financials. My point is that kind of thing happens, literally, all the time. The banks were not harmed, and in fact wanted to do more business with Trump. I posit that the "damages" (to the extent there were any at all), will be brought down, potentially to nothing. I never said this was all made up, you can re-read my post. I said it's rather common, and the lender has almost every avenue to diligence this, and if they feel they're not getting proper diligence, they don't need to make the loan. In this case, they made the loan and had the desire to do more lending to Trump. My point is, if you're going to enforce this, I guarantee you there are many many more people doing business in NY that would get caught up in this web. If his name was anything other than Trump this would have been a non-issue. It's a dangerous precedent and can now be used by AGs who don't like politicians who are more favored on this board. I've reviewed the facts of the case and while yes Trump absolutely inflated his assets, this judgment was insane and the bond was rightfully reduced, it's not "one set of rules for Trump" as posited by the OP, unless that set of rules is unfavorable to Trump as was clearly on display in this case. You don't get to say "oh, he brought this on himself because he ran for office", so therefore a case that never would have been brought and never really is brought makes sense. It's dangerous, and absolutely a slippery slope. We'll see if a political AG on the right starts doing these kinds of things to Democrats and dusts off the lawbooks to "get" Democrats, whether Kbyrnes and others on this board are as enthusiastic as they are about this case.
Meanwhile, on Monday a police officer in NY was murdered by a criminal out on bail ($2k bail for a gun charge) who has a rap sheet longer than this thread.
Anyway, I'm out for now, appreciate the volley and have a good evening.