• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    47 months ago

    The crime was probably called “Fraud”

    So much for being “Very knowledgeable about the case” then…

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      -57 months ago

      I dont know legalese, but if that is the excuse you have to escape an argument that you should never have gotten into then so be it.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        47 months ago

        What argument? You still haven’t presented an argument other than “Is Not!” Which is so juvenile it doesn’t even need to be addressed.

        You’re the one who has presented yourself as “very knowledgeable on the case”. I would guess Trump’s legal team presented a defence more substantial than “NUH-UH” that you could have at least shared. But you don’t know what the actual legal argument of the defense was, nor the actual charges (other than “probably fraud”). If you don’t know the “legalise” how do you know it was interpreted wrong?

        No wonder you think Kevin O’Leary is an expert on the case: you know less than he does and O’Leary barely knows anything about the case.
        I did as you asked, gave you a direct question, and was met with a shrug. You’ve made your ignorance on the case clear and I will not waste any more time seeing if you have a novel view on the case to consider. You are just parroting the billionaire taking points I’ve already heard.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          -57 months ago

          The argument is that it was a normal financing process and there was no victim or person/corporation that claimed to be wronged. People are allowed to claim their property is worth whatever they wish. Its really that simple and obvious. That is why I say you dont know anything about the case because you only have the standard NPC insults.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            3
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            people are allowed to claim their property is worth whatever they wish

            Not on their taxes. I can’t claim my property is worth $1 to avoid paying taxes on it.

            That is why I say you dont know anything about the case

            And if that is true you have done nothing to explain the case better to me or anyone else who might read this thread.

            The internet is full of idiots who think the Earth is flat, or that Kevin O’Leary is an expert in the American Legal system. You’re not going to convince anyone with “just trust me bro.”

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              -27 months ago

              You are are right about taxes, but that is not what he did. The government get to assign the value for property taxes and the property owner has the right to contest them. Also property taxes dont actually reflect the value of the property, and that gets very skewed on higher value properties.

              If you have things you think he did wrong then I can tell you why I disagree, but I cant just argue without being pointed in the direction you think I am wrong.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                17 months ago

                If you have things you think he did wrong then I can tell you why I disagree

                The things he was charged with.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  -37 months ago

                  And like I said, it was normal perfectly legal things. If you want to get more specific then feel free, or if you want a more in depth explaination feel free to listen to the evil billionaire that you hate for reasons.

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    17 months ago

                    And like I said, it was normal perfectly legal things.

                    And like I said: “it was legal, trust me bro” is not a legal defense.

                    If you want to get more specific then feel free

                    The evidence and arguments presented by the prosecution. You should be well familiar with them seeing as you know the case so well.