This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
ElwoodBlues · M
@DogMan No, it's about not letting people in power ACT like kings.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
ElwoodBlues · M
@DogMan Where does the law say the President can send in the National Guard at will?
Tariffs are taxes. Where does the law say the President can set taxes at will?
Where does the law say the President can commit kleptocracy at will?
Tariffs are taxes. Where does the law say the President can set taxes at will?
Where does the law say the President can commit kleptocracy at will?
ElwoodBlues · M
@DogMan says
(1) Witnesses testified that the banks did rely on Trump's fraudulent claims.
(2) Witnesses testified that if they had had an accurate picture of Trump's financial state, he would not have gotten the highly favorable interest rates that he got. If Trump had filed accurate statements he would have had to pay much, much more interest (if they would have given the loans at all).
(3) The penalty was calculated based on that, and the details are all spelled out in the ruling. He defrauded the banks out of the higher interest he would have had to pay in order to get the loans. "No harm was done" is plainly false.
(4) The "no harm was done" defense is so insanely dumb that Trump's lawyers didn't even attempt it in court. (But see the update below for a related "nobody complained" defense.)
Think about how little sense it makes. If you embezzle a million dollars Friday just before the banks close, fly to vegas and bet it all on red at the roulette wheel, and win, and return the million dollars plus interest on Monday as soon as the banks open, would you expect a "no one got hurt" defense to get you acquitted when you go to trial?
Some quotes from the ruling:
(1) For example, p. 9:
In deciding to approve the credit facility, Haigh relied on Donald Trump’s 2011 SFC and assumed that the representations of value of the assets and liabilities were “broadly accurate.” TT 1009-1010; PX 330. The Deutsche Bank Credit Report’s “Financial Analysis” is based on numbers provided by the “family office” (here, the Trump Organization) and contains the same numbers represented in the SFC. PX 293; TT 1010-1013.
And p. 68:
The evidence adduced at trial makes clear that Deutsche Bank relied on the SFCs for the information to underwrite, approve, and maintain the credit facilities on Doral, Trump Chicago, and the Old Post Office. PX 293, PX 3041 at ¶¶ 452-54, 456-466, 476.
And more. And on p. 75 it discusses how absurd this defense was:
Defendants have argued vociferously throughout the trial that there can be no fraud as, they assert, that none of the banks or insurance companies relied on any of the alleged misrepresentations. The proponents of this theory posit that lenders demand complex statements of financial condition but then ignore them.
And (next paragraph) it wouldn't make any difference as a matter of law:
Defendants’ argument is to no avail, as none of plaintiff’s causes of action requires that it demonstrate reliance. Instead, plaintiff must merely show that defendants intended to commit the fraud. Reliance is not a requisite element of either Executive Law § 63(12) or of any of the alleged Penal Law violations.
And (next paragraph) even though it wasn't a requisite element, the claim made by the defense is clearly false:
However, the Court notes that, although not required, there is ample documentary and testimonial evidence that the banks, insurance companies, and the City of New York did, in fact, rely on defendants to be truthful and accurate in their financial submissions. The testimony in this case makes abundantly clear that most, if not all, loans began life based on numbers on an SFC, which the lenders interpreted in their own unique way. The testimony confirmed, rather than refuted, the overriding importance of SFCs in lending decisions.
(2) p. 68:
The record is also clear that Donald Trump would not have received the credit facilities from the Private Wealth Management Division, and the favorable interest rates that came with that, had he not executed an unconditional, “ironclad,” personal guarantee. Moreover, the Private Wealth Management Division was willing to accept the personal guarantees based upon false SFCs.
(3) Here's part of the "disgorgement of ill-gotten gains" calculation, from p. 86:
McCarty calculated the differences between interest rates and determined the following ill-gotten interest savings, which this Court hereby adopts as the most reasonable approximation of the ill- gotten interest rate savings upon which evidence was presented at trial: (1) $72,908,308 from 2014-2022 on the Doral loan; (2) $53,423,209 from 2015-2022 on the Old Post Office loan; (3) $17,443,359 from 2014-2022 on the Chicago loan; and (4) $24,265,291 from 2015-2022 on the 40 Wall Street loan.
In total, defendants’ fraud saved them approximately $168,040,168 in interest, which shall be imposed, jointly and severally, among Donald Trump and the defendant entities that he owns and controls, as the misconduct at issue was committed by the Trump Organization’s top management.
