Trump INDICTED

[Maximum Overkill 646]

 

[Mike Honcho 4,037]

14 minutes ago, Strike said:

So you believe Trump DID get better rates?  Just want this on the record.

Yes, it's absolutely on the record,

 

Quote

 

Here’s a look inside Donald Trump’s $355 million civil fraud verdict

WHY DOES TRUMP OWE SO MUCH?

Engoron found that Trump’s phony wealth claims were critical to his success, affording him lower loan interest rates and allowing him to build projects he wouldn’t have otherwise been able to finish. The judge determined that those savings and windfall profits were “ill-gotten gains” and ordered him and his co-defendants to cough them up to the state, with interest.

 

So again, where are loans that Stewart benefitted from with better interests rates by overvaluing his home?

[TimHauck 1,801]

2 hours ago, Strike said:

You're not too bright, are you?  Much of LeBitchia James' case is based on the tax valuations of Trump properties.  NO ONE actually thinks Jon Stewart should be prosecuted/indicted.  We are just joking about it due to the hypocrisy because NEITHER Trump or Stewart should be prosecuted. 

I’ll admit I haven’t followed every detail of the case, but I can guaranfockingtee they didn’t get a judgement based on TAX valuations.  It’s because he lied to lenders/banks.  What I mentioned earlier was that it was discovered that he also lied about the occupancy rates of his buildings, which could have had an impact on taxes.

[Ron_Artest 681]

5 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

I’ll admit I haven’t followed every detail of the case, but I can guaranfockingtee they didn’t get a judgement based on TAX valuations.  It’s because he lied to lenders/banks.  What I mentioned earlier was that it was discovered that he also lied about the occupancy rates of his buildings, which could have had an impact on taxes.

He lied about the square footage of Trump Tower, he lied about Trump Park Place not being rent controlled, which inflates value.  He inflated his personal net worth so he could get personal loans at lower rates from Deutsche Bank than he could have otherwise gotten from his commercial division.  Strike doesn't know what he's talking about.

[Mike Honcho 4,037]

5 minutes ago, Ron_Artest said:

He lied about the square footage of Trump Tower, he lied about Trump Park Place not being rent controlled, which inflates value.  He inflated his personal net worth so he could get personal loans at lower rates from Deutsche Bank than he could have otherwise gotten from his commercial division.  Strike doesn't know what he's talking about.

I'm sure he will be here shortly for insulting people and admitting his mistake. 

[Strike 3,979]

1 hour ago, Mike Honcho said:

Yes, it's absolutely on the record,

 

So again, where are loans that Stewart benefitted from with better interests rates by overvaluing his home?

The judge's findings were made without a trial.  The whole sham is very likely to be overturned on appeal.  So you can believe his "findings" if you want, but you'll very likely end up with egg on your face when all is said and done.  The actual bankers who loaned Trump the money testified, FOR HIM, in the part of the trial they actually held related to damages.  They had no problems with how the loans were processed or the documentation Trump provided.  There is no actual evidence that he got better rates due to any assertions he made on his loan documents.  That is all from the fantasy world of Letitia James and the judge.  So gloat while you can because the judge "found" that Trump got better rates, but prepare for the time when you have to admit that wasn't the case.

[TimHauck 1,801]

The winner of the backtracking competition is… @Strike!!

[Mike Honcho 4,037]

3 minutes ago, Strike said:

The judge's findings were made without a trial.  The whole sham is very likely to be overturned on appeal.  So you can believe his "findings" if you want, but you'll very likely end up with egg on your face when all is said and done.  The actual bankers who loaned Trump the money testified, FOR HIM, in the part of the trial they actually held related to damages.  They had no problems with how the loans were processed or the documentation Trump provided.  There is no actual evidence that he got better rates due to any assertions he made on his loan documents.  That is all from the fantasy world of Letitia James and the judge.  So gloat while you can because the judge "found" that Trump got better rates, but prepare for the time when you have to admit that wasn't the case.

