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.
just one question: did the banks do their own assessments of the value of the properties before accepting them as collateral for the loans? The banks testified that they were pleased with the transactions and were paid in full including interest and were paid early.When you are judging if a realty company commits fraud. How they valuate property will be a big part of that judgement.
So why don't we see what he said about that.
-The Trump company stated in their financial statement that properties had value as if they were renovated without it being the case. This is not something subjective.
-They stated that properties were 3 times bigger than they were in reality. Not subjective
-They stated that they had the rights to developed twice the number of units of a property than they were legally allowed to do. Not subjective.
-They stated that they had the right to develop 5 times the number of another property that they were legally allowed to do. Not subjective
-In order to get tax relief they stated that they weren't allowed to develop Mar O Lago at all. Yet valuated it as if they were. Not subjective
-They routinely overstated the value of properties assessors THEY hired by several orders of magnitude. Times twenty in one case.
-They sourced some of their assessments of properties to an assessor that didn't do the valuations.
-Oh yes, and their CFO plead guilty to fifteen counts of the falsifying business records and tax evasion. A CFO who to this day has a severance package conditioned specifically on the premise that he can't voluntarily work with the prosecution.
I repeat Weisselberg's financial future is dependent on keeping silent.
As for your article. Let's just say that for a website reporting the "news" finding several spelling errors doesn't bode well. Neither does the use of loaded language and some question begging.
But the arguments are simply bad. They're complaining that the judgements against him hurt him financially like that's proof of something. Financial penalties are supposed to hurt. They complain the financial monitor is not capable of supervising the business. They fail to mention that this person was the only one both sides agreed on. And they aren't expanding her power as a further punishment. failing to mention they're expanding her power because TRUMP violated the terms of the monitoring which stated that every transfer over 5 million needed to be reported. Something he didn't do when he transferred over 40 million without notifying her when she requested information as per her last report. They were literally hiding assets when under court monitoring. They claim his constitutional rights are being violated. HOW?
Neither are the fines excessive. The fines are the difference between the interest rates of commercial loans versus the interest rates he got on those loans because his personal guarantee based on the purported wealth in the financial statements. Something that speaks to the size of the loans and the liability of the banks and the long time of the Trump organization committing fraud.
So, according to you, the bank was too stupid to do their own due diligence? I assure you that is NOT the case...And they testified to exactly that....They said they were paid back with interest, and would make the loans again no problem....So, who was the victim here?When you are judging if a realty company commits fraud. How they valuate property will be a big part of that judgement.
So why don't we see what he said about that.
-The Trump company stated in their financial statement that properties had value as if they were renovated without it being the case. This is not something subjective.
-They stated that properties were 3 times bigger than they were in reality. Not subjective
-They stated that they had the rights to developed twice the number of units of a property than they were legally allowed to do. Not subjective.
-They stated that they had the right to develop 5 times the number of another property that they were legally allowed to do. Not subjective
-In order to get tax relief they stated that they weren't allowed to develop Mar O Lago at all. Yet valuated it as if they were. Not subjective
-They routinely overstated the value of properties assessors THEY hired by several orders of magnitude. Times twenty in one case.
-They sourced some of their assessments of properties to an assessor that didn't do the valuations.
-Oh yes, and their CFO plead guilty to fifteen counts of the falsifying business records and tax evasion. A CFO who to this day has a severance package conditioned specifically on the premise that he can't voluntarily work with the prosecution.
I repeat Weisselberg's financial future is dependent on keeping silent.
As for your article. Let's just say that for a website reporting the "news" finding several spelling errors doesn't bode well. Neither does the use of loaded language and some question begging.
But the arguments are simply bad. They're complaining that the judgements against him hurt him financially like that's proof of something. Financial penalties are supposed to hurt. They complain the financial monitor is not capable of supervising the business. They fail to mention that this person was the only one both sides agreed on. And they aren't expanding her power as a further punishment. failing to mention they're expanding her power because TRUMP violated the terms of the monitoring which stated that every transfer over 5 million needed to be reported. Something he didn't do when he transferred over 40 million without notifying her when she requested information as per her last report. They were literally hiding assets when under court monitoring. They claim his constitutional rights are being violated. HOW?
Neither are the fines excessive. The fines are the difference between the interest rates of commercial loans versus the interest rates he got on those loans because his personal guarantee based on the purported wealth in the financial statements. Something that speaks to the size of the loans and the liability of the banks and the long time of the Trump organization committing fraud.