None of it was fraud, the lenders were ALL ok with everything he said and did.
!!! DEAD WRONG !!!(1) Witnesses testified that the banks did rely on Trump's fraudulent claims.
(2) Witnesses testified that if they had had an accurate picture of Trump's financial state, he would not have gotten the highly favorable interest rates that he got. If Trump had filed accurate statements he would have had to pay much, much more interest (if they would have given the loans at all).
(3) The penalty was calculated based on that, and the details are all spelled out in the ruling. He defrauded the banks out of the higher interest he would have had to pay in order to get the loans. "No harm was done" is plainly false.
(4) The "no harm was done" defense is so insanely dumb that Trump's lawyers didn't even attempt it in court. (But see the update below for a related "nobody complained" defense.)
Think about how little sense it makes. If you embezzle a million dollars Friday just before the banks close, fly to vegas and bet it all on red at the roulette wheel, and win, and return the million dollars plus interest on Monday as soon as the banks open, would you expect a "no one got hurt" defense to get you acquitted when you go to trial?
Some quotes from the ruling:
(1) For example, p. 9:
In deciding to approve the credit facility, Haigh relied on Donald Trump’s 2011 SFC and assumed that the representations of value of the assets and liabilities were “broadly accurate.” TT 1009-1010; PX 330. The Deutsche Bank Credit Report’s “Financial Analysis” is based on numbers provided by the “family office” (here, the Trump Organization) and contains the same numbers represented in the SFC. PX 293; TT 1010-1013.
And p. 68:
The evidence adduced at trial makes clear that Deutsche Bank relied on the SFCs for the information to underwrite, approve, and maintain the credit facilities on Doral, Trump Chicago, and the Old Post Office. PX 293, PX 3041 at ¶¶ 452-54, 456-466, 476.
And more. And on p. 75 it discusses how absurd this defense was:
Defendants have argued vociferously throughout the trial that there can be no fraud as, they assert, that none of the banks or insurance companies relied on any of the alleged misrepresentations. The proponents of this theory posit that lenders demand complex statements of financial condition but then ignore them.
And (next paragraph) it wouldn't make any difference as a matter of law:
Defendants’ argument is to no avail, as none of plaintiff’s causes of action requires that it demonstrate reliance. Instead, plaintiff must merely show that defendants intended to commit the fraud. Reliance is not a requisite element of either Executive Law § 63(12) or of any of the alleged Penal Law violations.
And (next paragraph) even though it wasn't a requisite element, the claim made by the defense is clearly false:
However, the Court notes that, although not required, there is ample documentary and testimonial evidence that the banks, insurance companies, and the City of New York did, in fact, rely on defendants to be truthful and accurate in their financial submissions. The testimony in this case makes abundantly clear that most, if not all, loans began life based on numbers on an SFC, which the lenders interpreted in their own unique way. The testimony confirmed, rather than refuted, the overriding importance of SFCs in lending decisions.
(2) p. 68:
The record is also clear that Donald Trump would not have received the credit facilities from the Private Wealth Management Division, and the favorable interest rates that came with that, had he not executed an unconditional, “ironclad,” personal guarantee. Moreover, the Private Wealth Management Division was willing to accept the personal guarantees based upon false SFCs.
(3) Here's part of the "disgorgement of ill-gotten gains" calculation, from p. 86:
McCarty calculated the differences between interest rates and determined the following ill-gotten interest savings, which this Court hereby adopts as the most reasonable approximation of the ill- gotten interest rate savings upon which evidence was presented at trial: (1) $72,908,308 from 2014-2022 on the Doral loan; (2) $53,423,209 from 2015-2022 on the Old Post Office loan; (3) $17,443,359 from 2014-2022 on the Chicago loan; and (4) $24,265,291 from 2015-2022 on the 40 Wall Street loan.
In total, defendants’ fraud saved them approximately $168,040,168 in interest, which shall be imposed, jointly and severally, among Donald Trump and the defendant entities that he owns and controls, as the misconduct at issue was committed by the Trump Organization’s top management.
ElwoodBlues · M
@sunsporter1649 NO, the judge did NOT say that.
@DogMan If you're concerned about how this case got started, it's because tRump's former lawyer dropped a dime on him.
The issue first came to light when Trump's former lawyer, Michael Cohen, testified before Congress on Feb 27, 2019 and presented documents from Trump showing a huge range of valuations for some properties.
