The Sham Trial Against Trump

[leftwinger]

You do not know the facts in the case.....read up on it!

Your'e a biased buffon & a board clogging kitchen aid. It is the banks money, they are responsible. Not the borrower. Ever.

 

[leftwinger]

If I go get a loan against a classic car. I may think or know I can sell it for $125K. The Bank will never just accept what I think. They will research that vehicle worth. end of story//

 

[berg80]

Warning for the Trump cultists, you may find the facts disturbing.

Jack Smith Is Poised To Hang The Capitol Attack On Trump

When Special Counsel Jack Smith unveiled his indictment against Donald Trump for attempting to overturn the 2020 election, it looked all the world like he had taken a prudent and careful approach by dodging the tricky legal question of whether Trump was guilty of inciting the mob that stormed the Capitol.

But I want to bring your attention a filing Monday by Smith that suggests the government’s case in chief will not dodge the Capitol riot at all, but rather use it to paint a picture of a crowd summoned to DC by Trump, urged to march on the Capitol by Trump, and understood by the rioters themselves to be following Trump’s orders.

Among the journalists who have picked up on the filing is Kyle Cheney, who has a sophisticated look this morning at what it means and the broader context within which this is happening.

For a more granular look, Marcy Wheeler has dissected the key elements of the Monday filing.
Jack Smith Is Poised To Hang The Capitol Attack On Trump

On January 6, 2021, “[l]ives were lost; blood was shed; portions of the Capitol building were badly damaged; and the lives of members of the House and Senate, as well as aides, staffers, and others who were working in the building, were endangered.” Trump v. Thompson, 20 F.4th 10, 35-36 (D.C. Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 1350 (2022). Yet publicly, the defendant has promoted and extolled the events of that day. While the violent attack was ongoing, the defendant told rioters that they were “very special” and that “we love you.” In the years since, he has championed rioters as “great patriots” and proclaimed January 6 “a beautiful day.” In this case, though, the defendant seeks to distance himself, moving to strike allegations in the indictment related to “the actions at the Capitol on January 6, 2021.” ECF No. 115 at 1. The Court should recognize the defendant’s motion for what it is: a meritless effort to evade the indictment’s clear allegations that the defendant is responsible for the events at the Capitol on January 6. Indeed, that day was the culmination of the defendant’s criminal conspiracies to overturn the legitimate results of the presidential election, when the defendant directed a large and angry crowd—one that he had summoned to Washington, D.C., and fueled with knowingly false claims of election fraud—to the Capitol to obstruct the congressional certification proceeding.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.140.0.pdf

 

[WorldWatcher]

It isn't fraudulent at all for a borrower to believe a property is worth more than its immediate appraisal. If I put a value on something I own and it turns out not to be worth that much to anybody else, it isn't fraud. It's faulty judgment on my part. My intent was not to defraud anybody but to make as much money as I can. Believe me in a free market capitalistic system nobody charges less than they think or hope the public is willing to pay unless it is a temporary loss leader to entice buyers or something marked down for quick sale to get rid of it.

And ALL financial statements are subjective when everything that can be is factored into them is factored into them.

You of course are free to believe whatever you want. However when you make them part of legally required Statements of Financial Conditions then you are required to adhere to generally accepted accounting practices.

When you 3 triple the size of a property from 10,996 square feet to 30,000 square feet, that is not subjective. (Trump Penthouse)

When you inflate the value of the property based on subdivisions that have not been made and include buildings that have not been built, that is not subjective. (Seven Springs)

When you inflate the value of rent controlled apartment by treating them as non-rent controlled, that is not subjective. (New York City properties).

When you inflate the value of a property that is deed limited preventing subdivision, requires preservation of a historical site, prevents subdividion, and prevents other construction and treat commercial property (social club) as residential property, that is not subjective. (Mar A Lago).

WW

 

[Robert W]

Fair market value does not mean "whatever Trump says".

Correct. Due to potential fraud, and this means all over the USA, Banks are regulated as to how they can make loans. And they are ordered to get independent appraisals. Imagine for a moment you told your bank, getting a loan from them that your value of your property is correct? See the conflict? Banks are indeed very heavily regulated. This trial is based on a faulty legal premise.

 

[Marener]

Correct. Due to potential fraud, and this means all over the USA, Banks are regulated as to how they can make loans. And they are ordered to get independent appraisals. Imagine for a moment you told your bank, getting a loan from them that your value of your property is correct? See the conflict? Banks are indeed very heavily regulated. This trial is based on a faulty legal premise.

Still waiting to cite that law. Perhaps you know more than the bank executives.

Haigh testified that when Trump approached the bank for loans, he offered several properties as collateral, including his Doral golf course and his Chicago hotel and condo building. Those properties alone, Haigh said, would not ordinarily have been enough. Haigh, who was head of risk assessment for the Deutsche’s private wealth management division—a division that handles banking for very wealthy clients—said that it was unusual for a customer to try to offer those types of properties as collateral.

