Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (1452310)	4/15/2024 3:45:39 PM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Recommended By longz Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575783

>> Had Trump gotten away with his fraud, it would have established a precedent, that you can blatantly lie about anything and everything you have, then blame the other party for not doing their "due diligence." Fraud is a legal term, and there was none. Neither was there any evidence of a lie. >> No matter how you slice it, Trump lied. It is one thing to accuse him. But where is the proof of it? No one had any proof. In fact, compelling evidence was produced to the contrary, which the judge contorted and twisted into something it wasn't. I'm sorry, but you are easily misled on this subject matter. But no one has produced anything remotely like proof, even of the low standard of civil fraud. And you can't cite it: You claim merely that you know it happened. Like almost every good Californian. Never mind that the trial, along with half dozen others just like it, is designed for the specific intent of preventing Trump from running in 2024. They knew he was running for four years, yet, only decided in the final months to hold these trials. Pathetic cheap shots aimed at overturning the outcome of the NEXT electin just like they did the last.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (1452310)	4/15/2024 6:12:43 PM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Recommended By longz Respond to of 1575783

>> ... says someone who thinks Trump told the truth when he claimed one of his properties was 30K ft2 when it was actually 11K ft2. Says someone who recognizes this kind of stuff happens. Accountant calls client: "That building you have down on Central? How many square feet you got down there?" Client: "You mean total square feet? I think it is around 30,000 total, everything counted. You need an exact number?" Accountant: "Nah. It isn't part of the financial presentation. Just for the footnotes." 20 years later, two accounting firms later: Accountant: "That building you have down on Central? I see there's a building on Central. Says on the financials about 30K sf. Sound about right? Client bookkeeper: "Yeah, probably. You need me to check it?" Accountant: "No, not really. Have you had any major additions or sales?" Client bookkeeper: "No, nothing new." Accountant: "Ok, 30K it is". That 30K sf amounts to less than 5% of the total. Immaterial even to the building, let alone the entire financial statement. Shit happens.