Trump fraud case just fell apart

www.businessinsider.com...

Haigh is a banker who helped sign off on the more than $400 million that Deutsche Bank loaned the former president over the past decade.

"A haircut is a way by which the bank reduces the stated value of the asset in order to form some kind of assessment of what it might be worth," should there be a default, Haigh testified in a crisp British accent.

Trump's pre- and post-haircut net worth varied wildly, the banker showed.

In 2011, Trump told the bank he was worth $4.26 billion. But after the bank's haircut, meaning in a hypothetical default, he'd be worth as little as $2.365 billion, according to the fourth page of Deutche Bank's 2011 Trump "credit report," an internal banking document entered into evidence in the morning.

So very much like my initial argument, in that Trump could say anything he wanted with regard to his net worth, or property valuations, but the bank lending the money has the last say in what they accept as true net worth, and true property valuation. Which makes anything Trump said irrelevant. In this case, the idea that Trump defrauded the banks was the key component. Well, he didn't. They did their due diligence, he borrowed the money, at the interest rate he agreed on, and paid it back, with the interest he agreed to pay. So other than political douchebagery, there is nothing here.

If he defrauded the IRS, then they will find that on an audit. I doubt it's the states place to deal with that on a civil case trial, but I'm not a paralegal, so I don't know.

But it's clear to see that the merits of this case were based on partisan idiocy and very little thought was put into it, other than OMB.

Now we can find out if Alvin Bragg has the goods and can make his case better than this DERP.

a reply to: network dude

Put the question persists, will the American people educated to this fact, or will they think Trump got away with it somehow.

a reply to: network dude

I've dealt with financial paperwork many times and can see very clearly that this whole case is a witch hunt.

Every car dealership states that their cars are worth much more than they would actually sell for except at tax time where the value is always lowered.

The only way this would be fraud is if someone external had their paperwork altered or in some cases suppressed.

a reply to: theatreboy

depends on the "honesty" of the reporting. As of now, they are still thinking this is hurting Trump because of the "hair cut" joke. (he has silly hair)

But it just destroyed the case.

Just wait until Democrats get Trump's tax returns!
💣

originally posted by: network dude
www.businessinsider.com...

Haigh is a banker who helped sign off on the more than $400 million that Deutsche Bank loaned the former president over the past decade.

"A haircut is a way by which the bank reduces the stated value of the asset in order to form some kind of assessment of what it might be worth," should there be a default, Haigh testified in a crisp British accent.

Trump's pre- and post-haircut net worth varied wildly, the banker showed.

In 2011, Trump told the bank he was worth $4.26 billion. But after the bank's haircut, meaning in a hypothetical default, he'd be worth as little as $2.365 billion, according to the fourth page of Deutche Bank's 2011 Trump "credit report," an internal banking document entered into evidence in the morning.

So very much like my initial argument, in that Trump could say anything he wanted with regard to his net worth, or property valuations, but the bank lending the money has the last say in what they accept as true net worth, and true property valuation. Which makes anything Trump said irrelevant. In this case, the idea that Trump defrauded the banks was the key component. Well, he didn't. They did their due diligence, he borrowed the money, at the interest rate he agreed on, and paid it back, with the interest he agreed to pay. So other than political douchebagery, there is nothing here.

If he defrauded the IRS, then they will find that on an audit. I doubt it's the states place to deal with that on a civil case trial, but I'm not a paralegal, so I don't know.

But it's clear to see that the merits of this case were based on partisan idiocy and very little thought was put into it, other than OMB.

Now we can find out if Alvin Bragg has the goods and can make his case better than this DERP.

More over, appraisials vary. Estimation of value is always a guess; albeit educated, until the point of sale. Only at which time monies are collected, do you prove the valuation. If you have 2 different appraisal companies estimate the valuation of any particular dwelling, is it not true, that they can give you back different valuation assessments?

Is it a crime to select which ever appraisal is higher? Is it a crime to believe that your appraisal is lower than actual value?

The answer is no to both of these.

The issue here is most people work for a business, few people run a business. You have to RUN a business to understand these business facts; and it doesn't matter how loud someone who works for a business cries foul; if they don't understand how business is conducted; it's just NACL.

a reply to: network dude

Yes, you did call that shot quite accurately.

Cheers

originally posted by: carewemust
Just wait until Democrats get Trump's tax returns!
💣

that will get his fo sho!

a reply to: network dude

Imagine if Liberals were subject to feeling embarrassment like normal people.

The world would be a lot better place.

originally posted by: network dude
So very much like my initial argument, in that Trump could say anything he wanted with regard to his net worth, or property valuations, but the bank lending the money has the last say in what they accept as true net worth, and true property valuation. Which makes anything Trump said irrelevant. In this case, the idea that Trump defrauded the banks was the key component. Well, he didn't. They did their due diligence, he borrowed the money, at the interest rate he agreed on, and paid it back, with the interest he agreed to pay. So other than political douchebagery, there is nothing here.

I have said a number of times that a bank would not give 100s of millions in a loan without their own validation to secure the loan. Hell, a bank will not give 50k without validation...lol

defrauded the IRS, then they will find that on an audit. I doubt it's the state's place to deal with that on a civil case trial, but I'm not a paralegal, so I don't know.

