When you're talking about changed laws, are you referring to the civil case against E. Jean Carroll? And when you are talking about "charges that the banks said weren't even an issue" are you talking about the civil fraud case? No banks were victims in the hush money case, which is where the felonies are from.

There was no victim in the hush money case which is why the prosecution was clearly political. Even Andrew Cuomo, Democrat and former NY DA, said that those charges never would have been filed against anyone other than Trump.

What made it a felony under New York law is the claim that the falsified records were intended to conceal another crime, specifically efforts to influence an election.

To a decent approximation, if Trump had not been running for office when he did this, then it wouldn't have been a crime. But then, he wouldn't have cared to cover it up.

Covering up that he got off with a porn star isn't the problem. Like Bill Clinton, it's the actual particulars of the coverup rather than generically that there was a desire to cover up an extramarital affair itself that's the problem.

Technically opening up your neighbor's mailbox is a felony. But in practice you will never be charged for it. Same thing with the hush money case. There is no law that makes covering up an affair illegal while running for office and Trump was not charged with any campaign finance violations. He was charged with the vague crime of "falsifying business records" which, while technically illegal in all cases, in practice is only ever charged if there is a victim who has been defrauded by the falsification. In this case there was none.

The Clinton case is exactly the same concept and is also 100% a politically motivated prosecution. So is the Hunter Biden gun charge. Nobody else ever would have been charged for that.

Yea, I read through the court cases. He got 3rd party valuations on property and just decided to change it on his whim to get a better deal on loans.

I understand that the rich are usually not prosecuted for this fact but if one of us plebs did that and the banks found out, they’d be all over us for fraud.

No, they really wouldn't. People do this all the time. Take the example of the (politically motivated) charges against Leticia James for mortgage fraud. Everybody lies about the house being their primary residence to get a better interest rate and nobody who doesn't piss off politically powerful people are ever charged for it. Fraud is essentially never charged if the loan is paid back.

From what I've heard, "primary residence" is a different issue, something along the line of US banks asking this at time of issue and never checking about updates.

Saying the property is worth more or less than it is… I don't know how this would even happen. The countries in which I've looked at mortgages, the banks don't give an option for a self-assessment. Is the US not like that? Or is it specifically a thing for getting a loan secured on a property that you already own rather than a new purchase?

The point is that in both cases it was a lie on a loan document, which is fraud. Donald Trump's loan was not a simple residential mortgage so the same underwriting process does not apply.

He got materially better rates than he would have based on lower valuations.

Banks have never given me or the other plebs the grace of fucking the risk profile of their investments to our own benefit when it’s found out.

You’re conflating the fact that it’s usually not worth the cost of investigation and enforcement in the event that the loans are paid back, with the idea that it’s not enforced in general

If the bank is stupid enough to give a loan on Donald Trump's own valuations rather than insisting on seeing the third party valuations then they have some employees that need to be fired. The criminal justice system just doesn't get involved in these matters where there are no civil damages, whether you like it or not.

It wasn’t above board.

It was fraud.

The bank was unaware he had changed the valuation.

Also wasn’t it just for the fraud, it was because this fraud was connected to his attempts to manipulate the election.

If we are going to go further in this conversation I need to know if you can point to an action he has taken that you think is bad, other than appointing someone he turned on later.

You need to stop repeating things that are not true. His charges had nothing to do with the election. They were "falsifying business records". This law has nothing to do with elections and it is not a arguable point. Also, "manipulate the election" is a completely meaningless phrase.

Nope, you can't argue out of both sides of your mouth on the electoral bit.

Yes people are rarely prosecuted for this crime, because its usually not worth finding out and dealing with. His was found because in this particular instance his crimes were found because he was committing them while trying to manipulate the election via hush money payments that were connected.

You're either one of the sanewashers for this guy or the ones who fell for his shtick, but just because he's constantly committing crime all the time, including while engaging in politics, doesn't mean he has an aura of protection because of it

That isn't manipulating the election. It has absolutely nothing to do with the election whatsoever. NDAs to cover up embarrassing personal matters have always been legal.

I don’t have anything to say further to you. I cannot help you reason your way out of an emotional position and if you think the stormy Daniel’s shit wasn’t done to hide the story during a campaign then you are in an emotional position.

Of course it was done for the campaign. But that isn't illegal, which is why he was not charged with any campaign finance related charges. You really can't seem to get that through your head, can you?

> It has absolutely nothing to do with the election whatsoever.

> Of course it was done for the campaign.

Did a 180 in two posts. Disrespectfully get fucked, I think you’re here in bad faith

You do know that "it" can refer to two different things at different times, right? In this case the action, which had everything to do with the election, and the charges, which had nothing to do with it.

You are confusing different cases. The one he was convicted for was falsifying business records. That was an open and shut case where no banks were involved and no law has to be changed.

There were a couple of dpdgy cases against him but he was not convinced of any of them.

I challenge you to name the crime. "Falsifying business records" is not a felony in NY.

I'm a Norwegian without direct skin in the game, but according to these[1][2] sources it was "§ 175.10 Falsifying business records in the first degree"[3], stated to be a class E felony in New York.

Is this not correct?

[1]: https://www.factcheck.org/2024/05/qa-on-trumps-criminal-conv...

[2]: https://www.npr.org/2024/05/30/g-s1-1848/trump-hush-money-tr...

[3]: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/175.10

  Penal Law Section 175.10
  Falsifying business records in the first degree

  A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof. Falsifying business records in the first degree is a class E felony.

- https://newyork.public.law/laws/n.y._penal_law_section_175.1...

Now, I'm not a lawyer, but that does rather look like you need to eat humble pie.

Me neither but I guess so.

Falsifying business records with intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime.

The 'another crime' was never specified.

I guess he joins all the other people convicted of falsifying business records with an intent to commit another crime unspecified.

It does seem a bit made up for him. I'm sure lots of people have errors in their business reporting and how do you defend against being accused of an unspecified crime?

I'm not really a Trump fan but I think it would have been much better to prosecute him for something real like trying to steal the 2020 election than the above silliness that was just ignored and let him get back into office.

Get real