict of Interest' angle in their Constitution, finalized in the late 1780s and amended many times since. Thus, if Donald Trump is elected president in November, he could potentially 'Pardon Himself' for any federal crimes he may have committed! Farcical!

Hi Frank,
I totally agree with you that it is farcical. But is it not even more farcical to charge him close to half a billion dollars for telling his bank: "I believe my property is worth xyz, but it is up to you to check that out!"? And by telling that to his bank, nobody was harmed, and the bank made a lot of money!!

[Frank Dixon]

I guess the Americans didn't think to include a 'Conflict of Interest' angle in their Constitution, finalized in the late 1780s and amended many times since. Thus, if Donald Trump is elected president in November, he could potentially 'Pardon Himself' for any federal crimes he may have committed! Farcical!

[Dilip Panjwani]

Possible Problem - In 2026 I may be the only 80+ Canadian (Active) with a USCF membership.........we'd definitely want it USCF/CFC & FIDE rated, no?

Would Barron pay for our needed USCF memberships?

Bob A

I am sure he would do much more than that, if you promise not to insist on fleecing him with your DM!