@DogMan If you're concerned about how this case got started, it's because tRump's former lawyer dropped a dime on him.
The issue first came to light when Trump's former lawyer, Michael Cohen, testified before Congress on Feb 27, 2019 and presented documents from Trump showing a huge range of valuations for some properties.
Mr. Cohen told members of the House Oversight Committee that he was there when the documents were presented to Deutsche Bank. “I believe these numbers are inflated,” he told the committee. He did not elaborate on which assets he was referring to or to what degree their values were exaggerated.
But the documents provide a glimpse of values Mr. Trump assigned to some of his properties that are out of line with other available estimates.
On his 2012 balance sheet, Mr. Trump described an estate he owns in Westchester County, N.Y., as being worth $291 million. He bought the property, Seven Springs, in 1996 for $7.5 million. In 2018,
Mr. Trump said in a federal ethics filing that the property was worth no more than $50 million.
But the documents provide a glimpse of values Mr. Trump assigned to some of his properties that are out of line with other available estimates.
On his 2012 balance sheet, Mr. Trump described an estate he owns in Westchester County, N.Y., as being worth $291 million. He bought the property, Seven Springs, in 1996 for $7.5 million. In 2018,
Mr. Trump said in a federal ethics filing that the property was worth no more than $50 million.
sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M
@ElwoodBlues The Manhattan judge deciding Donald Trump’s fate at his civil fraud trial Monday stood by the $18 million valuation of the former president’s sprawling Mar-a-Lago estate — despite real estate experts blasting the estimate as “utterly delusional.”
Justice Arthur Engoron again rejected Trump’s claims that Mar-a-Lago is worth $1 billion in favor of the much lower valuation issued by local Florida officials.
However, Engoron implored the media to stop reporting that he’d been the one to value the golf club and resort at $18 million — the low end of a determination made by the Palm Beach assessor that has left many real estate industry insiders perplexed.
One prominent Palm Beach real estate broker labeled the valuation “utterly delusional” to The Post.
“Please, press, stop saying that I valued it at $18 million,” Engoron pleaded, as the trial kicked off in Manhattan Supreme Court in New York Attorney General Letitia James’ $250 million lawsuit against the former president, the Trump Organization and sons Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr.
The judge interjected the comment as Trump lawyer Alina Habba had been repeating during her opening remarks that the Palm Beach estate would sell for roughly $1 billion — a figure that Engoron rejected last week in a bombshell ruling.
In his decision, Engoron — who is deciding the trial rather than a jury — cited a local Palm Beach County official saying the country club had been assessed at a range of between $18 million and $27 million between 2011 and 2021.
Justice Arthur Engoron again rejected Trump’s claims that Mar-a-Lago is worth $1 billion in favor of the much lower valuation issued by local Florida officials.
However, Engoron implored the media to stop reporting that he’d been the one to value the golf club and resort at $18 million — the low end of a determination made by the Palm Beach assessor that has left many real estate industry insiders perplexed.
One prominent Palm Beach real estate broker labeled the valuation “utterly delusional” to The Post.
“Please, press, stop saying that I valued it at $18 million,” Engoron pleaded, as the trial kicked off in Manhattan Supreme Court in New York Attorney General Letitia James’ $250 million lawsuit against the former president, the Trump Organization and sons Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr.
The judge interjected the comment as Trump lawyer Alina Habba had been repeating during her opening remarks that the Palm Beach estate would sell for roughly $1 billion — a figure that Engoron rejected last week in a bombshell ruling.
In his decision, Engoron — who is deciding the trial rather than a jury — cited a local Palm Beach County official saying the country club had been assessed at a range of between $18 million and $27 million between 2011 and 2021.
ElwoodBlues · M
@sunsporter1649 Yep, the judge was quoting the Palm Beach Assessor; it was not his own estimate of value.
@DogMan If you're concerned about how this case got started, it's because tRump's former lawyer dropped a dime on him.
The issue first came to light when Trump's former lawyer, Michael Cohen, testified before Congress on Feb 27, 2019 and presented documents from Trump showing a huge range of valuations for some properties.
@DogMan If you're concerned about how this case got started, it's because tRump's former lawyer dropped a dime on him.
The issue first came to light when Trump's former lawyer, Michael Cohen, testified before Congress on Feb 27, 2019 and presented documents from Trump showing a huge range of valuations for some properties.
Mr. Cohen told members of the House Oversight Committee that he was there when the documents were presented to Deutsche Bank. “I believe these numbers are inflated,” he told the committee. He did not elaborate on which assets he was referring to or to what degree their values were exaggerated.
