Panicked New York Governor Tells Businesses “They Have Nothing to Fear” After Democrat Leaders Fleece Donald Trump of $355 Million

[Oldestyle]

If you say the banks were satisfied and I show you the banks cut their business ties it kind of demonstrates you are wrong, doesn't it?

They are a victim because the interests they received from Trump are less than the interests they would have received IF they would have been provided with correct financial statements.

Did you read the back and forth between the bank and the Trump Group? They cut ties because they were concerned about the lawsuit that James had brought against Trump. Can you blame them? If you're a bank officer and you're asking yourself are these idiots in New York REALLY going to sue Trump over this and what will be the ramifications if that does happen...it's obvious that the simplest way to not get caught up in that is to cut ties with them! Trump just got hit with a 350 million dollar judgement plus a three year ban on doing business in New York where the bulk of his business holdings are! If you're a bank executive you'd be an idiot if you WEREN'T weighing how that might affect Trump's ability to pay back loans! That isn't something that was caused by Trump's actions however...that's something that was caused by Letitia James' actions.

 

[forkup]

Getting the fuck out before thy become the next target...You really this fucking stupid, or are you LARPing?

Ah, the old Ad hoc explanation? Guess what the only thing you need to do to not be convicted of fraud is not to commit fraud.

 

[Oddball]

Ah, the old Ad hoc explanation? Guess what the only thing you need to do to not be convicted of fraud is not to commit fraud.

Guess what...If you commit fraud, then there's a plaintiff...The banks filed no such complaints.

 

[Oldestyle]

Yet the banks doing this business cut ties. How do you reconcile that?

And that was ONE bank who cut ties. One bank that was paid in full. If you were to ask that bank today if they were satisfied with the deal I'm quite sure they would tell you that they were VERY satisfied!

So...did you have an example of New York State bringing charges against another real estate developer for the same "crime" as James charged Trump?

 

[Oddball]

And that was ONE bank who cut ties. One bank that was paid in full. If you were to ask that bank today if they were satisfied with the deal I'm quite sure they would tell you that they were VERY satisfied!

So...did you have an example of New York State bringing charges against another real estate developer for the same "crime" as James charged Trump?

He paid back early, cheating the bank out of interest that they might have gained if he had just made all the payments!

Lock him the fuck up!

 

[forkup]

Did you read the back and forth between the bank and the Trump Group? They cut ties because they were concerned about the lawsuit that James had brought against Trump. Can you blame them? If you're a bank officer and you're asking yourself are these idiots in New York REALLY going to sue Trump over this and what will be the ramifications if that does happen...it's obvious that the simplest way to not get caught up in that is to cut ties with them! Trump just got hit with a 350 million dollar judgement plus a three year ban on doing business in New York where the bulk of his business holdings are! If you're a bank executive you'd be an idiot if you WEREN'T weighing how that might affect Trump's ability to pay back loans! That isn't something that was caused by Trump's actions however...that's something that was caused by Letitia James' actions.

I read the ruling. You should to. It cites among other things, the testimony of the bankers dealing with the Trump account. And yes, they were worried, considering they had active loans secured by a personal guarantee based on faulty financial statements.

Hence they broke ties.

 

[Oldestyle]

The truth of the matter is that banks are less worried today about getting repaid by the Trump Group then they are about a New York Attorney General who could give a shit about the rule of law and equal justice under that set of laws and uses her office to go after people she doesn't like. Why would any rational person invest money in a location where you aren't protected by the rule of law?

 

[Oldestyle]

I read the ruling. You should to. It cites among other things, the testimony of the bankers dealing with the Trump account. And yes, they were worried, considering they had active loans secured by a personal guarantee based on faulty financial statements.

Hence they broke ties.

They weren't worried about Trump...they were worried about New York State seizing Trump's assets! They were worried some far left judge would do something unbelievable like hitting Trump with a 350 million dollar fine for a "crime" that had no victim!

 

[toobfreak]

She just admitted this was nothing but a political hit against Trump. She is a liar and they will target any organization or individual they deem a threat to them.

They probably WON'T. Not because many businesses don't similarly inflate values and estimates, but because this was used expressly as a means to /GET TRUMP./

But the state has demonstrated their ABILITY and WILLINGNESS to try.

So who knows when another business might come into the cross-hairs? Many a business who inflated value and estimates may now just be nervous enough to leave NY while other businesses now may be more hesitant to incorporate there.

