Musk Responds to $354 Million Ruling in Trump’s Civil Fraud Case With One Simple Question
“Given that there were no victims with losses, who is supposed to receive the money?”
70-79, M
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
PSuss1 · 56-60, M
"No victims with losses" isn't a true statement though, is it?
The banks were defrauded of $168m in interest payments.
Honest borrowers were denied the opportunity to borrow the money lent to The Trump Org, at the full market rate.
The NY State property market was skewed by the fraudulent activity of The Trump Org, so other property owners or potential property owners lost.
NY State had to build an expensive case to prove The Trump Org's ongoing fraud.
NY State now have to pay for an independent Monitor for 3 years to show The Trump Org how to do business WITHOUT committing fraud.
For my money, law 63(12) doing precisely what it was designed for, ensuring business is conducted honestly and fairly in the state of NY ...and extremely unlikely to be overturned on appeal, based on the facts and evidence of the case 🤷🏻♂️
The banks were defrauded of $168m in interest payments.
Honest borrowers were denied the opportunity to borrow the money lent to The Trump Org, at the full market rate.
The NY State property market was skewed by the fraudulent activity of The Trump Org, so other property owners or potential property owners lost.
NY State had to build an expensive case to prove The Trump Org's ongoing fraud.
NY State now have to pay for an independent Monitor for 3 years to show The Trump Org how to do business WITHOUT committing fraud.
For my money, law 63(12) doing precisely what it was designed for, ensuring business is conducted honestly and fairly in the state of NY ...and extremely unlikely to be overturned on appeal, based on the facts and evidence of the case 🤷🏻♂️
1-25 of 76
PSuss1 · 56-60, M
@IronHamster the source was the testimony given at the trial by Michiel McCarty. In Engoron's judgement he said that McCarty testified “reliably and convincingly,” and found that The Trump Org's ongoing fraud saved them over $168 million in interest... the fact that the banks don't want to sue for those losses is their call, but it's still fraudulent activity 🤷🏻♂️
IronHamster · 56-60, M
@PSuss1 Nonsense. Trump was legal and screwd, doing what every real estate developer does, thus by this judgement the pervert judge has cost NYC billions in future business. Shark Tank contributor Kevin OLeary has more business experience than you and I combined and he is clear on this.
PSuss1 · 56-60, M
@IronHamster see, there's the problem, right there ...he wasn't "legal and screwed", he was illegal and prosecuted ...just like you or I would be if we consistently lied, over decades, to get preferential rates. Refusing to accept that reality doesn't make it any less real 🤷🏻♂️
If it costs NY some $$$ in potential future business, I guess they made the calculation that it was a price worth paying to start cleaning things up.
If it costs NY some $$$ in potential future business, I guess they made the calculation that it was a price worth paying to start cleaning things up.
PSuss1 · 56-60, M
Borrowed from Twitter, to try to illustrate the point being widely missed:
"Once upon a time, there were two businessmen, Don and Bob.
Both had roughly the same amount of stuff. They both wanted loans to get more stuff and grow their businesses.
Bob went to the bank for a loan. He told them how much stuff he had. The bank said they couldn’t loan Bob all the money he wanted coz he didn’t have enough stuff as collateral. Bob was sad and had to give up his dream of growing his business.
Don, on the other hand, went to the bank and exaggerated how much stuff he had. By a lot. Don was a slick talker and had false paperwork to show he had a lot more stuff than he really did. The bank felt more comfortable giving Don the loan, coz they believed he had enough stuff to offer as collateral. Don ended up getting more stuff and living large.
Who is the victim?
Not the bank. One could argue they should’ve done their homework on slick-talking Don.
It’s Bob.
It’s the thousands of Bobs who follow the rules and don’t lie and cheat their way into a better life.
Who protects people like Bob?
Who makes sure the rules are fair for all?
The Southern District of New York, that’s who."
"Once upon a time, there were two businessmen, Don and Bob.
Both had roughly the same amount of stuff. They both wanted loans to get more stuff and grow their businesses.
Bob went to the bank for a loan. He told them how much stuff he had. The bank said they couldn’t loan Bob all the money he wanted coz he didn’t have enough stuff as collateral. Bob was sad and had to give up his dream of growing his business.
