The (many) indictments of Donald Trump

#14,027
#14,027
volgr said:
Just focusing on the most recent one is all the evidence one needs to make this point. They went after a former President in a highly dubious case, where no one was claiming to have been damaged, every major player in the real estate field says not only was there was nothing unusual about this transaction but the ruling itself would destroy the way business has been done for decades and the penalty was ridiculously high.

There is no other explanation than this was political lawfare.
Click to expand...
In your conspiratorial theory based world, who are these "they"?
 
#14,028
#14,028
VolTull said:
In your conspiratorial theory based world, who are these "they"?
Click to expand...
I didn’t post this. Good question. It could be any number of people, but I don’t think this judge woke up one night and decided to go after Trump. If you believe that then you are a little thick between the ears.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolTull
#14,029
#14,029
Hunerwadel said:
Exactly. The banks and their stockholders lost money. The insurance companies and their stockholders lost money because the Trumps didn't pay the premiums and interest they should have.
Click to expand...

This is not only wrong but laughably wrong. As every real estate mogul has said on Twitter, what Trump did was standard among developers. You dont think a bank giving out a multi-hundred million dollar loan wont have too notch auditors reviewing these evaluations? Your Trump Derangement Syndrome is obvious.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Wireless1
#14,030
#14,030
volgr said:
This is not only wrong but laughably wrong. As ever real estate mogul has said on Twitter, what Trump did was standard among developers. You dont think a bank giving out a multi-hundred million dollar loan wont have too notch auditors reviewing these evaluations? Your Trump Derangement Syndrome is obvious.
Click to expand...
No. you don’t understand. Bankers are dumb and crooked. Politicians and judges are honest, upstanding citizens looking for opportunities to protect us from evil.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wireless1 and volgr
#14,032
#14,032
VolTull said:
In your conspiratorial theory based world, who are these "they"?
Click to expand...

That is what you question from my post? Who they is? They would be who is bringing suit against Trump, which is different in each case. There is no grand conspiracy, just over zealous prosecutors looking for 15 minutes of fame by using leftist courts stacked with leftist juries for east convictions.

A black man in Alabama in 1880 would get a more fair trial than Trump would in some of these Courts. But, Orange Man bad, so you clap like a trained seal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LibertyVol
#14,034
#14,034
volgr said:
That is what you question from my post? Who they is? They would be who is bringing suit against Trump, which is different in each case. There is no grand conspiracy, just over zealous prosecutors looking for 15 minutes of fame by using leftist courts stacked with leftist juries for east convictions.

A black man in Alabama in 1880 would get a more fair trial than Trump would in some of these Courts. But, Orange Man bad, so you clap like a trained seal.
Click to expand...
Very bad comparison, 15 years after the Civil War. Location, Location and Location. Doubt a Black man would have the $$$$ in New York to anywhere to make these kind of Loan Requests.
 
#14,035
#14,035
whodeycin85 said:
Quick question, if the banks landed Trump more money based on his inflated worth then didnt they make more money for their shareholders then they would have at a lower loan amount??? Or am I missing something.
Click to expand...
That is a good point. The banks would be willing to loan more at a
lower rate based on inflated assets resulting in more interest income. As opposed to loaning less money at a higher rate if the bank thought the loan was
more risky. The banks got paid and made money and I am sure it was a lot of money.
 
#14,036
#14,036
LibertyVol said:
That is a good point. The banks would be willing to loan more at a
lower rate based on inflated assets resulting in more interest income. As opposed to loaning less money at a higher rate if the bank thought the loan was
more risky. The banks got paid and made money and I am sure it was a lot of money.
Click to expand...
That's always where I was most confused...i get the law..its a shyt law...and need repealed...but to holdn1 party responsible forna 2 party deal where both were aware and accepting of the inflated values is what makes it all a farse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol and LibertyVol
#14,037
#14,037
volgr said:
Offfff course you do. What law did he break in Georgia?
Click to expand...
You don’t think all states criminalize actions like election fraud (“finding” votes), impersonating public officials (fake electors), and forgery of official documents (fake elector votes)?

Or do you not understand inchoate offenses (like solicitation and conspiracy)?

Without even looking up the indictment, I can almost guarantee that’s what he was charged with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sudden Impact
#14,038
#14,038
RockyTop85 said:
You don’t think all states criminalize actions like election fraud (“finding” votes), impersonating public officials (fake electors), and forgery of official documents (fake elector votes)?

Or do you not understand inchoate offenses (like solicitation and conspiracy)?