So while the state never has done this before and might not ever do it again, chances are good that it will still have a chilling negative impact in the state anyway.

 

[forkup]

And that was ONE bank who cut ties. One bank that was paid in full. If you were to ask that bank today if they were satisfied with the deal I'm quite sure they would tell you that they were VERY satisfied!

So...did you have an example of New York State bringing charges against another real estate developer for the same "crime" as James charged Trump?

Trump Is Battling a New York Law Used to Take on Corporate Giants (Published 2022)

The lawsuit filed this week by the state’s attorney general, Letitia James, is based on the same statute that was used against Exxon Mobil, Juul and UBS.

www.nytimes.com

Like thousands of earlier actions by the attorney general’s office — including those against the oil giant Exxon Mobil, the global bank UBS, the tobacco company Juul, and Mr. Shkreli and his former pharmaceutical company — Ms. James’s lawsuit against the Trumps hinges on a muscular law that provides her office with an upper hand when investigating and punishing corporate wrongdoing.

I don't have to show that the exact thing happened to anybody, although it's safe to assume it has happened. the law is designed to tackle fraud in NY and has been on the books for seventy (70) years. And has been used "thousands of times." Including on Trump in previous cases.

 

[Oldestyle]

Trump Is Battling a New York Law Used to Take on Corporate Giants (Published 2022)

The lawsuit filed this week by the state’s attorney general, Letitia James, is based on the same statute that was used against Exxon Mobil, Juul and UBS.

www.nytimes.com

Like thousands of earlier actions by the attorney general’s office — including those against the oil giant Exxon Mobil, the global bank UBS, the tobacco company Juul, and Mr. Shkreli and his former pharmaceutical company — Ms. James’s lawsuit against the Trumps hinges on a muscular law that provides her office with an upper hand when investigating and punishing corporate wrongdoing.

I don't have to show that the exact thing happened to anybody, although it's safe to assume it has happened. the law is designed to tackle fraud in NY and has been on the books for seventy (70) years. And has been used "thousands of times." Including on Trump in previous cases.

So you CAN show me where that law was used to bring charges against a real estate investor who paid off their loans on time with interest and the bank who gave the loan was happy with the transaction? Love to hear where that's taken place, Forkup!

 

[Slade3200]

I obviously understand it better than you do, Slade! The difference between California and the United States is that California can't print money....whereas the US does. States and cities have to balance budgets...the Federal Government does not.

As for the US having the largest economy in the world? We also have the largest debt BY FAR!

Kudos for bringing up the money printing element, that's more than most people I talk to on here every bring up. Yes states do have to balance over time, CA produces an extraordinary amount of revenue and GDP that fuels a large portion of the country. You bring up a $30B deficit this year but you didn't mention the near $100B surplus from last year. We also need to account for the massive expenses incurred by recent natural disasters and the delay in revenues that was caused by extending the tax payment deadline until the end of the year for residents.

You obviously have a brain and know something about economics. Makes me wonder why you wouldn't mention these things. It really gets me scratching my head if you honestly believe CA is going to run out of money in a few years. You know thats not realistic so why even say it?

 

[Oldestyle]

Kudos for bringing up the money printing element, that's more than most people I talk to on here every bring up. Yes states do have to balance over time, CA produces an extraordinary amount of revenue and GDP that fuels a large portion of the country. You bring up a $30B deficit this year but you didn't mention the near $100B surplus from last year. We also need to account for the massive expenses incurred by recent natural disasters and the delay in revenues that was caused by extending the tax payment deadline until the end of the year for residents.

You obviously have a brain and know something about economics. Makes me wonder why you wouldn't mention these things. It really gets me scratching my head if you honestly believe CA is going to run out of money in a few years. You know thats not realistic so why even say it?

The reason I didn't bring up the near 100 billion dollar surplus from last year is that it never actually existed, Slade! That was an "estimate" of what the surplus would be based on predictions of revenue! That estimate prompted Gavin Newsome to send a budget to California lawmakers that was full of all kinds of new spending...spending that the legislature gleefully passed. Unfortunately those estimates of revenue were way off. California's economy had boomed coming out of the pandemic because of huge amounts of money being pumped into the State by the Federal Government. When that money dried up...the economy slowed. It became so bad in fact that Newsome was forced to cut some of the spending that had been authorized and even with those actions the State is facing large declines in revenue. Those declines are being aggravated by a sizable migration of money out of the State headed for places that are more business friendly or don't tax high income earners as much. It's gotten so bad that California is trying to pass a retroactive tax on the wealthy who leave the State...something that I highly doubt will hold up in court.

