Trump fraud case just fell apart

"He cheated the banks into giving him loans he wasn't qualified for. And that is fraudulent. Whether the bank fell for it or not makes no difference. Fraud is fraud",

"I'm just trying to explain to you how the law works"
No your not

How was the bank cheated?

Fraud has a victim, fraud it was not, it was an negotiated agreement,

Trump goes to the bank and ask for a loan, the bank says sure, what's the collateral? Trump says my properties valued at 4 billion. The bank says it's worth less. But the bank says it's still enough to cover the loans. Trump agrees, bank agrees. Trump pays the money back.

Simple response for simpletons

originally posted by: Mahogany

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Mahogany

what did he get from it? Did he borrow against it, and the bank accepted his valuation?

Where did he get what from? The loans?

He cheated the banks into giving him loans he wasn't qualified for. And that is fraudulent. Whether the bank fell for it or not makes no difference. Fraud is fraud, whether the victim was naive or not.

Let's use an analogy that is more at our level, not the oligarch level:

You have a business and you give me the keys to your business because you want me to be there first in the morning and open and get everything ready. Only I don't open up, I have trucks waiting outside and I take everything from your business. You call the police and report theft and I get arrested.

My defense is -- well, he shouldn't have given me the keys because he knew I was a bad guy. Do you think the police would drop charges at that point? Are you no longer a victim because you should have known better?

wait, so Trump stole things? I'm afraid you have to explain this better. If the argument is Trump is worth 2.5 billion and not 4.6 billion, then how much was he borrowing? I need to understand the context here. And again, I have to ask, did they just take his word for it, then lend him the money, and he paid it back, and you find fraud in that? Please explain this as if you really understand it.

a reply to: Mahogany

Assuming the judge undervalued Mar-a-lago

Then he's as guilty as Trump per his own ruling........


Also, kudos for allowing the bank to be the victim. That makes me smile.

a reply to: Biginpc

I must be missing something here.

Hopefully Mahogany can explain this is such a way that we can all grasp the "fraud" he is certain exists.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Mahogany

Assuming the judge undervalued Mar-a-lago

Then he's as guilty as Trump per his own ruling........


Also, kudos for allowing the bank to be the victim. That makes me smile.

It's actually worse. He has authority to penalize Trump, and he used fraud to attempt to punish him. That's disbarment kind of actions. Possibly jail as well.

a reply to: network dude

You are arguing with people who come from a culture of..."Borrow me $400,000 dollars for a college education which only costs $150,000, because I have no intention of paying ANY of it back! And, the reason I have no intention of paying it back is because, as a victim, I am ENTITLED to that money! And...people like Trump are the reason I am a victim!"

You see, to them there IS no "loan". There is only FREE MONEY!

ETA - "Loan" implies an 'obligation', and a 'responsibility', for which people have to be 'accountable'. These words are not in the vocabulary of the people who are so blinded by their zeal and hatred that they cannot see the light of day. Simply put...they don't "get it".

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Mahogany

Assuming the judge undervalued Mar-a-lago

Then he's as guilty as Trump per his own ruling........


Also, kudos for allowing the bank to be the victim. That makes me smile.

It's actually worse. He has authority to penalize Trump, and he used fraud to attempt to punish him. That's disbarment kind of actions. Possibly jail as well.

He's a (D)iffernt kind of judge.

No disbarrment or jail. But a book deal and spot on MSNCBC for this one.

originally posted by: Mahogany

originally posted by: sirlancelot
As a former South FLorida Realtor just 1 hour from Mara Logo the Judges assumption that it was worth $18 Million (tax assesed) is laughable. Just go to zillow and there is .50 acres land for sale for $21 Million and ML is 17 acres and has improved property (dwelling) worth several million more. The swamp is pulling all the stops to abuse their power to demonize a man who isn't on their program and can't be controlled! a reply to: network dude

Assuming the judge undervalued Mar-a-lago by using the tax assessment, and let's say it's worth 100% more than assessed, so not $18 to 37 million, but let's say $60 million. Actually how about a $100 million? Actually let's do $150 million.

Is lying about it and overvaluing it by 1000% instead of 2300% still fraud?

An empty 2 acre lot in Palm Beach is listed for $200 million. Another for $150 million. Trumps property sits on 20 acres. Just the land is probably worth $1 billion conservatively.

The $18 million is from the local tax assessor. The reason for the huge discrepancy is because Mar a largo is deeded as a club, not a residence so the valuation methodology is different.

Trumps personal valuation is based on what a likely buyer would pay. The tax assessors valuation is based on how it is currently deeded.

The AG is trying to assert that Trump is commitibg fraud because the tax assessor has a different valuation methodology which is laughable.

originally posted by: Mahogany

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Mahogany

what did he get from it? Did he borrow against it, and the bank accepted his valuation?

You have a business and you give me the keys to your business because you want me to be there first in the morning and open and get everything ready. Only I don't open up, I have trucks waiting outside and I take everything from your business. You call the police and report theft and I get arrested.

My defense is -- well, he shouldn't have given me the keys because he knew I was a bad guy. Do you think the police would drop charges at that point? Are you no longer a victim because you should have known better?

Wait - so this analogy ( LOL ) is supposed to tell us that the banks already knew that Trump was a "bad guy" and still did business with him anyway (seamlessly and successfully I might add)?

You're telling us all that in your head Trump is already convicted ( he's a bad guy!)

Your analogies need work bro.

a reply to: underpass61

Using the scorpion and frog crossing the river thing is pretty lame.

a reply to: RazorV66

Astonishing is the right word too.