“In general terms, my conclusion was the client owned a lot of real estate, a lot of golf courses, which I didn’t know how to value,” Haigh said.

Fancy houses, works of art, or planes were more typical big-ticket items offered for collateral, he said. With Trump offering golf courses and condo projects instead, Haigh said, the bank relied on Trump’s guarantee that he could use his personal wealth to cover the loans if his business went bad. And, Haigh said, Deutsche agreed to that arrangement based on the documents Trump provided. James’ now charges that those same documents were fraudulent.

Trump deceived Deutsche Bank, former exec testifies

He vastly overstated his wealth to obtain favorable loan deals, prosecutors allege.

www.motherjones.com

 

[Robert W]

Which section applies to your claim? You've linked to hundreds of pages of regulations.

You never linked to any laws.

 

[WorldWatcher]

If I go get a loan against a classic car. I may think or know I can sell it for $125K. The Bank will never just accept what I think. They will research that vehicle worth. end of story//

Not end of story.

As this has nothing to do with the banks. It has to do with FPOTUS#45 and the Trump Organization filing false legal documents.

WW

 

[Marener]

You never linked to any laws.

I don't believe you asked me for any citation to a law, perhaps I missed it. What would you like me to link to?

 

[Marener]

show me where any of them go off of the borrowers estimates??

Banker says Trump’s financial statements were key to loan approvals, but there were 'sanity checks'

Donald Trump obtained millions in loans using financial statements that a court has since deemed fraudulent, a retired bank official testified.

apnews.com

NEW YORK (AP) — Donald Trump obtained hundreds of millions of dollars in loans using financial statements that a court has since deemed fraudulent, a retired bank official testified Wednesday at the former president’s New York civil fraud trial.

Trump’s “statements of financial condition” were key to his approval for a $125 million loan in 2011 for his golf resort in Doral, Florida, and a $107 million loan in 2012 for his Chicago hotel and condo skyscraper, former Deutsche Bank risk management officer Nicholas Haigh testified.

But although the bank didn’t conduct its own full appraisals of Trump’s properties, it sometimes gave sizable “haircuts” to the values he’d placed on such holdings as Trump Tower and his golf courses, Haigh said.


“I think the phrase we used might have been ‘sanity checks’ on the numbers,” he said.

Those numbers helped Trump secure bigger loans and lower interest rates, said Haigh, who headed the risk group for the bank’s private wealth management unit from 2008 to 2018.

A judge last month ruled that the former president and his company, the Trump Organization, committed years of fraud by exaggerating the value of Trump’s assets and net worth on the financial statements he gave to banks, insurers and others to make deals and secure loans.

Trump’s longtime finance chief, Allen Weisselberg, acknowledged in testimony Tuesday that information in the financial statements wasn’t always accurate.

Trump denies any wrongdoing, emphasizing disclaimers on the documents that he says alerted lenders to do their own homework. The disclaimers say, among other things, that the financial statements aren’t audited and that others “might reach different conclusions” about Trump’s financial position if they had more information.

“It’s like a ‘buyer beware’ clause,” he told reporters in the courthouse hallway last week. Trump has claimed that banks he did business with weren’t harmed, made lots of money in his deals and “to this day have no complaints.”

Haigh is testifying in a trial in New York Attorney General Letitia James’ fraud lawsuit against Trump, his company and top executives. It’s the first time a bank official has testified in court about the impact Trump’s financial statements had on his ability to obtain loans.

Deutsche Bank’s rules required Trump to act as a guarantor for the Doral and Chicago loans, in addition to putting up the Miami-area resort and Wabash Avenue skyscraper as collateral.

Deutsche Bank’s private wealth management unit, which handled the loans, wouldn’t have approved them without a “strong financial guarantee” from Trump, Haigh said.


Haigh said he reviewed Trump’s financial statements before approving the loans and, at the time, had no reason to doubt their validity.

The documents portrayed Trump as a wealthy businessman, heavily invested in golf courses and other real estate with strong cash flow and little debt, Haigh said. Deutsche Bank representatives also met with Trump Organization executives to go over the information, and the bankers looked at bank account and brokerage statements to verify his cash holdings, he said.

“I assumed that the representations of the assets and liabilities were broadly accurate,” Haigh said of Trump’s financial statements.

Trump’s 2011 financial statement listed his net worth as $4.3 billion, though Deutsche Bank pegged it around $2.4 billion in an internal credit report as he sought the Doral loan. The bank knocked 75% off the worth he’d given for planned developments, with the internal document citing “the uncertainty in valuing undeveloped land,” for example. The bankers halved the value he’d listed for his golf courses and had a $94 million difference of opinion over how to account for golf membership deposits among his liquid assets.