1. There was a trial.  

2. Your "facts" are based on what you believe and not real evidence.  Standard tactic these days by you righties. 

3. No evidence he got favorable rates, except for the bankers you are talking about who testified for Trump.
 

Quote

Deutsche Bank reviewed the financial statements before making the loans through its department that works with rich individuals — a pathway that allowed for more favorable interest rates than likely available from the commercial real estate division, according to the lawsuit. The deals came with conditions about Trump’s net worth and, sometimes, liquidity, and they often required annual submissions of his financial statements.

4.  Where is the loan Steward received that would make bringing up his apartment sale price relevant? 

 

[Strike 3,979]

Just now, TimHauck said:

The winner of the backtracking competition is… @Strike!!

How did I backtrack?  There is NO EVIDENCE that he got lower rates.  A judge deciding he did without evidence is idiotic.  So you can join the list of those who will be proven wrong when this lawfare case is tossed on appeal. 

[Strike 3,979]

Just now, Mike Honcho said:

4.  Where is the loan Steward received that would make bringing up his apartment sale price relevant? 

 

What is a loan steward? 

[TimHauck 1,801]

7 minutes ago, Strike said:

How did I backtrack?  There is NO EVIDENCE that he got lower rates.  A judge deciding he did without evidence is idiotic.  So you can join the list of those who will be proven wrong when this lawfare case is tossed on appeal. 

What @Mike Honcho just said.

 

 Will you at least admit you were wrong that James’ case was not based on TAX valuations?

If not then there’s no use conversing with you.

[Strike 3,979]

8 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

What @Mike Honcho just said.

 

 Will you at least admit you were wrong that James’ case was not based on TAX valuations?

If not then there’s no use conversing with you.

No, I won't admit I'm wrong.  Why would I when I'm RIGHT?   The judge based his valuation of Mar Logo on the assessed value of the property by the government.  See page 26 of this document:

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23991872/ny-ruling-on-trump-business-fraud.pdf

He ignored the admitted the opinion from a submitted affidavit of a high end real estate broker who said Trump's valuation of that property was reasonable.  Not that it should matter.  As has been discussed ad nauseum, banks in these types of loan situations do their own due diligence. 

For you and Honcho I ask, do you really believe that the banks loaned Trump this money based simply on the documents he provided them without using their own people to make their own determinations on value and ability to pay?

[Hardcore troubadour 12,656]

Trump can’t take out a loan because someone else won’t get one. Ok. Who didn’t get one? Fockin retards. 

[Mike Honcho 4,037]

23 minutes ago, Strike said:

No, I won't admit I'm wrong.  Why would I when I'm RIGHT?   The judge based his valuation of Mar Logo on the assessed value of the property by the government.  See page 26 of this document:

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23991872/ny-ruling-on-trump-business-fraud.pdf

He ignored the admitted the opinion from a submitted affidavit of a high end real estate broker who said Trump's valuation of that property was reasonable.  Not that it should matter.  As has been discussed ad nauseum, banks in these types of loan situations do their own due diligence. 

For you and Honcho I ask, do you really believe that the banks loaned Trump this money based simply on the documents he provided them without using their own people to make their own determinations on value and ability to pay?

Were you right when you said there was no trial?  Or that he didn't get better interest rates because of his inflated net worth valuations...

Again, anything related to Jon StewarT and the fraudulent  bank loans he received that would be reason for James to charge him?

As to your question, neither of us has stated that to be the case. 

ETA: You will squirm on all issues until all the appeals run out, so I'll forego anymore discussion with you until then. 