Fraud is exactly why this law was created. Trump broke this law. And he did so for personal financial gain, at the expense of the banks, the insurance companies, and the people of the State of New York.That is not at all why this law was created, which is why it has never been used as it is being used against the Trump Organization.
Of course not. They lent against an entire portfolio. If they have to order 10s or 100s of their own, third party appraisals for each application, they have to pass that cost to the borrower. The borrower already shouldered this cost by paying a third party to compile the financial statements. If the bank tries to charge the borrower for this, the borrower would go to a bank that does not. The borrower also would be burdened by the extra time and would go elsewhere.just one question: did the banks do their own assessments of the value of the properties before accepting them as collateral for the loans?
They wanted to get rid of Trump, and brought in something 10 times worse.You voted for Joe Biden. You have absolutely no reason to be calling anyone a sheep.
YOU embarrassed ALL of us, dipshit.What low IQ trolling. You are a grown man. And you are embarrassing yourself.
Little guy making noiseYOU embarrassed ALL of us, dipshit.
And why do you blame Biden for these things?They wanted to get rid of Trump, and brought in something 10 times worse.
Now everything costs twice as much, and we have millions of unvetted and homeless foreigners.
And WARS ON THREE FRONTS.
Libtards are complete fucking morons.
A leftard accusing others of lying. ^^^Any excuse for you to act like a lying buffoon suits you just fine.
A judge determined their was... period.
Stomp your feet. Cry. Tear your hair out. The judgement is out. The facts of the case have been established by the judger of facts, (the judge.) And somewhere in the future Trump will likely have to pay something like 600 million dollars.
Actually I have a position of public trust.Little guy making noise
Wrong of course. Engoron did, in fact, determine that Trump and 3 of his adult children broke the law for years. Read the summary judgment.Horseshit.
lolHe was charged with a Civil violation and found liable. The criminal cases are coming soon.
Wrong of course. Engoron did, in fact, determine that Trump and 3 of his adult children broke the law for years. Read the summary judgment.
Yeah. As distinct from Brennan and Clapper who outright lied under oath, and as distinct from Adam Schiff who simply made up the evidence.His assessment of Ivanka's testimony was scathing. She got off on a technicality and apparently experienced a traumatic head injury, causing severe memory loss.
Wrong of course. That is literally the job of a judge, in such a civil case. It's why the judge is there.A judge doesn't get to decide that,
That's right! 100% different. Different laws, different burdens of proof, etc.As distinct from Brennan and Clapper who outright lied under oath, and as distinct from Adam Schiff who simply made up the evidence.
Uh, actually yeah.A judge doesn't get to decide that, you dumbass un-American leftard fuckup.
Prove it.Yeah. As distinct from Brennan and Clapper who outright lied under oath, and as distinct from Adam Schiff who simply made up the evidence.
Project much?Leftards are liars from hell
horseshit, all banks get an independent appraisal before accepting any properties as collateral. you know nothing about how this works but spout off like the fool that you are.Of course not. They lent against an entire portfolio. If they have to order 10s or 100s of their own, third party appraisals for each application, they have to pass that cost to the borrower. The borrower already shouldered this cost by paying a third party to compile the financial statements. If the bank tries to charge the borrower for this, the borrower would go to a bank that does not. The borrower also would be burdened by the extra time and would go elsewhere.
No, this is the role the third party accounting group plays. In this case, Mazar's. It's a good system that keeps the money flowing. And, as with all lending, the burden of accuracy of the submitted materials ultimately lies with the borrower. The borrowers attest to this under penalty of law when signing the application and do so again at the closing table. Unless it can be shown that the third party accounting firm committed fraud or an egregious mistake, the burden of accuracy and honesty lies with the person signing this attestment. The moment Trump signed that application and submitted the statements compiled by Mazars, he broke the law. Then he did so again at the closing table, when signing the closing documents.
In this case, Mazars dropped Trump immediately and publicly stated that the financial statements they compiled for him cannot be trusted, which was of course due to Trump breaking his agreement with them by giving them inaccurate information. And as ordered by the courts, these statements were turned over.
HahaTrump will never pay a dollar
100% wrong. You really should shut up immediately, because you don't know what you are talking about.horseshit, all banks get an independent appraisal before accepting any properties as collateral.
Quote Trump much?A clearly biased judge, that was overturned by the appellate 4 times during the sham trial…
