Trump can’t pay

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like the circus aspects of this case could have been avoided if a reasonable DA and judge were not trying to make political statements.

Or, you know, if it had been someone other than Trump. But then someone other than Trump would not have committed the massive fraud that he did, so there's that.

There was no fraud. The banks were repaid and testified that they would do business again. The law used to get Trump is intended to be used against lenders defrauding borrowers.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like the circus aspects of this case could have been avoided if a reasonable DA and judge were not trying to make political statements.

Or, you know, if it had been someone other than Trump. But then someone other than Trump would not have committed the massive fraud that he did, so there's that.

There was no fraud. The banks were repaid and testified that they would do business again. The law used to get Trump is intended to be used against lenders defrauding borrowers.

Then why could he not get the original $464m bond in a timely fashion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:$175 million to a billionaire is like a $250 fine to a middle class person. A joke.

Not in that time frame. Not everyone has cash sitting around like that.

But he's a multi-billionaire. He's said so himself. Many times. He is however a pathological liar, who got caught in...another lie.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

This will be appealed for another year or so and then he'll get the money back. It's all pointless election year theater.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This will be appealed for another year or so and then he'll get the money back. It's all pointless election year theater.

It isn’t theater. He was found guilty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like the circus aspects of this case could have been avoided if a reasonable DA and judge were not trying to make political statements.

Or, you know, if it had been someone other than Trump. But then someone other than Trump would not have committed the massive fraud that he did, so there's that.

There was no fraud. The banks were repaid and testified that they would do business again. The law used to get Trump is intended to be used against lenders defrauding borrowers.

No. That’s incorrect. It covers repeated fraudulent or illegal acts in carrying out any business activity. Here is the language of 63(12):

12. Whenever any person shall engage in repeated fraudulent or illegal
acts or otherwise demonstrate persistent fraud or illegality in the
carrying on, conducting or transaction of business, the attorney general
may apply, in the name of the people of the state of New York, to the
supreme court of the state of New York, on notice of five days, for an
order enjoining the continuance of such business activity or of any
fraudulent or illegal acts, directing restitution and damages and, in an
appropriate case, cancelling any certificate filed under and by virtue
of the provisions of section four hundred forty of the former penal law
or section one hundred thirty of the general business law, and the court
may award the relief applied for or so much thereof as it may deem
proper. The word "fraud" or "fraudulent" as used herein shall include
any device, scheme or artifice to defraud and any deception,
misrepresentation, concealment, suppression, false pretense, false
promise or unconscionable contractual provisions. The term "persistent
fraud" or "illegality" as used herein shall include continuance or
carrying on of any fraudulent or illegal act or conduct. The term
"repeated" as used herein shall include repetition of any separate and
distinct fraudulent or illegal act, or conduct which affects more than
one person. Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, all monies
recovered or obtained under this subdivision by a state agency or state
official or employee acting in their official capacity shall be subject
to subdivision eleven of section four of the state finance law.

In connection with any such application, the attorney general is
authorized to take proof and make a determination of the relevant facts
and to issue subpoenas in accordance with the civil practice law and
rules. Such authorization shall not abate or terminate by reason of any
action or proceeding brought by the attorney general under this section.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This will be appealed for another year or so and then he'll get the money back. It's all pointless election year theater.

You say that, but Trump can no longer get a loan from anyone, now that banks have seen how untrustworthy he and his business are.

[Anonymous]

He told the bank Trump Tower condo was 33,000 sq ft but on taxes said it was a little over 10,0000sq ft. NY tax people and IRS should be investigating tax fraud.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This will be appealed for another year or so and then he'll get the money back. It's all pointless election year theater.

This time next year this entire issue will be forgotten. President Trump will be MAGAing from the oval and the democrats will be wringing their hands and crying about another made up issue.

Democrats will try everything to keep Trump from becoming president again, except nominating a better candidate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like the circus aspects of this case could have been avoided if a reasonable DA and judge were not trying to make political statements.

Or, you know, if it had been someone other than Trump. But then someone other than Trump would not have committed the massive fraud that he did, so there's that.

There was no fraud. The banks were repaid and testified that they would do business again. The law used to get Trump is intended to be used against lenders defrauding borrowers.

Then why could he not get the original $464m bond in a timely fashion?

My understanding is that banks do not provide such bonds; insurance companies do. And the latter do not take real estate as collateral.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like the circus aspects of this case could have been avoided if a reasonable DA and judge were not trying to make political statements.

Or, you know, if it had been someone other than Trump. But then someone other than Trump would not have committed the massive fraud that he did, so there's that.