But the documents provide a glimpse of values Mr. Trump assigned to some of his properties that are out of line with other available estimates.
On his 2012 balance sheet, Mr. Trump described an estate he owns in Westchester County, N.Y., as being worth $291 million. He bought the property, Seven Springs, in 1996 for $7.5 million. In 2018,
Mr. Trump said in a federal ethics filing that the property was worth no more than $50 million.
But the documents provide a glimpse of values Mr. Trump assigned to some of his properties that are out of line with other available estimates.
On his 2012 balance sheet, Mr. Trump described an estate he owns in Westchester County, N.Y., as being worth $291 million. He bought the property, Seven Springs, in 1996 for $7.5 million. In 2018,
Mr. Trump said in a federal ethics filing that the property was worth no more than $50 million.
ElwoodBlues · M
@DogMan asks
No need to wait! Newly elected Adelita Grijalva can force a vote on the Epstein files!
So do you think Democrats will release the Epstein files if they regain power again?
No need to wait! Newly elected Adelita Grijalva can force a vote on the Epstein files!
The Arizona Democrat would be the decisive signature on a petition to force a vote on releasing the records.
Only thing is, Mike Johnson won't allow her to be sworn in. He's allowed two Florida federal judges to be sworn in, but Not Ms Grijalva. That can't last for long. When she's sworn in and signs the petition, the House will have to vote on releasing the files.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M
@ElwoodBlues ....and a partridge in a pear tree.
ElwoodBlues · M
tRump WANTS the shutdown because it keeps the Epstein files secret.
Senator Whitehouse grills Pam Bondi on Epstein and Trump: “There has been public reporting that Epstein showed people photos of Trump with half naked young women. Do you know if FBI found those photographs in their search of Epstein safe. Have you seen any such thing.”
[media=https://youtu.be/Gd_ySEoMhUE]
it's a yes/no question, but Bondi only responds with whataboutism & accusations. At least she knows not to lie under oath!!
Senator Whitehouse grills Pam Bondi on Epstein and Trump: “There has been public reporting that Epstein showed people photos of Trump with half naked young women. Do you know if FBI found those photographs in their search of Epstein safe. Have you seen any such thing.”
[media=https://youtu.be/Gd_ySEoMhUE]
it's a yes/no question, but Bondi only responds with whataboutism & accusations. At least she knows not to lie under oath!!
sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M
@JSul3 And of course have seen everything, and can affirm there is much more out there, right?
ElwoodBlues · M
@sunsporter1649 Epstein comments from Alina Habba - Trump former lawyer and acting New Jersey U.S Attorney - on Feb 27 2025 to Piers Morgan
video clip on facebook
[media=https://www.facebook.com/piersmorganuncensored/videos/white-house-representative-tells-piers-morgan-epstein-files-could-be-released-to/474610042254369]
“It is incredibly disturbing,” Habba, who is now the interim U.S. Attorney for New Jersey, told Morgan this past winter. “We have flight logs, we have information, names that will come out.”
After the British tabloid host wondered if the files would be “shocking,” Habba breathlessly hyped the possibility that multiple people would likely face prosecution once the information became public.
“I don’t see how it’s not shocking — that there were so many individuals that were hidden and kept secret and not been held accountable,” she exclaimed, adding: “I believe in accountability. So you have to now go through your process. Now, I won’t say they’re guilty until they go through their time in court. But again, now it’s time for accountability.”
On top of that, Habba insisted that both Patel and Bondi would make sure to follow through and hold Epstein’s supposed clients accountable, prompting Morgan to ask if that meant “criminal actions” would be taken.
“Absolutely! I think it would be negligent for us not to,” she proclaimed, noting that “we don’t have time” to “hide lists” or “protect political friends.”
After the British tabloid host wondered if the files would be “shocking,” Habba breathlessly hyped the possibility that multiple people would likely face prosecution once the information became public.
“I don’t see how it’s not shocking — that there were so many individuals that were hidden and kept secret and not been held accountable,” she exclaimed, adding: “I believe in accountability. So you have to now go through your process. Now, I won’t say they’re guilty until they go through their time in court. But again, now it’s time for accountability.”
On top of that, Habba insisted that both Patel and Bondi would make sure to follow through and hold Epstein’s supposed clients accountable, prompting Morgan to ask if that meant “criminal actions” would be taken.
