Trump fine GoFundMe

[George K]

@89th said in Trump fine GoFundMe:

I’d imagine there have been countless of similar cases prosecuted for such type of fraud and ill gotten gains.

I may be wrong, but my understanding is that no one has been prosecuted for such a case in which there was no loss by any of the lenders. At least that’s what I read.

Not sure where to search and find that info, though.

Let us know if you find something.

[taiwan_girl]

Here is a small list of the 9800 NY prosecutions (since 2015) for falsifying business records

https://www.scribd.com/document/632650172/Survey-of-New-York-Prosecutions-for-Felony-Falsification-of-Business-Records#from_embed

President Trump case is on page 11 FYI

[Jolly]

Show me a case even remotely similar to his.

One.

[taiwan_girl]

So, if someone kills someone with a fly swatter and that has never been done before, should the person still be prosecuted?

[Jolly]

The bedrock of American law is equal justice. Justice applied inequitably is not justice, is it?

[Horace]

@taiwan_girl said in Trump fine GoFundMe:

So, if someone kills someone with a fly swatter and that has never been done before, should the person still be prosecuted?

The analogy would be if fly swatter killings were not uncommon, but never prosecuted until now.

[taiwan_girl]

There is a first for everything. LOL. Again, if you broke the law and it has not been prosecuted before doesn't make you less guilty.

(I should say that I do not know the details of this cases whether he should have been found guilty of not. But the excuse that nobody else has been prosecuted for this is pretty week in my opinion. I have in the recent past there was a first time prosecution for crypto currency fraud. Claiming that you are innocent because others have been doing crypto currency fraud but not prosecuted........

Kind of like when the IRS prosecutes some high profile celebrity on a tax charge that "everybody is doing".)

[Jolly]

@taiwan_girl said in Trump fine GoFundMe:

There is a first for everything. LOL. Again, if you broke the law and it has not been prosecuted before doesn't make you less guilty.

(I should say that I do not know the details of this cases whether he should have been found guilty of not. But the excuse that nobody else has been prosecuted for this is pretty week in my opinion. I have in the recent past there was a first time prosecution for crypto currency fraud. Claiming that you are innocent because others have been doing crypto currency fraud but not prosecuted........

Kind of like when the IRS prosecutes some high profile celebrity on a tax charge that "everybody is doing".)

Give me a week and intense scrutiny, and a good prosecutor could put you in jail.

And you might well be guilty. Of something.

[taiwan_girl]

Probably . But usually prosecutors will try to get the most "bang for buck", targeting someone who will give them the maximum publicity and exposure.

I am guessing that this case may cause others to think again before giving a false value of real estate.

Was that the reason here? No - I am sure it was political, but it may have the consequence of stopping others from doing the same thing.

As I mentioned above, like the IRS going after people. Lets say I knowingly do an illegal tax "write off". Everybody is doing it. Will the IRS come after me (or you) or go after celebrity XX? Even though they did not come after me, I would probably think again before doing the tax write-off

(For example, this just came up)

https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/irs-begins-audits-of-corporate-jet-usage-part-of-larger-effort-to-ensure-high-income-groups-dont-fly-under-the-radar-on-tax-responsibilities

[Jolly]

Thank you for admitting you're just throwing rhetorical dust in the air.

Now, can we assume you are agreeable with selective prosecution for political enemies from the party in power?

[Horace]

@taiwan_girl said in Trump fine GoFundMe:

Probably . But usually prosecutors will try to get the most "bang for buck", targeting someone who will give them the maximum publicity and exposure.

I am guessing that this case may cause others to think again before giving a false value of real estate.

Was that the reason here? No - I am sure it was political, but it may have the consequence of stopping others from doing the same thing.

As I mentioned above, like the IRS going after people. Lets say I knowingly do an illegal tax "write off". Everybody is doing it. Will the IRS come after me (or you) or go after celebrity XX? Even though they did not come after me, I would probably think again before doing the tax write-off

(For example, this just came up)

https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/irs-begins-audits-of-corporate-jet-usage-part-of-larger-effort-to-ensure-high-income-groups-dont-fly-under-the-radar-on-tax-responsibilities

So it's your contention that Trump is being targeted because he's famous, and in turn, that's because this is the best way for those targeting him, to cut down on false reports of property value?

Or is there just some large part of your brain that becomes satisfied when you can weave a narrative that sounds good, even while other parts of your brain know the narrative is false?

[89th]

@Jolly said in Trump fine GoFundMe:

@89th said in Trump fine GoFundMe:

@Jolly said in Trump fine GoFundMe:

It's not that everybody does it, it's that AFAIK, nobody has ever been prosecuted just this way under this statute, and NOBODY has received a fine such as this.

Personally, I think it's unconstitutional.

I guess we'll find out.

I’d imagine there have been countless of similar cases prosecuted for such type of fraud and ill gotten gains. Not sure where to search and find that info, though.