Without even looking up the indictment, I can almost guarantee that’s what he was charged with.
Click to expand...

The fake electors claim is ridiculous. Finding votes by looking into voter fraud, also isnt a crime. Nothing he did was illegal, like the NY real estate case. It takes a very contorted view of law to come to that conclusion.
 
#14,039
#14,039
whodeycin85 said:
Quick question, if the banks landed Trump more money based on his inflated worth then didnt they make more money for their shareholders then they would have at a lower loan amount??? Or am I missing something.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure they loaned more but they did loan it at (*supposedly*) a lower rate.

The banks pretty much all testified they knew his financials were FOS and they applied a 50-75% haircut to his net worth calcs.
 
#14,040
#14,040
BigOrangeMojo said:
I'm not sure they loaned more but they did loan it at (*supposedly*) a lower rate.

The banks pretty much all testified they knew his financials were FOS and they applied a 50-75% haircut to his net worth calcs.
Click to expand...
They knew he was FOS, but loaned to him at a lower rate?
 
#14,042
#14,042
whodeycin85 said:
That's always where I was most confused...i get the law..its a shyt law...and need repealed...but to holdn1 party responsible forna 2 party deal where both were aware and accepting of the inflated values is what makes it all a farse.
Click to expand...

It's spelled 'farce.'

I urge you real-estate law experts--hee, hee--to read the judge's 90-some page ruling on the case before offering--as you always do--your uniformed opinions. I have not read the ruling because, first, I'm happy with the outcome and have no reason to complain (quite the opposite), and second, because it's quite obvious that the gangster had been lying about valuations for many years. I'm quite sure other real-estate moguls fudge their evaluations for similar reasons--though probably not as egregiously as Trump. I don't know if any of them have been charged with fraud over the years. I suspect so. It can be argued that the feds, states and the IRS do not investigate and prosecute major white-collar crime aggressively enough; indeed, that's one reason Trump and his company weren't charged before this. At the end of the day he broke laws, it was proven that he did so, and he will pay for it.
 
#14,044
#14,044
volgr said:
The fake electors claim is ridiculous. Finding votes by looking into voter fraud, also isnt a crime. Nothing he did was illegal, like the NY real estate case. It takes a very contorted view of law to come to that conclusion.
Click to expand...
The fake electors claim is ridiculous --- IYO --- Intent.
Finding votes by looking into voter fraud --- Looking into Elector Fraud not a crime. The Intent along with Trump's Position is.
Nothing he did was illegal --- Seriously?
It takes a very contorted view of law --- Yes you have managed to contort it for you.
Basically it is Accountability for his actions and his mouth --- not guilty or guilty will be for the courts to decide.
Like the NY real estate case it was not criminal and the state took more leeway than they should. Appeals for ever.
 
#14,045
#14,045
85SugarVol said:
I would have expected them to loan at a higher rate given their appraisals, not a lower rate.
Click to expand...

The lower interest rate was due to his personal guarantee vs based on collateral of buildings..

For $200M loan, what is interest rate difference for personal guarantee from someone with a $2B net worth vs $5B?

Can't be more than 100 bps difference
 
#14,046
#14,046
volgr said:
I didn’t think this through before I asked the question and now I’m embarrassed that the answer was so obvious, so I’ll just say it’s wrong and hope nobody notices that my only substantive response is to raise a dispute of fact that would be properly left up to a jury.
Click to expand...
FYP
 
#14,047
#14,047
turbovol said:
It's spelled 'farce.'

I urge you real-estate law experts--hee, hee--to read the judge's 90-some page ruling on the case before offering--as you always do--your uniformed opinions. I have not read the ruling because, first, I'm happy with the outcome and have no reason to complain (quite the opposite), and second, because it's quite obvious that the gangster had been lying about valuations for many years. I'm quite sure other real-estate moguls fudge their evaluations for similar reasons--though probably not as egregiously as Trump. I don't know if any of them have been charged with fraud over the years. I suspect so. It can be argued that the feds, states and the IRS do not investigate and prosecute major white-collar crime aggressively enough; indeed, that's one reason Trump and his company weren't charged before this. At the end of the day he broke laws, it was proven that he did so, and he will pay for it.
Click to expand...
Tells others to read the ruling before offering an opinion. Admits to not reading the ruling. Offers an opinion. Priceless.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sudden Impact and davethevol
#14,048
#14,048
Wonder how much money the banks made off doing business with Trump? I imagine they would be eager to tell prospective clients who they do business with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top