“Absolutely! I think it would be negligent for us not to,” she proclaimed, noting that “we don’t have time” to “hide lists” or “protect political friends.”
video clip on facebook
[media=https://www.facebook.com/piersmorganuncensored/videos/white-house-representative-tells-piers-morgan-epstein-files-could-be-released-to/474610042254369]
AbbeyRhode · F
BrandNewMan · M
sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M
sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M
@ElwoodBlues LOL, so the judge just said guilty, without any experts except his own assesment, eh?
ElwoodBlues · M
@sunsporter1649 (1) Witnesses testified that the banks did rely on Trump's fraudulent claims.
(2) Witnesses testified that if they had had an accurate picture of Trump's financial state, he would not have gotten the highly favorable interest rates that he got. If Trump had filed accurate statements he would have had to pay much, much more interest (if they would have given the loans at all).
(3) The penalty was calculated based on that, and the details are all spelled out in the ruling. He defrauded the banks out of the higher interest he would have had to pay in order to get the loans. "No harm was done" is plainly false.
(4) The "no harm was done" defense is so insanely dumb that Trump's lawyers didn't even attempt it in court. (But see the update below for a related "nobody complained" defense.)
Think about how little sense it makes. If you embezzle a million dollars Friday just before the banks close, fly to vegas and bet it all on red at the roulette wheel, and win, and return the million dollars plus interest on Monday as soon as the banks open, would you expect a "no one got hurt" defense to get you acquitted when you go to trial?
Edited to add quotes from the ruling:
(1) For example, p. 9:
In deciding to approve the credit facility, Haigh relied on Donald Trump’s 2011 SFC and assumed that the representations of value of the assets and liabilities were “broadly accurate.” TT 1009-1010; PX 330. The Deutsche Bank Credit Report’s “Financial Analysis” is based on numbers provided by the “family office” (here, the Trump Organization) and contains the same numbers represented in the SFC. PX 293; TT 1010-1013.
And p. 68:
The evidence adduced at trial makes clear that Deutsche Bank relied on the SFCs for the information to underwrite, approve, and maintain the credit facilities on Doral, Trump Chicago, and the Old Post Office. PX 293, PX 3041 at ¶¶ 452-54, 456-466, 476.
And more. And on p. 75 it discusses how absurd this defense was:
Defendants have argued vociferously throughout the trial that there can be no fraud as, they assert, that none of the banks or insurance companies relied on any of the alleged misrepresentations. The proponents of this theory posit that lenders demand complex statements of financial condition but then ignore them.
And (next paragraph) it wouldn't make any difference as a matter of law:
Defendants’ argument is to no avail, as none of plaintiff’s causes of action requires that it demonstrate reliance. Instead, plaintiff must merely show that defendants intended to commit the fraud. Reliance is not a requisite element of either Executive Law § 63(12) or of any of the alleged Penal Law violations.
And (next paragraph) even though it wasn't a requisite element, the claim made by the defense is clearly false:
However, the Court notes that, although not required, there is ample documentary and testimonial evidence that the banks, insurance companies, and the City of New York did, in fact, rely on defendants to be truthful and accurate in their financial submissions. The testimony in this case makes abundantly clear that most, if not all, loans began life based on numbers on an SFC, which the lenders interpreted in their own unique way. The testimony confirmed, rather than refuted, the overriding importance of SFCs in lending decisions.
(2) p. 68:
The record is also clear that Donald Trump would not have received the credit facilities from the Private Wealth Management Division, and the favorable interest rates that came with that, had he not executed an unconditional, “ironclad,” personal guarantee. Moreover, the Private Wealth Management Division was willing to accept the personal guarantees based upon false SFCs.
(3) Here's part of the "disgorgement of ill-gotten gains" calculation, from p. 86:
McCarty calculated the differences between interest rates and determined the following ill-gotten interest savings, which this Court hereby adopts as the most reasonable approximation of the ill- gotten interest rate savings upon which evidence was presented at trial: (1) $72,908,308 from 2014-2022 on the Doral loan; (2) $53,423,209 from 2015-2022 on the Old Post Office loan; (3) $17,443,359 from 2014-2022 on the Chicago loan; and (4) $24,265,291 from 2015-2022 on the 40 Wall Street loan.
In total, defendants’ fraud saved them approximately $168,040,168 in interest, which shall be imposed, jointly and severally, among Donald Trump and the defendant entities that he owns and controls, as the misconduct at issue was committed by the Trump Organization’s top management.
