The (many) indictments of Donald Trump

We both know this is not about the banks or the loans, etc. it is about Trump. The root of all evil.

Bargaining has been the basis of trade for centuries. Each party assesses the item to be sold or held as collateral, and bargain toward a mutually acceptable value. There's not much of anything that has real fixed immutable value. It's really like beauty being in the eye of the beholder.

I completely agree it's all about Trump - otherwise we are in for some interesting times if someone offers anything for sale and a court can later come along and say the offered price or valuation was fraudulent after two parties had agreed on the value.
 
Bargaining has been the basis of trade for centuries. Each party assesses the item to be sold or held as collateral, and bargain toward a mutually acceptable value. There's not much of anything that has real fixed immutable value. It's really like beauty being in the eye of the beholder.

I completely agree it's all about Trump - otherwise we are in for some interesting times if someone offers anything for sale and a court can later come along and say the offered price or valuation was fraudulent after two parties had agreed on the value.
i dont get how the gov can intervene in what is essentially a private contract that isnt even in disoute.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
The second part of that you're not getting is the loans he didn't pay back through bankruptcy. If those loans were obtained with fraudulent financial statements, he's . They opened the door with this line of defense.
I’m sure he had property as collateral which was (or should have been) appraised. I would find it unlikely that they gave him a non recourse loan based on his stated personal wealth, especially after his history of bankruptcies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BernardKingGOAT
I’m sure he had property as collateral which was (or should have been) appraised. I would find it unlikely that they gave him a non recourse loan based on his stated personal wealth, especially after his history of bankruptcies.
You're sure he had property collateral? You think it wasn't already heavily leveraged? The clown has to use his donations just to pay his bills...some of them anyway. He's been through dozens of lawyers, just in the last few years. That's a fact. Explain it away, please
 
You're sure he had property collateral? You think it wasn't already heavily leveraged? The clown has to use his donations just to pay his bills...some of them anyway. He's been through dozens of lawyers, just in the last few years. That's a fact. Explain it away, please
I have no idea but considering his past actions and bankruptcies, I sure as hell would have had collateral if loaning to him.
 
You're sure he had property collateral? You think it wasn't already heavily leveraged? The clown has to use his donations just to pay his bills...some of them anyway. He's been through dozens of lawyers, just in the last few years. That's a fact. Explain it away, please
Has to use his donations? Thats not accurate.
 
Nobody is circling the wagons. I assure you Deutsche bank was not sleeping at the wheel. Nobody loans that kind of money to anybody without looking at it every way imaginable. The bankers know what they are doing. Or at least they better or they won’t be in business long. I am sure they had a team of people looking at it. And it looks like they got it right. The shareholders and investor don’t give a ****. The money was repaid. Damn.

You're one bad take after another. After this last one I think we can all agree that you should sit this one out.










If you've not seen it, I'd invite you to watch a movie called "The Big Short." When you're done, report back and let me know if you still have faith in the banking system. These banks are willing to do ANYTHING to make money, their incompetence is only exceeded by their greed.

If you don't think DB would circle the wagons and play off getting played by Donny as routine then you may have just fallen off the turnip truck.
 
You're one bad take after another. After this last one I think we can all agree that you should sit this one out.










If you've not seen it, I'd invite you to watch a movie called "The Big Short." When you're done, report back and let me know if you still have faith in the banking system. These banks are willing to do ANYTHING to make money, their incompetence is only exceeded by their greed.

If you don't think DB would circle the wagons and play off getting played by Donny as routine then you may have just fallen off the turnip truck.
He's already been found liable, or did you forget?

LOL
So the bank has had problems. Still trying to find out who he defrauded and how much?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
So the bank has had problems. Still trying to find out who he defrauded and how much?

You've been told, you just won't acknowledge it. Asking the same question over and over after its been explained makes you look silly.

Maybe you just don't understand the explanation?
 
You've been told, you just won't acknowledge it. Asking the same question over and over after its been explained makes you look silly.

Maybe you just don't understand the explanation?
Answer the question then. Should be easy enough. Deutch bank didn’t sue Trump. Its investors didn’t sue Trump. It ‘s shareholders didn’t sue Trump. No bank sued Trump.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and davethevol
Answer the question then. Should be easy enough. Deutch bank didn’t sue Trump. Its investors didn’t sue Trump. It ‘s shareholders didn’t sue Trump. No bank sued Trump.

What's your point?

Do you think that a suit by the defrauded is required in order to prove the law was broken?

Let me help you... It's not.


If I stole money from you, gambled it, won and then put the money back before you discovered it was missing - did I put your money at risk? Did I break the law even though there was no victim (in the end)?
 
What's your point?

Do you think that a suit by the defrauded is required in order to prove the law was broken?

Let me help you... It's not.


If I stole money from you, gambled it, won and then put the money back before you discovered it was missing - did I put your money at risk? Did I break the law even though there was no victim (in the end)?
that is not a good example. They loaned him the money. He didn’t steal it. They knew what he was going to do with the money. My understanding is Deutch bank is still lending him money. So they obviously did not feel he defrauded them.
 
that is not a good example. They loaned him the money. He didn’t steal it. They knew what he was going to do with the money. My understanding is Deutch bank is still lending him money. So they obviously did not feel he defrauded them.
Actually this is not true. Deutch bank is not loaning him money.
 
Blows my mind to see self proclaimed small government people and business owners cheering on government interference in private businesses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
Blows my mind to see self proclaimed small government people and business owners cheering on government interference in private businesses.

Enforcing the law equals government interference? Lol, that's one way to whitewash bank fraud.
 
So you agree with a law in which the government and deem your business agreements with other businesses are illegal. Regardless of either side agreeing?

I'm sorry, are you asking why the government enforces civil law actions? There are a multitude of reasons why bank fraud laws exist and some aren't even implemented to protect the bank.

My guess is that if Joe or Hillary had so brazenly and openly committed this very exact fraud, you'd be cheering and chirping about how if you don't like the law to then get it changed.
 
I'm sorry, are you asking why the government enforces civil law actions? There are a multitude of reasons why bank fraud laws exist and some aren't even implemented to protect the bank.

My guess is that if Joe or Hillary had so brazenly and openly committed this very exact fraud, you'd be cheering and chirping about how if you don't like the law to then get it changed.
I'm saying a law in which the government can arbitrarily determine which contractual agreements are fraudulent based on their own opinions is a flawed law. Neither DB or DJT said there was fraud by the other which means it was a transaction. Basically you'd be ok with the government bring a lawsuit against your company because they believe that you overcharge for the cost of your goods. Does that seem like the position of someone voting for smaller government?

Biden and Hillary have done similar and as long as the bank isnt being defrauded (which they have said they weren't) then they openly agreed to a deal. The .Gov should stay out of it
 
Why do people continue to debate people with complete TDS, and who beleive lying is a completely valid method to power at all cost. So you really expect Sep to give a damn about facts or reality, when he is so much more vested in the "truth" being whatever false fake news narrative that align with his political desires?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and LibertyVol
Enforcing the law equals government interference? Lol, that's one way to whitewash bank fraud.

Selectively enforcing the law definitely equals government interference. It’s common knowledge that this practice is commonplace as was testified to under oath. Trump definitely seems guilty and is undoubtably guilty of countless other illegal practices he hasn’t even been charged with (yet anyway) used by politicians and the rich in general, but you don’t see the government breaking their backs to hang the rest of them from the flagpole publicly like they are Trump. One neither has to be a Trump fan nor a Trump hater to see this dog and pony show for what it is. To even entertain the idea that this isn’t a political hatchet job is an act of monumental delusion and stupidity.
 

VN Store



Back
Top