[Engorgeous George 1,176]

49 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

1. There was a trial.  

2. Your "facts" are based on what you believe and not real evidence.  Standard tactic these days by you righties. 

3. No evidence he got favorable rates, except for the bankers you are talking about who testified for Trump.
 

4.  Where is the loan Steward received that would make bringing up his apartment sale price relevant? 

 

I was under the impression that a sophisticated lender like Deutsche Bank did their own very thorough due diligence relying not at all on the assertions of the borrower as those assertions are historically unreliable.  With this not being my area of expertise, and with me only minimally following the hearig testimony and the ruling I could well be wrong. it may be that the lenders relied in some degree on the assertions of Trump.  If so I would have thought it was their right to go after him civilly.  I am skeptical that the govrnment  has a genuine interest here as the parties have pathways to rfemedies, fully adequate remedies, without the government getting involved.  Do we know whether the lenderes relied in any measure on Trump's assertions or if they only look at their own investigation, separate and apart from those assertions.

 

My guess, there probacbly was some minimal reliance, at least, on Trump's assertions.   There was probably somewhat greater reliance on Tax and Building department records, and somewht more on direct investigation, but again, in my case this would all be wild speculation.

[Mike Honcho 4,037]

1 minute ago, Engorgeous George said:

I was under the impression that a sophisticated lender like Deutsche Bank did their own very thorough due diligence relying not at all on the assertions of the borrower as those assertions are historically unreliable.  With this not being my area of expertise, and with me only minimally following the hearig testimony and the ruling I could well be wrong. it may be that the lenders relied in some degree on the assertions of Trump.  If so I would have thought it was their right to go after him civilly.  I am skeptical that the govdrnment  has a genuine interest here as the parties have pathways to rfemedies, fully adequate remedies, without the government getting involved.  Do we know whether the lenderes relied in any measure on Trump's assertions or if they only look at their own investigation, sepearte and apart from those assertions.

 

My guess, there probacbly was some minimal reliance, at least, on Trump's assertions.   There was probacbly somewhat greter reliance on Tax and Building department records, and somewaht more on direct investigation, but again, in my case this would all be wild speculation.

These laws are created to prevent fraud so that businesses are competing on a level playing field.  Is the AG supposed to ignore these laws, because the bank didn't bring up the issue?  

[Engorgeous George 1,176]

27 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

These laws are created to prevent fraud so that businesses are competing on a level playing field.  Is the AG supposed to ignore these laws, because the bank didn't bring up the issue?  

As an attorney I sort of believe in the concept of exhaustion of remedies.  That means before a court takes up a matter it requires that plaintiffs look to see if there is a more minimal authority who can provide complete remedy.  If so, that is the appropriate venue for a matter.  I also understand that the laws under which Trump was charged was intended to create full disclouse by lenders to unsophistiucated borrowers.  I understand the language is general enough to palpably argue the language flows both ways so I don't really care to argue it should not, but I do look at the original intent. Finally I do think the due dilligence of the lender is what creates a level playing field.  Where the government the lender I could see their interest here.

 

in the end I understand the arguments for finding Trump liable, I just have some philosophical troubles with the arguments.  That said, Trump got hoisted on his own petard and me not liking the man I must say I experienced a bit of schadenfreude when it happened.  My enjoyment aside I am uncomforatable with the motivations of the A.G.  I think pandora's box has been opened and the witch has a stanky box indeed.

 

I do welcome evidence to educate me on how much reliance commercial lenders palce on assertions of collateral vqalue in loan applications.  
Seems to me someone here might have insight into that.

[TimHauck 1,801]

29 minutes ago, Strike said:

No, I won't admit I'm wrong.  Why would I when I'm RIGHT?   The judge based his valuation of Mar Logo on the assessed value of the property by the government.  See page 26 of this document:

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23991872/ny-ruling-on-trump-business-fraud.pdf

He ignored the admitted the opinion from a submitted affidavit of a high end real estate broker who said Trump's valuation of that property was reasonable.  Not that it should matter.  As has been discussed ad nauseum, banks in these types of loan situations do their own due diligence. 

For you and Honcho I ask, do you really believe that the banks loaned Trump this money based simply on the documents he provided them without using their own people to make their own determinations on value and ability to pay?

