sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M
View 32 more replies »
sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M
@ElwoodBlues [media=https://youtu.be/ugUfjeTwDQ8]
ElwoodBlues · M
@sunsporter1649 So you have a misconception regarding what the case is about?? Read the judge's words. The judge never mentions "market value."
Valuing occupied residences as if vacant, valuing restricted land as if unrestricted, valuing an apartment as if it were triple its actual size, valuing property many times the amount of concealed appraisals, valuing planned buildings as if completed and ready to rent, valuing golf courses with brand premium while claiming not to, and valuing restricted funds as cash, are not subjective differences of opinion, they are misstatements at best and fraud at worst," the judge wrote.
(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.
Valuing occupied residences as if vacant, valuing restricted land as if unrestricted, valuing an apartment as if it were triple its actual size, valuing property many times the amount of concealed appraisals, valuing planned buildings as if completed and ready to rent, valuing golf courses with brand premium while claiming not to, and valuing restricted funds as cash, are not subjective differences of opinion, they are misstatements at best and fraud at worst," the judge wrote.
(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.
sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M
@ElwoodBlues So the esteemed impartial judge, based on his decades of real estate and tax experience, without any partiality, decided that paying back loans on time and with interest to the various financial institutions, and paying taxes on said property decided upon by the tax experts in the Federal and State government, were compliciant is a massive scheme to defraud, eh. Now we are all waiting to see the indictments brought on the various Federal and State and financial institutions employees who participated in said fraud.
sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M
@Rabbit420 And we all recall sleepy joe's sterling military service
Rabbit420 · 70-79, M
sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M
@Rabbit420 And we all recall sleepy joe's sterling military service
ArishMell · 70-79, M
Note this report is from France, not an American hard-left campaigner.
Treating the war as cheap entertainment won't be helped by the President's much-publicised lack of military experience - despite his honorary "Commander-in-Chief" title. A real C-in-C with conflict experience would not allow his Press team to do that.
Nor helped by the war-loving Peter Hegseth (he who changed his official title to "Secretary of State for War) publicly admitting treating the attack on Iran as the actions of a bully ("hitting them while they are down") and adding that "is how it should be".
He's also wrong in fact, of course. Iran had struck back, hard, as only to be expected; and despite heavy losses of military assets and personnel, is far from down.
Hegseth has served some Army time; but most of the US Services people are well-trained, well-armed and courageous. Those with battle experience know war is cold-blooded, large-scale murder; will have seen and done appalling things; have seen their compatriots injured or killed alongside them; may have come home very badly damaged mentally and physically. I am not surprised they are offended by being equated to video-game characters.
Treating the war as cheap entertainment won't be helped by the President's much-publicised lack of military experience - despite his honorary "Commander-in-Chief" title. A real C-in-C with conflict experience would not allow his Press team to do that.
Nor helped by the war-loving Peter Hegseth (he who changed his official title to "Secretary of State for War) publicly admitting treating the attack on Iran as the actions of a bully ("hitting them while they are down") and adding that "is how it should be".
He's also wrong in fact, of course. Iran had struck back, hard, as only to be expected; and despite heavy losses of military assets and personnel, is far from down.
Hegseth has served some Army time; but most of the US Services people are well-trained, well-armed and courageous. Those with battle experience know war is cold-blooded, large-scale murder; will have seen and done appalling things; have seen their compatriots injured or killed alongside them; may have come home very badly damaged mentally and physically. I am not surprised they are offended by being equated to video-game characters.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@sunsporter1649 They already have.
Your king has surrendered and is now trying to lie his way out of the humiliation he has brought to himself and the US.
Hegseth is hilarious - he has the emotional control and grasp of reality that one expects from a hormonal adolescent.
All posing and puffery.
Your king has surrendered and is now trying to lie his way out of the humiliation he has brought to himself and the US.
Hegseth is hilarious - he has the emotional control and grasp of reality that one expects from a hormonal adolescent.
All posing and puffery.
sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M
@newjaninev2 [media=https://youtu.be/PsLh2LPRPAA]
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@sunsporter1649 I am NOT "rooting" for anyone.
PicturesOfABetterTomorrow · 41-45, M
sree251 · 41-45, M
@Strictmichael75 Can you describe what is it? I never open inappropriate images.
Strictmichael75 · 61-69, M
@sree251 trump with a bandage
sree251 · 41-45, M
emiliya · 26-30, F
@newjaninev2 sunsporter1649 is dedicated. You newjaninev2 are also dedicated. And SunshineGirl who is a little more civilized than you both.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@Strictmichael75 More cartoons! Apparently his literacy level is the same as trump's
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
Roundandroundwego · 61-69
Maximum lethality! No rules! Anything goes, no more stupid,"law of the Sea"!.
So send them all. Meat grinders for the troops! No rules. No laws. Maximum lethality!
Everyone here is all good with the blue and red and the warz. Bring the youth to the slaughter.
So send them all. Meat grinders for the troops! No rules. No laws. Maximum lethality!
Everyone here is all good with the blue and red and the warz. Bring the youth to the slaughter.
Roundandroundwego · 61-69
@sree251 nah, not misfortune! Mainstream USA politics! Two rights gleefully snubbing the left and killing the future together! As a leftist I'm definitely the enemy within my country.
sree251 · 41-45, M
@Roundandroundwego
A leftist? This is a loaded word. What is it on the right that gets your goat?
As a leftist I'm definitely the enemy within my country.
A leftist? This is a loaded word. What is it on the right that gets your goat?
Roundandroundwego · 61-69
@sree251 nothing. I'm not about hate. You're uninterested in peace, cooperation, a green transition and social equality, you like torture, the casting couch for kids! and war for profit. It's a mindset that's bound to solve itself! Death is efficient. Death is sufficient.