Give me one, besides Trump.

Looks like there's been an average of about 300 per year, where this code is the top charge against a defendant.

[Horace]

@89th said in Trump fine GoFundMe:

@Jolly said in Trump fine GoFundMe:

@89th said in Trump fine GoFundMe:

@Jolly said in Trump fine GoFundMe:

It's not that everybody does it, it's that AFAIK, nobody has ever been prosecuted just this way under this statute, and NOBODY has received a fine such as this.

Personally, I think it's unconstitutional.

I guess we'll find out.

I’d imagine there have been countless of similar cases prosecuted for such type of fraud and ill gotten gains. Not sure where to search and find that info, though.

Give me one, besides Trump.

Looks like there's been an average of about 300 per year, where this code is the top charge against a defendant.

I don't think the question is whether the statute had never been used before for any reason.

[89th]

The question was whether anyone besides Trump has been tried in NY for falsifying business documents and gaining money from the fraud. Apparently about 300 a year it seems. Although admittedly most of the amounts were not bigly, like Trump's.

[Horace]

@89th said in Trump fine GoFundMe:

The question was whether anyone besides Trump has been tried in NY for falsifying business documents and gaining money from the fraud.

So, it's your contention that anybody here thinks nobody has ever been prosecuted for falsifying documents and gaining money from fraud?

It's not more reasonable to try to understand the actual claims being made? Just dunk on an obviously absurd claim that one would have to be a moron to believe?

We're all better than that here, and now that I've been the target of death threats by mentally ill Trump haters, I think we all realize just how serious these discussions are. This is a matter of life and death, and we simply must elevate our understanding and compassion. I am terrified.

[Mik]

Again, how many times in NY has someone been prosecuted for fraud in a long-concluded business venture where everyone profited? How many New Yorkers have been the target of prosecutions like this that were brought to them by journalists whose singular goal was to harm those being investigated? How many DAs have run on the promise of prosecuting a named individual?

[89th]

@Horace said in Trump fine GoFundMe:

@89th said in Trump fine GoFundMe:

The question was whether anyone besides Trump has been tried in NY for falsifying business documents and gaining money from the fraud.

So, it's your contention that anybody here thinks nobody has ever been prosecuted for falsifying documents and gaining money from fraud?

It's not more reasonable to try to understand the actual claims being made? Just dunk on an obviously absurd claim that one would have to be a moron to believe?

I was just replying to this request:

We're all better than that here

Speak for yourself! I am certainly not above a literal reply.

[89th]

@Mik said in Trump fine GoFundMe:

Again, how many times in NY has someone been prosecuted for fraud in a long-concluded business venture where everyone profited? How many New Yorkers have been the target of prosecutions like this that were brought to them by journalists whose singular goal was to harm those being investigated? How many DAs have run on the promise of prosecuting a named individual?

I am totally with you on this. I really am.

That being said, I do not have a problem if someone committed fraud years ago, profited hundreds of millions of dollars from it, and later were exposed and fined. Could be Biden. Could be my neighbor. It was so blatantly illegal and fraudulent. If exposed, so be it. Don't to the crime if you can't afford the fine.

[Horace]

@89th said in Trump fine GoFundMe:

@Horace said in Trump fine GoFundMe:

@89th said in Trump fine GoFundMe:

The question was whether anyone besides Trump has been tried in NY for falsifying business documents and gaining money from the fraud.

So, it's your contention that anybody here thinks nobody has ever been prosecuted for falsifying documents and gaining money from fraud?

It's not more reasonable to try to understand the actual claims being made? Just dunk on an obviously absurd claim that one would have to be a moron to believe?

I was just replying to this request:

We're all better than that here

Speak for yourself! I am certainly not above a literal reply.

So, "such type" can be interpreted broadly enough to make the claim imbecilic, or spefically enough to make it reasonably open to question.

The broad interpretation would be that this "type" of prosecution was over false documents and fraud.

A more specific interpretation might be loan paperwork with misrepresented property values from long ago, for a loan which was granted and subsequently repaid with all appropriate interest.

[Mik]

@89th said in Trump fine GoFundMe:

@Mik said in Trump fine GoFundMe:

Again, how many times in NY has someone been prosecuted for fraud in a long-concluded business venture where everyone profited? How many New Yorkers have been the target of prosecutions like this that were brought to them by journalists whose singular goal was to harm those being investigated? How many DAs have run on the promise of prosecuting a named individual?

I am totally with you on this. I really am.

That being said, I do not have a problem if someone committed fraud years ago, profited hundreds of millions of dollars from it, and later were exposed and fined. Could be Biden. Could be my neighbor. It was so blatantly illegal and fraudulent. If exposed, so be it. Don't to the crime if you can't afford the fine.

But it wasn't anybody. It was a specifically targeted individual simply because some folks don't like him and will do anything to harm him.