And now, sunstroke, I'm done spoonfeeding you. For complete details of the judge's decision, see
https://static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2024/02/Judge-Engoron-ruling-in-Trump-New-York-civil-fraud-case.pdf
(2) Witnesses testified that if they had had an accurate picture of Trump's financial state, he would not have gotten the highly favorable interest rates that he got. If Trump had filed accurate statements he would have had to pay much, much more interest (if they would have given the loans at all).
(3) The penalty was calculated based on that, and the details are all spelled out in the ruling. He defrauded the banks out of the higher interest he would have had to pay in order to get the loans. "No harm was done" is plainly false.
(4) The "no harm was done" defense is so insanely dumb that Trump's lawyers didn't even attempt it in court. (But see the update below for a related "nobody complained" defense.)
Think about how little sense it makes. If you embezzle a million dollars Friday just before the banks close, fly to vegas and bet it all on red at the roulette wheel, and win, and return the million dollars plus interest on Monday as soon as the banks open, would you expect a "no one got hurt" defense to get you acquitted when you go to trial?
Edited to add quotes from the ruling:
(1) For example, p. 9:
In deciding to approve the credit facility, Haigh relied on Donald Trump’s 2011 SFC and assumed that the representations of value of the assets and liabilities were “broadly accurate.” TT 1009-1010; PX 330. The Deutsche Bank Credit Report’s “Financial Analysis” is based on numbers provided by the “family office” (here, the Trump Organization) and contains the same numbers represented in the SFC. PX 293; TT 1010-1013.
And p. 68:
The evidence adduced at trial makes clear that Deutsche Bank relied on the SFCs for the information to underwrite, approve, and maintain the credit facilities on Doral, Trump Chicago, and the Old Post Office. PX 293, PX 3041 at ¶¶ 452-54, 456-466, 476.
And more. And on p. 75 it discusses how absurd this defense was:
Defendants have argued vociferously throughout the trial that there can be no fraud as, they assert, that none of the banks or insurance companies relied on any of the alleged misrepresentations. The proponents of this theory posit that lenders demand complex statements of financial condition but then ignore them.
And (next paragraph) it wouldn't make any difference as a matter of law:
Defendants’ argument is to no avail, as none of plaintiff’s causes of action requires that it demonstrate reliance. Instead, plaintiff must merely show that defendants intended to commit the fraud. Reliance is not a requisite element of either Executive Law § 63(12) or of any of the alleged Penal Law violations.
And (next paragraph) even though it wasn't a requisite element, the claim made by the defense is clearly false:
However, the Court notes that, although not required, there is ample documentary and testimonial evidence that the banks, insurance companies, and the City of New York did, in fact, rely on defendants to be truthful and accurate in their financial submissions. The testimony in this case makes abundantly clear that most, if not all, loans began life based on numbers on an SFC, which the lenders interpreted in their own unique way. The testimony confirmed, rather than refuted, the overriding importance of SFCs in lending decisions.
(2) p. 68:
The record is also clear that Donald Trump would not have received the credit facilities from the Private Wealth Management Division, and the favorable interest rates that came with that, had he not executed an unconditional, “ironclad,” personal guarantee. Moreover, the Private Wealth Management Division was willing to accept the personal guarantees based upon false SFCs.
(3) Here's part of the "disgorgement of ill-gotten gains" calculation, from p. 86:
McCarty calculated the differences between interest rates and determined the following ill-gotten interest savings, which this Court hereby adopts as the most reasonable approximation of the ill- gotten interest rate savings upon which evidence was presented at trial: (1) $72,908,308 from 2014-2022 on the Doral loan; (2) $53,423,209 from 2015-2022 on the Old Post Office loan; (3) $17,443,359 from 2014-2022 on the Chicago loan; and (4) $24,265,291 from 2015-2022 on the 40 Wall Street loan.
In total, defendants’ fraud saved them approximately $168,040,168 in interest, which shall be imposed, jointly and severally, among Donald Trump and the defendant entities that he owns and controls, as the misconduct at issue was committed by the Trump Organization’s top management.
And now, sunstroke, I'm done spoonfeeding you. For complete details of the judge's decision, see
https://static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2024/02/Judge-Engoron-ruling-in-Trump-New-York-civil-fraud-case.pdf
sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M
@ElwoodBlues So what were the numbers the judge used to convict?
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
