Legal analysts say Trump admitted that the intent in financial representations he made was to convince lenders to loan him money.
Legal analysts say Trump admitted that the intent in financial representations he made was to convince lenders to loan him money.
Yeah, I’m not sure what the news part about this is. This feels like it’s building to something newsworthy but isn’t itself newsworthy. It’s not exactly shocking that the person applying for a loan wanted a loan.
The lawyers and legal analysts think it’s significant. While it seems obvious to us, it’s part of proving their case step-by-step.
That’s exactly what I said. It is a piece to building something newsworthy, but in itself isn’t.
Why don’t you go ahead and tell all of these legal analysts they’re wrong, I wonder how they would react to a layman such as yourself dripping with willful ignorance telling them what they say is meaningless and not shocking
Like, it’s not about shock it’s about the court case. If you don’t understand it, maybe try and learn first. I’ll give you a jump start, check out Justice Matters with Glenn Kirschner, Legal AF, or the Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s The breakdown: the Trump indictment
Maybe you’ll actually understand what is being done and why, informed by actual fucking lawyers instead of going by news articles and clickbait.
That’s not how this works. I shouldn’t have to be previously informed of legal documents in order to understand a news article. The article should cover that… I don’t have the time to be reading legal docs that will in no way benefit my life. If the news can’t inform me, then it isn’t newsworthy. That’s just bad journalism.
So what’s missing then?
The parts that everyone here has added for context.
The news is that the left never learned that Trump rode his way to presidency off these meaningless “guyz guess what stupid thing le drumpf did today click our paywall article to find out and remember to turn off ad blocker or you hate democracy” articles.