“Does this indicate that the bank had the ability to go review the cash holdings and adjust them?” Trump lawyer Jesus M. Suarez asked Haigh.


The former banker said he wasn’t certain exactly what his colleagues had seen about the membership deposits, but “it looks to me as though the lending officers were, to some extent, relying on information provided to them by the client’s people.”

The bank imposed a loan condition requiring that Trump, as guarantor, maintain a minimum net worth of $2.5 billion, excluding any value derived from his celebrity.

“As the ultimate decider, I needed to be comfortable with the terms of the loan, including the covenants that protected the bank,” Haigh said. The $2.5 billion benchmark, he said, was meant to safeguard the bank if the market went bad.

 

[Robert W]

Still waiting to cite that law. Perhaps you know more than the bank executives.

Haigh testified that when Trump approached the bank for loans, he offered several properties as collateral, including his Doral golf course and his Chicago hotel and condo building. Those properties alone, Haigh said, would not ordinarily have been enough. Haigh, who was head of risk assessment for the Deutsche’s private wealth management division—a division that handles banking for very wealthy clients—said that it was unusual for a customer to try to offer those types of properties as collateral.

“In general terms, my conclusion was the client owned a lot of real estate, a lot of golf courses, which I didn’t know how to value,” Haigh said.

Fancy houses, works of art, or planes were more typical big-ticket items offered for collateral, he said. With Trump offering golf courses and condo projects instead, Haigh said, the bank relied on Trump’s guarantee that he could use his personal wealth to cover the loans if his business went bad. And, Haigh said, Deutsche agreed to that arrangement based on the documents Trump provided. James’ now charges that those same documents were fraudulent.

Trump deceived Deutsche Bank, former exec testifies

He vastly overstated his wealth to obtain favorable loan deals, prosecutors allege.

www.motherjones.com

Haigh would then pay for several appraisals. They wanted to do the loan and did so. And so far have refused to sue Trump for alleged damages.

I appraised Real Estate. But I was not qualified at all to appraise works of art. I of course had studied the income approach and used it for apartment buildings along with the building I submitted as evidence.

Inside the building

 

[Robert W]

I don't believe you asked me for any citation to a law, perhaps I missed it. What would you like me to link to?

I do not intend to. I did post the relevant laws from the FDIC. But trust me, I am not operating as your reader service. It says enough to prove the banks are heavily regulated on this issue.

 

[Marener]

Haigh would then pay for several appraisals. They wanted to do the loan and did so. And so far have refused to sue Trump for alleged damages.

I appraised Real Estate. But I was not qualified at all to appraise works of art. I of course had studied the income approach and used it for apartment buildings along with the building I submitted as evidence.

I'm not hearing anything that is relevant to the facts of the matter. I does not appear the bank was required to do appraisals on every property. Remember, these other properties were not being used as actual collateral, but to indicate the financial health of Trump's organization.

Either way, lying on these forms is illegal and fraud.

 

[Robert W]

Not end of story.

As this has nothing to do with the banks. It has to do with FPOTUS#45 and the Trump Organization filing false legal documents.

WW

You all know very well if this happens to Biden over loans on his property, you will twist and turn like a top. You excused Biden for secret papers at his residence. We know very well how you operate.

 

[Marener]

I do not intend to. I did post the relevant laws from the FDIC. But trust me, I am not operating as your reader service. It says enough to prove the banks are heavily regulated on this issue.

I have no problem saying they're highly regulated, however that doesn't mean you can claim something is specifically regulated because there's a lot of regulations.

I think you're over your skis here.

 

[Robert W]

I'm not hearing anything that is relevant to the facts of the matter. I does not appear the bank was required to do appraisals on every property. Remember, these other properties were not being used as actual collateral, but to indicate the financial health of Trump's organization.

Either way, lying on these forms is illegal and fraud.

Be serious this time. Try it on for size. Are you claiming that all borrowers are expert appraisers?

 

[Robert W]

I have no problem saying they're highly regulated, however that doesn't mean you can claim something is specifically regulated because there's a lot of regulations.

I think you're over your skis here.

I realize in talking to you that I am dealing with some amateur. One who truly hates Trump. As does the Judge and the prosecutor. They are violating laws.

 

[Marener]

Be serious this time. Try it on for size. Are you claiming that all borrowers are expert appraisers?

No one is requiring they be "expert" appraisers. We aren't talking about errors. We are talking about deliberate fabrications.

 

[Robert W]

Not end of story.

As this has nothing to do with the banks. It has to do with FPOTUS#45 and the Trump Organization filing false legal documents.

WW

What were false legal documents????? Details please.

 

[Marener]

I realize in talking to you that I am dealing with some amateur. One who truly hates Trump. As does the Judge and the prosecutor. They are violating laws.

I realize talking to you that you make claims you can't substantiate.

The testimony from the executives from Deutsche Bank speaks for itself and definitely contradicts your unsubstantiated claims.