There was no fraud. The banks were repaid and testified that they would do business again. The law used to get Trump is intended to be used against lenders defrauding borrowers.

No. That’s incorrect. It covers repeated fraudulent or illegal acts in carrying out any business activity. Here is the language of 63(12):

12. Whenever any person shall engage in repeated fraudulent or illegal
acts or otherwise demonstrate persistent fraud or illegality in the
carrying on, conducting or transaction of business, the attorney general
may apply, in the name of the people of the state of New York, to the
supreme court of the state of New York, on notice of five days, for an
order enjoining the continuance of such business activity or of any
fraudulent or illegal acts, directing restitution and damages and, in an
appropriate case, cancelling any certificate filed under and by virtue
of the provisions of section four hundred forty of the former penal law
or section one hundred thirty of the general business law, and the court
may award the relief applied for or so much thereof as it may deem
proper. The word "fraud" or "fraudulent" as used herein shall include
any device, scheme or artifice to defraud and any deception,
misrepresentation, concealment, suppression, false pretense, false
promise or unconscionable contractual provisions. The term "persistent
fraud" or "illegality" as used herein shall include continuance or
carrying on of any fraudulent or illegal act or conduct. The term
"repeated" as used herein shall include repetition of any separate and
distinct fraudulent or illegal act, or conduct which affects more than
one person. Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, all monies
recovered or obtained under this subdivision by a state agency or state
official or employee acting in their official capacity shall be subject
to subdivision eleven of section four of the state finance law.

In connection with any such application, the attorney general is
authorized to take proof and make a determination of the relevant facts
and to issue subpoenas in accordance with the civil practice law and
rules. Such authorization shall not abate or terminate by reason of any
action or proceeding brought by the attorney general under this section.

I still don't get the fraud. Banks simply don't take a borrower's assessment of value of their real estate collateral. They do their own appraisals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Saudi money? Russian?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like the circus aspects of this case could have been avoided if a reasonable DA and judge were not trying to make political statements.

Or, you know, if it had been someone other than Trump. But then someone other than Trump would not have committed the massive fraud that he did, so there's that.

There was no fraud. The banks were repaid and testified that they would do business again. The law used to get Trump is intended to be used against lenders defrauding borrowers.

No. That’s incorrect. It covers repeated fraudulent or illegal acts in carrying out any business activity. Here is the language of 63(12):

12. Whenever any person shall engage in repeated fraudulent or illegal
acts or otherwise demonstrate persistent fraud or illegality in the
carrying on, conducting or transaction of business, the attorney general
may apply, in the name of the people of the state of New York, to the
supreme court of the state of New York, on notice of five days, for an
order enjoining the continuance of such business activity or of any
fraudulent or illegal acts, directing restitution and damages and, in an
appropriate case, cancelling any certificate filed under and by virtue
of the provisions of section four hundred forty of the former penal law
or section one hundred thirty of the general business law, and the court
may award the relief applied for or so much thereof as it may deem
proper. The word "fraud" or "fraudulent" as used herein shall include
any device, scheme or artifice to defraud and any deception,
misrepresentation, concealment, suppression, false pretense, false
promise or unconscionable contractual provisions. The term "persistent
fraud" or "illegality" as used herein shall include continuance or
carrying on of any fraudulent or illegal act or conduct. The term
"repeated" as used herein shall include repetition of any separate and
distinct fraudulent or illegal act, or conduct which affects more than
one person. Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, all monies
recovered or obtained under this subdivision by a state agency or state
official or employee acting in their official capacity shall be subject
to subdivision eleven of section four of the state finance law.

In connection with any such application, the attorney general is
authorized to take proof and make a determination of the relevant facts
and to issue subpoenas in accordance with the civil practice law and
rules. Such authorization shall not abate or terminate by reason of any
action or proceeding brought by the attorney general under this section.

I still don't get the fraud. Banks simply don't take a borrower's assessment of value of their real estate collateral. They do their own appraisals.

+1 Banana republic gotta banana 🍌

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still too high for this political kangaroo court

So. Given his fraudulent activities, what would you have calculated the damages to be?

This isn’t a number that engoron pulled out of thin air. What’s your calculation?

Take a look at Engoron's calculation. He threw in profits made on other projects including the Post Office building, with the argument that the 'fraud' gave this billionaire extra cash to pursue these other projects.

His lying about his assets won him the contract for the Post Office Building in the first place; he was a much higher risk than he let on to the GSA. Some of the victims of this would include the other bidders of that contract who didn’t get it.