Is our system of justice equipped to deal with trump?

[Marener]

Listen, I fully understand that interest rates are based on risk to some extent. No loss was incurred because there is no guarantee that Trump would have accepted higher rates had they proposed them. They weren't the only bank in town. The prosecutors attempted to claim a theoretical loss, when they in fact the bank gained. This case would have had no traction without a liberal judge. None

Sorry, but this has very little to do with the case. The question is whether Trump has to submit accurate financial statements. I think he does. Doesn't seem like everyone else agrees.

Why do you think the bank required a net worth covenant for Trump?

 

[struth]

They didn't do anything to verify the accuracy of the statement.

They don’t have to.

 

[hadit]

They didn't do anything to verify the accuracy of the statement.

It sounds like you're saying that the loan officers put millions of dollars of their institution's money at risk solely on the word of a loan applicant, while I maintain that the loan officers did not simply take the word of the applicant because to do so is gross financial malpractice and would likely result in their prosecution.

Now, what is your standing to make your determination? Do you, for example, have insider bank communications that directly counter the bank's assertion that they suffered no fraud whatsoever and would do business with TRUMP! again?

 

[Marener]

They don’t have to.

So the bank didn't do their due diligence.

 

[DBA]

What are they require to do to verify the accuracy of the statement of financial condition?

Sounds more like you're making a case of an FDIC insured bank not following proper procedure.

 

[Marener]

It sounds like you're saying that the loan officers put millions of dollars of their institution's money at risk solely on the word of a loan applicant, while I maintain that the loan officers did not simply take the word of the applicant because to do so is gross financial malpractice and would likely result in their prosecution.

Now, what is your standing to make your determination? Do you, for example, have insider bank communications that directly counter the bank's assertion that they suffered no fraud whatsoever and would do business with TRUMP! again?

If the loan officer didn't take the word of the applicant, then surely you must believe that they did something to verify the accuracy of the statement of financial condition, no?

 

[struth]

So the bank didn't do their due diligence.

Maybe not, they don’t have to. They gave a loan, and agreed to then terms, they got paid back, they are happy

 

[Marener]

Sounds more like you're making a case of an FDIC insured bank not following proper procedure.

What law did they break?

 

[DBA]

So the bank didn't do their due diligence.

Maybe, so sue them. They had no interest in pursuing a case against Trump because they were very happy with the outcome. Democrats didn't care either until Trump became a political obstacle. Funny huh?

 

[hadit]

Sorry, but this has very little to do with the case. The question is whether Trump has to submit accurate financial statements. I think he does. Doesn't seem like everyone else agrees.

Why do you think the bank required a net worth covenant for Trump?

The law says he needs to submit accurate assessments of collateral property value. That, however, is notoriously difficult to nail down, and simply having his name on it can influence the value. That being said, however, the question is, did the bank suffer from fraud when they loaned him the money? The answer is patently and absolutely no, it did not, because no bank is going to simply take the word of an applicant on the value of collateral property and total net worth before loaning millions of dollars. That is ludicrous, which is why I continue asking if there are any who actually believe banks do it.

The bank was repaid completely and on time, no fraud at all. The prosecution made a case out of nothing.

 

[Marener]

Maybe, so sue them. They had no interest in pursuing a case against Trump because they were very happy with the outcome. Democrats didn't care either until Trump became a political obstacle. Funny huh?

Are people applying for loans required by law to submit accurate financial documents?

 

[DBA]

What law did they break?

I don't know all the federal regulations for FDIC insured entities. Regardless, what does that have to do with Trump?

 

[hadit]

If the loan officer didn't take the word of the applicant, then surely you must believe that they did something to verify the accuracy of the statement of financial condition, no?

I believe they have to have some kind to proof of either financial condition or collateral property value to avoid financial malpractice. Why do you believe they would not? Are you saying that the loan officers are criminally incompetent? Answer that straight out instead of dancing around it, as you have been repetitively doing.

 

[DBA]

Are people applying for loans required by law to submit accurate financial documents?

Sure, but it's a misdemeanor.

 

[Marener]

The law says he needs to submit accurate assessments of collateral property value. That, however, is notoriously difficult to nail down, and simply having his name on it can influence the value. That being said, however, the question is, did the bank suffer from fraud when they loaned him the money? The answer is patently and absolutely no, it did not, because no bank is going to simply take the word of an applicant on the value of collateral property and total net worth before loaning millions of dollars. That is ludicrous, which is why I continue asking if there are any who actually believe banks do it.

The bank was repaid completely and on time, no fraud at all. The prosecution made a case out of nothing.

False. The law says that he needs to submit accurate documentation for everything in the transaction.

Not just collateral.

For example, if a bank requires you to submit your income, you can't give them a falsified W2 and blame them for not figuring it out

 

[Marener]

Sure, but it's a misdemeanor.

This is a civil fraud case. Not sure what you mean by misdemeanor.

 

[Marener]

I don't know all the federal regulations for FDIC insured entities. Regardless, what does that have to do with Trump?

It has nothing to do with Trump. You're just trying to deflect from his culpability by going on about something you know nothing about.

 

[hadit]

False. The law says that he needs to submit accurate documentation for everything in the transaction.

Not just collateral.

For example, if a bank requires you to submit your income, you can't give them a falsified W2 and blame them for not figuring it out

And it's on the bank to verify those claims. Answer the question directly, do you believe the loan officers are criminally incompetent?

 

[hadit]

This is a civil fraud case. Not sure what you mean by misdemeanor.

A "fraud" case in which there were no victims.

 

[DBA]

This is a civil fraud case. Not sure what you mean by misdemeanor.

Was just going to correct that. Yes, but proving the value is nebulous, which is why Banks should do their own due diligence. And they do.