Letitia James fraud case victory in question?

[ThisIsMe]

Correct. And lying about the values of those properties garnered him lower interest rates.

This is criminal fraud.

then why is the appeal court possibly looking to overturn. If this is fraud and it is criminal then it should stick. What’s is this all about ?

 

[Marener]

True, but the banks can also look at the totality of a person assets and wealth and use that as a determining factor for risk.

Maybe they were comfortable with the risk based on the bigger picture.

The bank did indeed look at the totality of Trump’s wealth, but the problem is he lied about it. So their risk determination was not based on accurate information given to them.

So I’m trying to understand why it’s bad to lie about your income but not bad to lie about your assets. What’s the difference here?

 

[ThisIsMe]

Appeal to authority all you want, it doesn’t advance your argument, if you’re even trying to make one.

I’m just presenting what the article in the news are saying. This isn’t about him lying for his income, it’s about overvaluing properties to get better rates on loans, of which the banks accepted, were happy with, would do business with again, and the courts may be poised to overturn the whole thing.

You call that an appeal to authority, I call it just reading the news.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

True, but the banks can also look at the totality of a person assets and wealth and use that as a determining factor for risk.

Maybe they were comfortable with the risk based on the bigger picture.

They don't jus decide whether or not to take on the risk.

They decide how to price it

 

[Marener]

I’m just presenting what the article in the news are saying. This isn’t about him lying for his income, it’s about overvaluing properties to get better rates on loans, of which the banks accepted, were happy with, would do business with again, and the courts may be poised to overturn the whole thing.

You call that an appeal to authority, I call it just reading the news.

Thank you. I assumed that you were interested in discussion and not repetition.

 

[ThisIsMe]

The bank did indeed look at the totality of Trump’s wealth, but the problem is he lied about it. So their risk determination was not based on accurate information given to them.

So I’m trying to understand why it’s bad to lie about your income but not bad to lie about your assets. What’s the difference here?

it is bad to lie about your assets it’s even a crime, but this isn’t about income, it’s about the banks being willing to accept the risk.

Ok, let’s just cut to the chase…Trump is guilty, he broke the law, was convicted and all that…then why is he possibly about to win an appeal??? That’s the question here. Apparently the court doesn’t agree with the outcome of the case. all apparently it’s not something that has happened before.

 

[Marener]

it is bad to lie about your assets it’s even a crime, but this isn’t about income, it’s about the banks being willing to accept the risk.

Ok, let’s just cut to the chase…Trump is guilty, he broke the law, was convicted and all that…then why is he possibly about to win an appeal??? That’s the question here. Apparently the court doesn’t agree with the outcome of the case. all apparently it’s not something that has happened before.

Has the court ruled?

 

[ThisIsMe]

They don't jus decide whether or not to take on the risk.

They decide how to price it

And they found that trump was worth the risk.

If they had a doubt about his risk, they would have done their own evaluations. The fact that they didn’t even makes you wonder if they even used his property valuations as part of their risk assessment

 

[ThisIsMe]

Thank you. I assumed that you were interested in discussion and not repetition.

But I am, interested in the discussion, and I’ve made the point that the courts are apparently not convinced by the outcome of this case

 

[ThisIsMe]

Has the court ruled?

No, and if you look, I’ve phrased all of my comments on this based on a possible future outcome, using words like “possibly” and “seemingly”. I’ve never declared they HAVE overturned it, but according to the arguments made, it appears they might n

 

[Marener]

No, and if you look, I’ve phrased all of my comments on this based on a possible future outcome, using words like “possibly” and “seemingly”. I’ve never declared they HAVE overturned it, but according to the arguments made, it appears they might n

And also “apparently”. A lot of the word “apparently”. They haven’t decided anything and since they haven’t decided, there is nothing “apparent” about what they’ve decided.

 

[ThisIsMe]

And also “apparently”. A lot of the word “apparently”. They haven’t decided anything and since they haven’t decided, there is nothing “apparent” about what they’ve decided.

Just going off of the articles written, and the analysis of the court case, apparently the court might not agree with the outcome is an accurate statement.

 

[Marener]

Just going off of the articles written, and the analysis of the court case, apparently the court might not agree with the outcome is an accurate statement.

“Might” is quite different than “apparently”.

Yes, they might do something. That’s called speculation.

Apparently would imply you’ve determined they’re already decided on the case. They haven’t.

 

[ThisIsMe]

“Might” is quite different than “apparently”.

Yes, they might do something. That’s called speculation.

Apparently would imply you’ve determined they’re already decided on the case. They haven’t.

No, and I’ve never implied that. I tried to be careful not to do that because I know it’s still up in the air.

 

[Independent thinker]

Letitia James’ massive Trump civil fraud victory in question after appellate argument

One judge asked the state about “mission creep” and wondered if the broad civil law used against Trump had morphed into something it’s not designed to do.

www.msnbc.com

Possibly the charges were too broad?





The question of harm is being raised, which is one that has been asked by people from the start.

Thoughts?

The whole thing was yet another example of weaponization against Trump.

 

[Rawley]

Neither am I, but if a New York court is willing to overturn this case, then it must be for a valid reason. Again, New York hates trump..so why would they overturn it unless it was absolutely the right thing to do?

Of course it's the right thing to do. With this absurd precedent what large business would want to do business in NY when a vengeful partisan AG can charge you in relation to literally any financial transaction involving another sophisticated party.

 

[ThisIsMe]

The whole thing was yet another example of weaponization against Trump.

I agree. All of this is

 

[Marener]

No, and I’ve never implied that. I tried to be careful not to do that because I know it’s still up in the air.

Of course you did. Several times. Most recently here:

Apparently the court doesn’t agree with the outcome of the case.

 

[Couchpotato]

The properties he was lying about weren’t collateral. They were used to determine risk of default. Same reason banks want to know your income.

Banker involved in big loans to Trump's company testifies for his defense in civil fraud trial

A Deutsche Bank executive says the bank followed its own guidelines when deciding to lend Donald Trump’s company hundreds of millions of dollars.

apnews.com

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.

But, testifying for the defense, managing director David Williams said the bankers viewed clients’ reports of their net worth as “subjective or subject to estimates” and took its own view of such financial statements.

“I think we expect clients-provided information to be accurate. At the same time, it’s not an industry standard that these statements be audited. They’re largely reliant on the use of estimates,” Williams said, so bankers routinely “make some adjustments.”

At times, the bank pegged Trump’s wealth at several billion dollars lower than he did, according to documents and testimony. In 2019, for example, Trump’s financial statement listed his net worth at $5.8 billion, which the bank adjusted down to $2.5 billion.

So the bank made its own assessment of Trump’s net worth and gave him the loan based on that even after adjusting it to half what he estimated it at, Tell me again who was defrauded. Because it wasn’t the bank.

 

[airplanemechanic]

So if I shoot at you and miss, I haven't harmed you.. Yet it is a crime.

Because the act of shooting at me is illegal. The act of applying for a loan is not.