Don, on the other hand, went to the bank and exaggerated how much stuff he had. By a lot. Don was a slick talker and had false paperwork to show he had a lot more stuff than he really did. The bank felt more comfortable giving Don the loan, coz they believed he had enough stuff to offer as collateral. Don ended up getting more stuff and living large.
Who is the victim?
Not the bank. One could argue they should’ve done their homework on slick-talking Don.
It’s Bob.
It’s the thousands of Bobs who follow the rules and don’t lie and cheat their way into a better life.
Who protects people like Bob?
Who makes sure the rules are fair for all?
The Southern District of New York, that’s who."
Lila15 · 22-25, F
@sunsporter1649 Oh, but that's where the "free market" comes in. The bank's customers will switch to a different bank that does its due diligence.
So basically, you're saying that if I cheat you in a business deal, I should get off scot-free while you should be punished for not being more careful.
So basically, you're saying that if I cheat you in a business deal, I should get off scot-free while you should be punished for not being more careful.
Lila15 · 22-25, F
@sunsporter1649 Call your Congressman and ask them to change the law if you disagree with it.
Someone breaking into your house is OK as long as they clean up afterwards. Got it.
Someone breaking into your house is OK as long as they clean up afterwards. Got it.
PSuss1 · 56-60, M
@sunsporter1649 you won't find me defending the banks but genuinely not seeing the relevance of the banks' due diligence to The Trump Org being prosecuted for systematically falsifying their financial statements? Are you saying it somehow wouldn't have counted as fraud if the banks had spotted the fraud? Seriously?
PSuss1 · 56-60, M
@sunsporter1649 agree, they should have, but that doesn't excuse the initial fraud, which was systemic, a pattern of behaviour established over decades... no excuses, caught fair and square and punished according to the law. They're going to have suck this one I'm afraid 🤷🏻♂️
Lila15 · 22-25, F
@sunsporter1649 Whenever anyone brings up student loan deferments, you people always bleat "but what about the people who followed the rules?" Same with illegal immigrants: "what about the ones who followed the rules?" Well, what about the people who were denied loans because they "followed the rules" that Trump broke? Why is "following the rules" important unless it's your orange god? It doesn't matter if he paid the loans back with interest if he wasn't supposed to get the loans in the first place. Just like, if you didn't let me use your house for a party, it doesn't matter if I cleaned everything up before you got back.
sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M
@IronHamster In fact, people had more access to loans due to the interest he paid
PSuss1 · 56-60, M
@sunsporter1649 that's not true, the banks' capital was tied up?!
Lila15 · 22-25, F
@IronHamster Incorrect, loans made to one customer reduce the capital available for loans to other customers. Otherwise, the bank would have infinite resources and would make loans to everyone. Since Trump obtained his loan fraudulently, he harmed the other customers who played by the rules and were denied loans.
What happened to "playing by the rules?" I guess that only applies to students and immigrants, and not your orange lord and savior.
What happened to "playing by the rules?" I guess that only applies to students and immigrants, and not your orange lord and savior.
PSuss1 · 56-60, M
@sunsporter1649 given up trying to defend the indefensible? ....very wise 👍
PSuss1 · 56-60, M
@sunsporter1649 I'll take that as a yes lol
sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M
@PSuss1 "he U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Democrats and the Biden administration cannot move forward with its student loan debt handout program.
The judges agreed in a 6-3 decision that the federal law forbids the secretary of education to cancel more than $430 billion in student loan debt.
In open defiance of the law, the U.S. Department of Education announced it “will begin notifying more than 804,000 borrowers that they have a total of $39 billion in Federal student loans that will be automatically discharged in the coming weeks.”
The judges agreed in a 6-3 decision that the federal law forbids the secretary of education to cancel more than $430 billion in student loan debt.
In open defiance of the law, the U.S. Department of Education announced it “will begin notifying more than 804,000 borrowers that they have a total of $39 billion in Federal student loans that will be automatically discharged in the coming weeks.”
Lila15 · 22-25, F
@sunsporter1649 Except a Republican special counsel just said that he didn't break any laws, and the guy who was providing the "evidence" for the "Biden crime family" was just indicted for lying to the FBI. So Biden is a law-abiding citizen because he doesn't break the law. FIFY
This message was deleted by the author of the main post.
1-25 of 76