Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Trump didn't lie about anything, he gave them his estimate of value and told them to get an independent valuation. His LTV was probably such that they waived the appraisal anyway. Banks have their own way of determining valuation too. The loans were all paid back as well. This is another fucking witch hunt from a biased bitch that ran on 'getting Trump.'Trump obtained 2.2B dollars in loans from a German Banking Group..Deutsch Bank, to be specific. They took his word as to the valuations..no assessor needed or wanted. The bank was happy to make the loan and they made money.
The thing is, Trump lied to get that money, which gave him an unfair advantage over his competitors. Further, since the money was a 'loan' it was not taxed.
2.2b untaxed dollars for Trump to beat his competition over the head with.
It was unfair..and fraudulent.
You can, and will, whine like a colicky baby..but the court has spoken..and Trumps chance of winning an appeal are slim, at best.
As we speak, they are breaking up his NY business empire.
No. There was no sexual abuse verdict. This was a defamation case. Carroll said that Trump sexually abused her. Trump said she was a liar. Calling her a liar defamed her. The verdict was that defamation had occurred.Well, looney E. Jean Carroll did accuse him of rape. And there was a civil verdict (about 20 plus years later) about sexual abuse.
Unfair advantage over competitors? Who was competing over bank loans. Name names.Trump didn't lie about anything, he gave them his estimate of value and told them to get an independent valuation. His LTV was probably such that they waived the appraisal anyway. Banks have their own way of determining valuation too. The loans were all paid back as well. This is another fucking witch hunt from a biased bitch that ran on 'getting Trump.'
No. They changed New York State law to permit bringing these kind of cases long after the SOL. The jury found that he had sexually abused her.No. There was no sexual abuse verdict. This was a defamation case. Carroll said that Trump sexually abused her. Trump said she was a liar. Calling her a liar defamed her. The verdict was that defamation had occurred.
Do you see sexual abuse in that verdict? No. The assumption is that if E. Jean Caroll had been defamed the allegation of sexual abuse had to have occurred. It wasn't a verdict. It was a permitted assumption.
thehill.com
I never said anything about unfair advantage over competitors, my point was about the bank loaning without an appraisal which is done all the time when there is an obvious over abundance of equity value to loan value. It's the bank's call.Unfair advantage over competitors? Who was competing over bank loans. Name names.
Yeah the verdict does say that he 'sexually abused' her but also says he did not rape or touch her. How they figured that I do not know. They say she was 'injured' as the result but I can't see how if he never laid a hand on her. Later on it says she was 'injured' as a result of Trump's 'publication.' I dunno, seems pretty flimsy to me but when you have a crying woman claiming to be raped (even though she wasn't) without actual evidence the jury will always rule in favor of her.No. They changed New York State law to permit bringing these kind of cases long after the SOL. The jury found that he had sexually abused her.
That’s a different question than whether I buy it. The jury found that he had committed that specific battery and that he had defamed her.
The verdict sheet is clear.
READ: Jury’s verdict in Carroll’s civil case against Trump
A federal jury Tuesday found that former President Trump sexually abused writer E. Jean Carroll in the mid-1990s and later defamed her by denying her claims, marking the first time Trump has been f…
I think I mixed you up with someone else. My bad. You are correct. Also, if a borrower has a long history with a bank the bank will just approve any reasonable loan.I never said anything about unfair advantage over competitors, my point was about the bank loaning without an appraisal which is done all the time when there is an obvious over abundance of equity value to loan value. It's the bank's call.
Yep, you understand how it works. I think most people understand that a billionaire's financing is vastly different than theirs because there are so many laws that if you have the money for a good tax lawyer/cpa there are many legal loopholes in the tax code you can access legally.I think I mixed you up with someone else. My bad. You are correct. Also, if a borrower has a long history with a bank the bank will just approve any reasonable loan.