That is only in the summary judgement. I don’t see any reference to the tax valuation of Mar a Lago in the final 92 page document (it is discussed on page 67).  And even in the summary judgement that is the only property where the tax valuation is referenced, yet you said that’s what MUCH of her case was based on.

It’s okay, you can admit you were wrong.

[Engorgeous George 1,176]

Now admittedly the concept of exhaustion of remedies is usually a civil concept and usually applies to filings when there are still administrqtive processes available to a plaintiff, but the concept is one I believe in.

[TimHauck 1,801]

18 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

I was under the impression that a sophisticated lender like Deutsche Bank did their own very thorough due diligence relying not at all on the assertions of the borrower as those assertions are historically unreliable.  With this not being my area of expertise, and with me only minimally following the hearig testimony and the ruling I could well be wrong. it may be that the lenders relied in some degree on the assertions of Trump.  If so I would have thought it was their right to go after him civilly.  I am skeptical that the govrnment  has a genuine interest here as the parties have pathways to rfemedies, fully adequate remedies, without the government getting involved.  Do we know whether the lenderes relied in any measure on Trump's assertions or if they only look at their own investigation, separate and apart from those assertions.

 

My guess, there probacbly was some minimal reliance, at least, on Trump's assertions.   There was probably somewhat greater reliance on Tax and Building department records, and somewht more on direct investigation, but again, in my case this would all be wild speculation.

This is probably true, and yeah it’s probably true that many others are doing similar things without being taken to court. But it’s still wrong, and not remotely similar to someone selling their property for higher than the tax value.

[Engorgeous George 1,176]

8 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

This is probably true, and yeah it’s probably true that many others are doing similar things without being taken to court. But it’s still wrong, and not remotely similar to someone selling their property for higher than the tax value.

Which is why I never made that argument.

 

i look at my property.  It has an assessed value.  They take that assessed value, multiple it by a mill levy, and come up with my taxes.  My assessed value, and everyone's in my county is lower than actaul value.  The reason is so that we cannnot challenge the assessed value.  That way the government gets their taxes, their bounty on my life.  What I and others cannot challenge is the mill levy multiplier which is way all governments use this paradigm, governments don't like challenges.  They ahve a target of vlue they want to acquire but they do so disingenuously.

[RLLD 3,455]

3 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

This is probably true, and yeah it’s probably true that many others are doing similar things without being taken to court. But it’s still wrong, and not remotely similar to someone selling their property for higher than the tax value.

You know, some years ago.....I made an argument about people selling real estate for more than its intrinsic value being a negative and that was not well received here....

[Engorgeous George 1,176]

Talking concepts in the middle of a partisan fight almost always has folks assuming one is a staking horse for one side or the otheer.  I get it, after 30 years of folks trying to tarp others into arguments and positions we are all wary of the practice.  Me, I gave up that simplistic practice many years ago.  I am sincerely interested in the ramifications of this test case which may change the law.  i don't give a damn about Trump or Biden as I find both unpaletable and frankly far beneath what we should have, and what we deserve in the Office of President.

 

We should have been careful what we asked for.

[Strike 3,979]

45 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

These laws are created to prevent fraud so that businesses are competing on a level playing field.  Is the AG supposed to ignore these laws, because the bank didn't bring up the issue?  

By everyone's admission this law has NEVER been used in this manner and this is not the use case it was enacted for.  This is simply a political witch hunt and using any law you can fit in to the round hole to get him.  And that's wrong.

[seafoam1 1,879]

Trump is the biggest threat to the liberal idiocy in this country and liberals know it. 

They have spent the last 9 years of their lives, 24x7, to "GET TRUMP!!"

[Hardcore troubadour 12,656]

23 minutes ago, Strike said:

By everyone's admission this law has NEVER been used in this manner and this is not the use case it was enacted for.  This is simply a political witch hunt and using any law you can fit in to the round hole to get him.  And that's wrong.

