Ivanka Trump will now have to testify in NY Fraud trial

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: Xtrozero

The people of New York.

I asked them, and they didn't know they were harmed.

But it would be super since you are sofaking sure this is all fairzies, could you explain the difference Trump would have paid, had he not adjusted his numbers when getting loans. I mean, that should be easy.

a reply to: network dude

I'm glad you asked. The prosecution's expert witness yesterday testified that Trump's fraudulent practices cost the banks $168 million in interest.

And today Don Jr. testified on signing off on documents to those banks affirming the legitimacy of those fraudulent numbers at the behest of his father.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: network dude

I'm glad you asked. The prosecution's expert witness yesterday testified that Trump's fraudulent practices cost the banks $168 million in interest.

And today Don Jr. testified on signing off on documents to those banks affirming the legitimacy of those fraudulent numbers at the behest of his father.

wow, so that guy who said the banks appraised the properties themselves lied under oath. Interesting.

a reply to: network dude

“In general terms, my conclusion was the client owned a lot of real estate, a lot of golf courses, which I didn’t know how to value,” Haigh said.

Fancy houses, works of art, or planes were more typical big-ticket items offered for collateral, he said. With Trump offering golf courses and condo projects instead, Haigh said, the bank relied on Trump’s guarantee that he could use his personal wealth to cover the loans if his business went bad. And, Haigh said, Deutsche agreed to that arrangement based on the documents Trump provided. James’ now charges that those same documents were fraudulent.

Source

You mean that witness' testimony?

a reply to: Threadbarer

how did the banks lose interest on loans Trump took out and paid?

a reply to: Threadbarer

LOL, I'd ask you to read that part you quoted and think about it from a neutral perspective, but I know you aren't capable of such a feat.

But no, I was speaking of the guy who said the bank did "haircuts" on the valuation of Trump's properties when loaning money.
link

If the bank did this, then as I have said in the past, Trump could have said anything he wanted for the value, and it wouldn't have mattered. Banks are supposed to make sure they are not going to get screwed, it's how they make money.

But the points you keep bringing up make it look as if this is common practice in business, and if I could save hundreds of thousands by creative accounting, I'd be tempted, and I'm honest. So I'd wager most in business do the same thing, and all Trump needs to do is bring in an AG to do his bidding and he can go after all the big dems who do business in NYC. He would have a giant chip on his shoulder, and the legal precedence of this case to back it all up. If there was a place to make the bet that this will bite the left really hard in the ass, I'd put money on it.

a reply to: MoreCoyoteAngels

Because if they knew his actual net worth the interest rates on his loans would've been higher.

a reply to: network dude

The people of NY?

You mean like the star witness Michael Cohen whose parents and in-laws have apartments in Trump Tower? He paid cash for those also...hmmmm....

a reply to: network dude

The witness I cited is the same witness, Nicholas Haigh of Deutsche Bank. He testified that the bank didn't have the resources to appraise the properties Trump was losing as collateral, as a result they primarily relied on the valuations provided by Trump, considering they legally attested to their accuracy. That said, in an attempt to cover themselves they based their loan terms on lower values.

They didn't think Trump would inflate his value so much that their lowered numbers would still be grossly too high. The fact that Trump had a loan he would default on if his net worth dropped below $4 billion when he only had a net worth of $1.6 billion should tell you how much Trump was cooking the books.

a reply to: Threadbarer

Net worth determined the interest rates on his loans? Is that the only factor? I mean, Trump is always saying he is worth more than he is according to the media so....which side are you on this time?

a reply to: Threadbarer

If that is the case, then that man should not have a job but....the loans were paid!

a reply to: Threadbarer

so its still up to the bank to validate?

a reply to: Threadbarer

so in other words they negotiated a deal everyone happy with until the state got involved because 'get Trump'

a reply to: matafuchs

At a lower interest rate than they should've been paid back at costing the banks over $100 million.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: network dude

The witness I cited is the same witness, Nicholas Haigh of Deutsche Bank. He testified that the bank didn't have the resources to appraise the properties Trump was losing as collateral, as a result they primarily relied on the valuations provided by Trump, considering they legally attested to their accuracy. That said, in an attempt to cover themselves they based their loan terms on lower values.

They didn't think Trump would inflate his value so much that their lowered numbers would still be grossly too high. The fact that Trump had a loan he would default on if his net worth dropped below $4 billion when he only had a net worth of $1.6 billion should tell you how much Trump was cooking the books.

I know you got a raging stiffie for getting Trump, but in the real world, where I reside, this would be the bank's problem. If I were in the business of loaning money, I would make DAMN sure the guy I'm lending it to can pay it back, and if he can't, then when I take over the property he lost, I can still make money off of it. If I don't do that, and just say, "my conclusion was the client owned a lot of real estate, a lot of golf courses, which I didn’t know how to value", I would have to find someone who could value those properties, or not loan the money.

Now you raise those pom poms high and do the "go get Trump" cheer you have been practicing. (love the scissors kick at the end)

a reply to: MoreCoyoteAngels

You can argue that the banks didn't do their due diligence, that doesn't change the fact that Trump Organization filed legally binding documents full of fraudulent numbers in an attempt to defraud the banks. Nor does it absolve them of the fact.

Trump Organization defrauded the banks. Don Jr. admitted as much on the stand today. And with the way Eric's testimony is going, he may completely crack under the pressure.

a reply to: Threadbarer

So, it's the banks that lost money?

I thought banks were bad.

a reply to: network dude

So if you successfully defraud somebody it actually means you didn't commit fraud?

What world are you living in?

originally posted by: MoreCoyoteAngels
a reply to: Threadbarer

so its still up to the bank to validate?

LOL, nope. According to Threadbarer, it's totally the job of the customer to value his own stuff. And if he's wrong, he is guilty.

a reply to: SourGrapes

And the people of New York, as that money would've been taxable.