You know, the other day I got into a debate with some psychologist about this very subject. He was a hard over, foaming at the mouth, rabid liberal. I pointed out to him that it is morally wrong to be angry at someone for not understanding. He readily agreed. Then, I pointed out to him that there is a huge difference between not understanding and "refusing" to to accept the same thing (aka. reality). He readily agreed to this also. The two states of mind are not the same, and one is not excusable, I further pointed out to him, and then I asked if he agreed. (???) (instant crickets)

He became instantaneously and visibly agitated at being tricked at his own mind-games, but it wasn't a trick. It was merely an indisputable illustration of the fallacy of the liberal ideology today.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

there are some folks here who are left, who I know are smart. I have seen them speak with knowledge and understanding on other topics, and while we don't accept "credentials" from anonymous online persona, it's clear they have some skills. But when those same folks try to discuss Trump, they seem to gloss over all the facts, and dive straight into angry feelz, and let their emotions dictate their argument. It's funny to watch, but also a bit frightening, as some of these folks may have jobs that could impact much better things, and to know they turn into drooling retards when they allow their TDS to overtake them. Even pointing out the "TDS" to them triggers them, as if they don't believe they are affected by it, but can't explain what they hate about Trump other than his abrasive personality, and that they were told to hate him by the NEWZ.

I have so much more respect for someone who can articulate why they don't like him, and go beyond the personality. I think everyone agrees he's a dick.

a reply to: RazorV66

I'd like to know the "what."

The Trump supporters, and even some of his detractors can still name things they like/dislike about the admin.

Yet, now that he's not in office, they are still on about it with the most half witted logic and no eye on the long game where rights are concerned.

But why? What about trump makes them forget any critical thinking and what in their ideology prevents them for admitting fault and being wrong?

a reply to: network dude

The Fanny Willis Case Against Trump (find me 13,532 votes) is falling apart too.

www.breitbart.com...

Willis is a nasty woman, like her Georgia friend, Stacey Abrams.

a reply to: network dude

Yeah, I don't have a problem discussing pros and cons of Trump...coherently...either. But, exactly as you say, these conversations are very, very, rare. It's like people's brain suddenly launches into orbit around Mars, and you're left with a to continue the discussion with a wild hyena. I've honestly never witnessed the level of vitriol and pure hatred people have for this person, based upon nothing more than what they've been told. Just completely devoid of any sort of coherent facts which could affect them personally, even indirectly.

Beating a dead horse here arguing that there was no fraud. Fraud has already been determined, Trump has appealed, but he really has nothing to go on. But we'll see. It is possible he retains some of the business licenses, anything is possible.

In any case, he already lost on fraud, if anyone wants to understand better how that case went, don't take it from me, go read the ruling.

____________

People always argue how he paid everything back and since he did there is no fraud. The fraud is not just in lying to the banks but also stealing enormous amounts of money through more favorable interest rates, while exposing the banks to high risk by not giving them the truth.

The $250m that the state is asking for is not a penalty, it's a reimbursement for moneys stolen. Here is how the judge explains it and also explains why this case has no jury:

Engoron said the punishment being sought by the state is an "equitable" remedy, as opposed to a "legal" remedy.

A legal remedy is an award for damages, which can be determined by a jury. Earlier this year, a federal jury awarded the writer E. Jean Carroll $5 million in damages after finding Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation. The damages were not an amount Trump took from her, but rather a sum the jury concluded might remedy the emotional, physical and reputational harm Trump had caused.

In the ongoing New York fraud case, the state is seeking $250 million in disgorgement, a kind of equitable remedy that is a clawback of ill-gotten gains — the amount of benefit that the state says Trump and the co-defendants personally received from alleged fraud. Authorities cannot ask a jury to make that kind of calculation.

Link

So it's a 'clawback of ill-gotten gains' that stem from fraud.

a reply to: Mahogany

Beating a dead horse here arguing that there was no fraud. Fraud has already been determined, Trump has appealed, but he really has nothing to go on. But we'll see. It is possible he retains some of the business licenses, anything is possible.

In any case, he already lost on fraud, if anyone wants to understand better how that case went, don't take it from me, go read the ruling.

How exactly was that done again?

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Mahogany

Beating a dead horse here arguing that there was no fraud. Fraud has already been determined, Trump has appealed, but he really has nothing to go on. But we'll see. It is possible he retains some of the business licenses, anything is possible.

In any case, he already lost on fraud, if anyone wants to understand better how that case went, don't take it from me, go read the ruling.

How exactly was that done again?

In the Manhattan Supreme Court.

originally posted by: Mahogany

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Mahogany

what did he get from it? Did he borrow against it, and the bank accepted his valuation?

Where did he get what from? The loans?

He cheated the banks into giving him loans he wasn't qualified for. And that is fraudulent. Whether the bank fell for it or not makes no difference. Fraud is fraud, whether the victim was naive or not.

Let's use an analogy that is more at our level, not the oligarch level:

You have a business and you give me the keys to your business because you want me to be there first in the morning and open and get everything ready. Only I don't open up, I have trucks waiting outside and I take everything from your business. You call the police and report theft and I get arrested.

My defense is -- well, he shouldn't have given me the keys because he knew I was a bad guy. Do you think the police would drop charges at that point? Are you no longer a victim because you should have known better?

That's the STUPIDEST analogy I have ever heard. HTF did you come up with that?

It's more akin to you getting a payday loan, using the title to your 1992 Geo Tracker. The payday loan guy gives you $500 and a week to pay it. You pay your loan, plus interest. All good. A decade later, you're charged with "fraud" because some rando commie judge thinks that Geo Tracker wasn't worth $200.