They went back 70 years. Not even a court case that was thrown out.  But it’s not political and liberals are good with it. 

[Strike 3,979]

59 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

That is only in the summary judgement. I don’t see any reference to the tax valuation of Mar a Lago in the final 92 page document (it is discussed on page 67).  And even in the summary judgement that is the only property where the tax valuation is referenced, yet you said that’s what MUCH of her case was based on.

It’s okay, you can admit you were wrong.

1)  You didn't answer the question I posed to you up above.  I wonder why........

2)  I provided a link to my supporting document.  You didn't so I can't check your work.

3)  I showed that I wasn't wrong.  The fact that you get hard when you think you might have proven me wrong clouds your ability to see that.  You should go whack off thinking of me so you can clear your mind and start being able to reason again.

[Strike 3,979]

4 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

They went back 70 years. Not even a court case that was thrown out.  But it’s not political and liberals are good with it. 

Come on man.  @TimHauck and @Mike Honcho are centrists!!!!! 

[BeachGuy23 512]

1 hour ago, Strike said:

No, I won't admit I'm wrong.  Why would I when I'm RIGHT?   The judge based his valuation of Mar Logo on the assessed value of the property by the government.  See page 26 of this document:

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23991872/ny-ruling-on-trump-business-fraud.pdf

He ignored the admitted the opinion from a submitted affidavit of a high end real estate broker who said Trump's valuation of that property was reasonable.  Not that it should matter.  As has been discussed ad nauseum, banks in these types of loan situations do their own due diligence. 

For you and Honcho I ask, do you really believe that the banks loaned Trump this money based simply on the documents he provided them without using their own people to make their own determinations on value and ability to pay?

The tax assessed value did not figure into the damages dopey.

Please educated yourself before you post more idiotic alt right lies. 

[Strike 3,979]

1 minute ago, BeachGuy23 said:

The tax assessed value did not figure into the damages dopey.

Please educated yourself before you post more idiotic alt right lies. 

Well that's a relief, especially since the discussion I was having had NOTHING to do with the damages amount Boyo

[BeachGuy23 512]

1 minute ago, Strike said:

Well that's a relief, especially since the discussion I was having had NOTHING to do with the damages amount Boyo

Then why did you bring up the tax assessed value of MAL?  It played not at all into the judgment and penalties.

It's an alt right talking point to try to deflect from the actual crimes Trump committed.

Do better boyo. 

[Strike 3,979]

Just now, BeachGuy23 said:

Then why did you bring up the tax assessed value of MAL?  It played not at all into the judgment and penalties.

It's an alt right talking point to try to deflect from the actual crimes Trump committed.

Do better boyo. 

The discussion is public.  You can go back and read it if you'd like.   Whether you'd be able to comprehend what you read is debatable. 

[BeachGuy23 512]

2 minutes ago, Strike said:

The discussion is public.  You can go back and read it if you'd like.   Whether you'd be able to comprehend what you read is debatable. 

Hey did you hear the judge only valued MAL at its tax assessed value of $18M?

Cleary the whole judgement against Trump is rigged!!!

LMFAO

[TimHauck 1,801]

1 hour ago, Engorgeous George said:

Which is why I never made that argument.

Never said you did.  But apparently @Strike and much of right wing twitter are

[TimHauck 1,801]

1 hour ago, RLLD said:

You know, some years ago.....I made an argument about people selling real estate for more than its intrinsic value being a negative and that was not well received here....

As it should have been…

[Engorgeous George 1,176]

3 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Never said you did.  But apparently @Strike and much of right wing twitter are

I guess I inferred as much as you raised your point seemingly in response to my posting.  That said my inference was a bridge too far, clearly not your intent, and I accept your explanation as true from the inception of your posting.