As to what they are suggesting, he can't. Trump doesn't set value to his buildings for taxes. NYC does its own value assessment. I think my house tax assessment is like 800k, which seems to be slow compared to what is in reality, but I'm selling for 1 million. In any case, I don't tell the City what my house value is.

a reply to: network dude

To the Marxist democrats, the law is an amorphous blob they can shape into anything they need it to be to accomplish what they want, so when they are met with resistance, they keep reshaping it until hopefully, the goal is accomplished.

It will be interesting to see how Bragg reshapes his own bogus case.

a reply to: network dude
Where are all the retreads spewing the pablum that’s been proven false 25 times ?
Probably all plum tuckered out from making up stories about Israel.

When does the indictment of Litigious Shames begin ?

I hate these political threads, even this forum most times, but what the hell. I'm assuming this is his NY real estate charges.

The crux is that he UNLAWFULLY misrepresented his business value and the equity of his assets, which is in fact illegal per the government. You know, the ones who make laws. Hence why it is the real reason he is in court, as Trump never left a debt to default- which also isn't illegal itself even if he had. If he needed a haircut that's pretty much a smoking gun piece of evidence that he did in fact misrepresent his business. Do not mistake accounting and equity procedures in private business for the rule of law, it is not. Just because nobody was left holding the short stick doesn't mean everything was legal.

It honestly amazes me how many of the posters here seem so worried about something they literally cannot bother to spend five minutes learning about, so when they get snippets thrown in their face they can somehow think it's a good thing. Must be nice.

originally posted by: Duggz
I hate these political threads, even this forum most times, but what the hell. I'm assuming this is his NY real estate charges.

The crux is that he UNLAWFULLY misrepresented his business value and the equity of his assets, which is in fact illegal per the government. You know, the ones who make laws. Hence why it is the real reason he is in court, as Trump never left a debt to default- which also isn't illegal itself even if he had. If he needed a haircut that's pretty much a smoking gun piece of evidence that he did in fact misrepresent his business. Do not mistake accounting and equity procedures in private business for the rule of law, it is not. Just because nobody was left holding the short stick doesn't mean everything was legal.

It honestly amazes me how many of the posters here seem so worried about something they literally cannot bother to spend five minutes learning about, so when they get snippets thrown in their face they can somehow think it's a good thing. Must be nice.

Unlawfully how? If my town estimates my house as being worth $600k for taxes, the bank says it's worth $500k for obtaining a mortgage and I think it's only worth $450k based on recent comps, who's right? Would it be unlawful if I put the valuation down as $600k on a loan application?

Trump serves as a great distraction from all the other nonsense going on in government. He won't be going away anytime soon

originally posted by: Duggz
I hate these political threads, even this forum most times, but what the hell. I'm assuming this is his NY real estate charges.

The crux is that he UNLAWFULLY misrepresented his business value and the equity of his assets, which is in fact illegal per the government. You know, the ones who make laws. Hence why it is the real reason he is in court, as Trump never left a debt to default- which also isn't illegal itself even if he had. If he needed a haircut that's pretty much a smoking gun piece of evidence that he did in fact misrepresent his business. Do not mistake accounting and equity procedures in private business for the rule of law, it is not. Just because nobody was left holding the short stick doesn't mean everything was legal.

It honestly amazes me how many of the posters here seem so worried about something they literally cannot bother to spend five minutes learning about, so when they get snippets thrown in their face they can somehow think it's a good thing. Must be nice.

then you won't have any issue showing the legal statue that he broke. thanks in advance for your solid link.


eta
But if you use common sense with this, and understand that the charge is that he defrauded the bank by over inflating his net worth, you would think this is a clear cut case. That is until this guy comes in and testifies under oath that he was the guy who was in charge of lending Trump money, and they didn't take Trump's word for his net worth, they did their due diligence and valued it as they could based on his assets and financials. So knowing this guy explained away the main charge, it would take a large amount of hubris coupled with some ignorance to think the case still has merit. Now not every one of us is as smart as you seem to think you are, so it should be easy for you to explain this away. If you are as smart as you imply that is.

If this harmed their case, why would the AG be submitting it as evidence?

originally posted by: peter_kandra

originally posted by: Duggz
I hate these political threads, even this forum most times, but what the hell. I'm assuming this is his NY real estate charges.

The crux is that he UNLAWFULLY misrepresented his business value and the equity of his assets, which is in fact illegal per the government. You know, the ones who make laws. Hence why it is the real reason he is in court, as Trump never left a debt to default- which also isn't illegal itself even if he had. If he needed a haircut that's pretty much a smoking gun piece of evidence that he did in fact misrepresent his business. Do not mistake accounting and equity procedures in private business for the rule of law, it is not. Just because nobody was left holding the short stick doesn't mean everything was legal.

It honestly amazes me how many of the posters here seem so worried about something they literally cannot bother to spend five minutes learning about, so when they get snippets thrown in their face they can somehow think it's a good thing. Must be nice.

Unlawfully how? If my town estimates my house as being worth $600k for taxes, the bank says it's worth $500k for obtaining a mortgage and I think it's only worth $450k based on recent comps, who's right? Would it be unlawful if I put the valuation down as $600k on a loan application?

Heh, that depends on who you are, and what ethnicity you are, and what your political affiliations are!

Come on, man! You know this answer!

originally posted by: Threadbare
If this harmed their case, why would the AG be submitting it as evidence?

Because it's the truth, and it happened. Just as the article title implies, folks think it's a dig at Trump for his bad haircut, but when DERP are DERPING, they usually aren't THINKING.

a reply to: Duggz

If he committed a crime, why is it civil court and not criminal?