Ivanka Trump will now have to testify in NY Fraud trial

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: network dude

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

What world are you living in?

It's like I loan someone money, we decide on the terms. We both sign of on it. He pays me, as agreed.

But, years later the state comes in and says "wait right there, Buddy! You owe SourGrapes $××.×× more money because...well, because WE SAY SO!"

a reply to: network dude

Do you believe that Bernie Madoff should've been found innocent because it was the responsibility of his victims to do their due diligence?

originally posted by: Threadbarer
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?

I'd ask you to explain that, but I doubt you grasp it either.

No, if you go to a bank to borrow money, it's up to the bank and only the bank to decide the value of the property they are taking as collateral. If Trump defaulted on his loan, and the property was worthless, then they could go after him in a civil court, or perhaps even a criminal one. But the bank would have done a bad evaluation of the value.

This is what banks do, all day, every day. But as I said, this is likely common practice in business, and this gives Trump much more than enough ammo to do some really nasty things to those who went after him.

a reply to: Threadbarer

How much is Bill Gates worth on any given day? Do you think his numbers always work?

How much money has DoD lost? Guess their accounting systems are fraudulent too.

a reply to: Threadbarer

Do you honestly think the two are even remotely close?

Trump borrowed money from a bank. He paid it back.

Madoff took money from investors and used it for himself.

Remember, drugs are bad. Mkay.

a reply to: Threadbarer

so the bank negotiated a loan that was paid back

if they had offered him a higher rate he might have walked away to some other funding instrument and NY taxpayers would have not gotten any piece at all

a reply to: MoreCoyoteAngels

Where would he have gone? At that point, Deutsche Bank was the only financial institution willing to lend him money.

a reply to: network dude

The both were running cons that caused significant monetary losses to their victims. But you're only victim blaming in one of the cases.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: MoreCoyoteAngels

Where would he have gone? At that point, Deutsche Bank was the only financial institution willing to lend him money.

and if they thought he was not going to pay it back, or they decided the real value of the property he was trying to buy wasn't enough, couldn't they have just said no?

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: network dude

The both were running cons that caused significant monetary losses to their victims. But you're only victim blaming in one of the cases.

no. again, the terms of the loan were agreed upon by both parties. If what Trump did was criminal, he would be in criminal court. He isn't. You do understand the difference right?

a reply to: network dude

They were agreed upon using fraudulent data. Just like Madoff's victims gave him money based on fraudulent data.

a reply to: network dude

Indeed they could. The problem is Deutsche Bank didn't have the resources to appraise the properties Trump was putting up as collateral. So they mainly had to rely on the valuations provided by Trump. Valuations Trump attested to being accurate while knowing they were fraudulent.

Kise stepped in it right before court ended. He once again tried to attack Engoron's clerk and Engoron became furious. He's threatening to extend Trump's gag order to his lawyers.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: network dude

They were agreed upon using fraudulent data. Just like Madoff's victims gave him money based on fraudulent data.

No
No
No

Madoffs victims were because of greed and stupidity.
And still they should have known better.
But for Madoff, he lied and colluded to defraud others from the get go.

He masked his ponzi scheme as legitimate business and never intended to execute his promises to his investors.
He only paid off people to continue to defraud more people without any mechanism in place to generate income other than fraudulent promises.

What is weird is that this has to be explained to you

The giveaway that this trial is "politically mediaized" being AG Letitia James sits in the courtroom sending out social media posts like crazy during the trial hearings

a reply to: WingDingLuey

Her official AG account (which probably isn't run by her as it is a government account) made two threads today, neither of which pertained to the trial. Her personal account made one post. Which, once again, had nothing to do with the trial.

a reply to: Threadbarer

A bank lost 100 million in interest and it is the fault of the person who got the loan? Read that out loud 3 times and maybe you will realize who utterly dumb is sounds. Seriously.

The bank made a decision. No one put a gun to their head. There were no kickbacks. It was a loan. A person can say their portfolio is worth whatever they want. It is up to the lender to verify. If I apply for a credit card, and I say I make 250k and I make 40k and get approved for a card does that mean the card issuer is hurting?

Billionaires get good deals sometimes. BFD.

No one pays taxes on a loan. What you said was incorrect. You are saying he inflated his worth so if that is true he would pay more taxes.

a reply to: matafuchs

And Trump Organization is responsible for intentionally providing fraudulent data for many years in an attempt to get a better deal.

It's funny how your guys are never willing to admit that Trump is responsible for his own actions. It's always someone else's fault.

I also never said a person pays taxes on a loan. I said that if the bank took in an extra $100 million, then the bank would be taxed on that extra income.

a reply to: Threadbarer

You actually believe she has only one account?

She sends messages to proxies and they spam the SM sites with Trump smears.

a reply to: WingDingLuey

I just says she has two accounts. But it's clear you're just talking out your ass as you've provided no proof for your claims.