Would you just go ahead and post the quote itself? I’m looking at page 21 of the pdf and don’t see footnotes on that page or any page. Where are the footnotes? Help?
Thank you for this, it’s gold.
My favorite line of his so far: “We have the Mona Lisas of properties.”
So… smaller than you expected and kind of underwhelming in person?
Agreed that it shoulda just been posted–it’s a little annoying to make coy references to it–but I have no trouble finding it:
You know, in a lot of the more cut throat areas of the business world, the ability to lie, cheat, steal, and deceive another is not only part of the game, but is considered an art. T can’t seem to understand that that is not the case overall. He’s bragging about being the best con man while forgetting that he’s in trouble for conning people.
So, my read of the last few posts is that Trump is claiming that, since he made it clear that his valuations are fraudulent, then it should be OK? And, the judge said, look, you made it crystal clear that these valuations are fraudulent, so I find in favor of the State?
And, now, Trump is doubling down and saying, look, I told you I was a fraud, what’s the issue?
Honestly, all I can think of is this conversation from The Good Place:
Chidi: So your job was to defraud the elderly. Sorry, the sick and elderly.
Eleanor: But I was very good at it. I was the top salesperson five years running.
Chidi: Okay, but that’s worse. I mean, you… you do get how that’s worse, right?
He’s saying that his disclaimer means everything preceding it was negated and therefore fraud was impossible.
Like tearing into somebody, saying “no offense” at the end, and being confused that anybody is mad.
The old “I was just joking!” defense writ large, eh?
Could a legal person talk about the “objecting to the form” objections? I see on the Internet that the purpose is to object without leading the witness or otherwise injecting themselves into the deposition, but what’s the practical effect of all these objections after the fact? Will each one be reviewed later to determine whether certain lines of questioning can be allowed as evidence? Is it just a giant COR (cover our asses) for the defending attorneys?
2 posts were merged into an existing topic: What happens if Trump is indicted in Georgia? (Indicted on August 14, 2023)
Of all the people who might try the “I’m too stupid to have committed fraud” defense, Eric Trump is the one I’d most likely believe.
I don’t see it. On page 29 of the .pdf I assume was being referenced, I only see footnote 24.
Can you post the footnote so we can all see it?
See post 342.
Ah yes, the rarely used, undefeatable Otter Defense.
Moderating:
Both of those are unrelated to the thread topic, and belong in the Georgia thread, so I’m moving them.
Never mind. Answered by @RitterSport.
And that conveniently ignores the fact that there were other victims of these frauds. He played games with his tax valuations, so paid less tax, and also used them to get lower insurance rates, so the insurance companies were harmed. It’s like being charged with murder, arson and littering, and then claiming you’re absolved because you went back with a garbage can.
[quote=“Left_Hand_of_Dorkness, post:343, topic:971991, full:true”]
Agreed that it shoulda just been posted–it’s a little annoying to make coy references to it–but I have no trouble finding it:
Reposting. Note, Chico Marx was one of the Marx Brothers.
ETA: I screwed up the coding somehow, but it’s all there anyway.
I’m sorry for the mix-up raventhief.
apologies, when i wrote that i couldn’t copy and paste. thank you left hand of dorkness for the quote.