[Ron_Artest 681]

2 hours ago, Strike said:

The judge's findings were made without a trial.  There is no actual evidence that he got better rates due to any assertions he made on his loan documents.  That is all from the fantasy world of Letitia James and the judge.  So gloat while you can because the judge "found" that Trump got better rates, but prepare for the time when you have to admit that wasn't the case.

Except for testimony, during the trial...

Quote

 

Trump’s “statements of financial condition” were key to his approval for a $125 million loan in 2011 for his golf resort in Doral, Florida, and a $107 million loan in 2012 for his Chicago hotel and condo skyscraper, former Deutsche Bank risk management officer Nicholas Haigh testified.

Those numbers helped Trump secure bigger loans and lower interest rates, said Haigh, who headed the risk group for the bank’s private wealth management unit from 2008 to 2018.

 

https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-letitia-james-fraud-new-york-364d1052f98816121000c26dc66f3878

Quote

 

Nicholas Haigh was formerly a risk manager at Deutsche Bank, the German lender that issued Trump a $125 million loan 12 years ago. He testified that he allowed Trump to use one of his properties, the Doral Golf Resort and Spa in Miami, as collateral for the loan. 

Haigh conceded that it was a rare practice for the bank, but given Trump’s claimed net worth, Deutsche Bank signed off on the loan anyway. 

 

https://www.courthousenews.com/witness-ties-trumps-phony-finance-statements-to-125-million-deutsche-bank-loan/

[BeachGuy23 512]

7 minutes ago, Ron_Artest said:

Except for testimony, during the trial...

https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-letitia-james-fraud-new-york-364d1052f98816121000c26dc66f3878

https://www.courthousenews.com/witness-ties-trumps-phony-finance-statements-to-125-million-deutsche-bank-loan/

Damn Ron just destroying cultist as usual.

Step away from your fake, alt right news cultist. 

[TimHauck 1,801]

22 minutes ago, Strike said:

1)  You didn't answer the question I posed to you up above.  I wonder why........

2)  I provided a link to my supporting document.  You didn't so I can't check your work.

3)  I showed that I wasn't wrong.  The fact that you get hard when you think you might have proven me wrong clouds your ability to see that.  You should go whack off thinking of me so you can clear your mind and start being able to reason again.

1) I pretty much answered the question in my reply to @Engorgeous George.  But it’s still wrong and not even remotely similar to what Jon Stewart “did.”

2) Didn’t you post the link to the 92 page document when you were talking with @The Real timschochet ?  But OK, here ya go, as I stated the Mar a Lago piece is on page 67, where the focus is more on Trump valuing it as a personal residence when it is not able to be used as a personal residence

https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/decisions/trump-decision.pdf

3) You said MUCH of James’s case was based on tax valuations, which is clearly not true.   Even in the document you shared, there were sections for 6 other properties (Trump Tower Triplex, Seven Springs Estate, Trump Park Avenue, 40 Wall Street, Aberdeen, US Golf Clubs).   Mar a Lago was the only one that mentioned a tax appraisal, which once again was not included in the final decision.  Clearly it wasn’t much of her argument, this case is not even remotely similar to Jon Stewart selling a property for higher than the tax value.

You’re wrong.

[Mike Honcho 4,037]

1 hour ago, Strike said:

By everyone's admission this law has NEVER been used in this manner and this is not the use case it was enacted for.  This is simply a political witch hunt and using any law you can fit in to the round hole to get him.  And that's wrong.

Please link to everyone. 

 

From Forbes about Trump saying the law had never been used before(not sure if that's what you heard and misrepresenting it here):

Trump’s claim that statute 63(12) has “never been used before” is false, with the New York AG using the law to bring lawsuits against such parties as a leasing company, e-cigarette company JUUL Labs and a predatory lender company. The Trump Organization case isn’t even the first time 63(12) has been used against Trump and his businesses, as former AG Eric Schneiderman previously sued Trump University under the statute, which resulted in a $25 million settlement in 2018.