 

[forkup]

So you CAN show me where that law was used to bring charges against a real estate investor who paid off their loans on time with interest and the bank who gave the loan was happy with the transaction? Love to hear where that's taken place, Forkup!

CFPB and NY AG File Suit Against Money Transfer Company for Alleged Violations of the Remittance Rule and NY Law | Casetext

casetext.com

Further, the complaint alleges that the company failed to develop and maintain proper compliance, error-resolution, and document retention policies.

I also can't show that the sun rose 9 days ago. It's safe to assume it did.

The funny thing is my standard is reading a judgement. You want my standard to be. Find me a case that fits the exact criteria that are here, although the actual law is to combat fraud in general. Your standard... well nothing. 'I don't believe you, now prove me wrong. If you prove me wrong, prove that I'm even more wrong. etc.,etc"

 

[Oldestyle]

CFPB and NY AG File Suit Against Money Transfer Company for Alleged Violations of the Remittance Rule and NY Law | Casetext

casetext.com

Further, the complaint alleges that the company failed to develop and maintain proper compliance, error-resolution, and document retention policies.

I also can't show that the sun rose 9 days ago. It's safe to assume it did.

The funny thing is my standard is reading a judgement. You want my standard to be. Find me a case that fits the exact criteria that are here, although the actual law is to combat fraud in general. Your standard... well nothing. 'I don't believe you, now prove me wrong. If you prove me wrong, prove that I'm even more wrong. etc.,etc"

It's a pretty low standard I'm giving you, Forkup! You claim that the law that James used against Trump has been used thousands of times before? Show me once where it was used against a real estate developer who paid their loans back on time with interest and the bank from which they borrowed was happy with the transaction? I don't think you can because it's NEVER been used in such a way! Not once until James used it against Trump! That, my friend...is the epitome of selective prosecution!

 

[Oldestyle]

CFPB and NY AG File Suit Against Money Transfer Company for Alleged Violations of the Remittance Rule and NY Law | Casetext

casetext.com

Further, the complaint alleges that the company failed to develop and maintain proper compliance, error-resolution, and document retention policies.

I also can't show that the sun rose 9 days ago. It's safe to assume it did.

The funny thing is my standard is reading a judgement. You want my standard to be. Find me a case that fits the exact criteria that are here, although the actual law is to combat fraud in general. Your standard... well nothing. 'I don't believe you, now prove me wrong. If you prove me wrong, prove that I'm even more wrong. etc.,etc"

And I'm pretty sure you CAN show that the sun rose 9 days ago! Not the best analogy!

 

[JLW]

Guess what...If you commit fraud, then there's a plaintiff...The banks filed no such complaints.

Your answer is wrong at least as it pertains to Trump’s case.. You don’t need a plaintiff in criminal fraud. The State brings the action not an individual. The genesis of the New York State AGs Investigation in Trump’s case were allegations at a Congressional hearing that the Trump Organization was involved in manipulation of asset valuations in violation of the law.

 

[Oldestyle]

Your answer is wrong at least as it pertains to Trump’s case.. You don’t need a plaintiff in criminal fraud. The State brings the action not an individual. The genesis of the New York State AGs Investigation in Trump’s case were allegations at a Congressional hearing that the Trump Organization was involved in manipulation of asset valuations in violation of the law.

The State brings that action on behalf of a victim. Who would that be in this case? Banks that say they're more than satisfied with the transaction and would do business with Trump again?

 

[forkup]

It's a pretty low standard I'm giving you, Forkup! You claim that the law that James used against Trump has been used thousands of times before? Show me once where it was used against a real estate developer who paid their loans back on time with interest and the bank from which they borrowed was happy with the transaction? I don't think you can because it's NEVER been used in such a way! Not once until James used it against Trump! That, my friend...is the epitome of selective prosecution!

"Low standard??", going through thousands of cases. Read the specifics of each case, so I can find the one that fits your very specific criteria? Just so you can move the goalposts?

I tell you what. Why don't you read the judgement. 90 Something pages. Find me specific errors in it. I'll respond to them. Then I'll think about doing this "low standard" thing.

 

[forkup]

And I'm pretty sure you CAN show that the sun rose 9 days ago! Not the best analogy!

You are right not the best analogy.