American Politics from 2019 on

[Joe]

Speaking of non sequiturs.

[Brian Peacock]

I was asking specifically about this Mar-A-Lago fraud.

Someone lied about the value of the property, and it cost someone.

Who did it cost? The bank? The loan was paid back...

It's ok though, I also have weird data limits. I'll just wait to see what it sells for next time, to see who was closer to honest. It sure looks like the prosecutor is full of it.

If you're really interested go find out. But I guess if you found out for yourself you wouldn't be Just Asking Questions in order to dispute the answers from a position of ignorance.

[Cunt]

I was asking specifically about this Mar-A-Lago fraud.

Someone lied about the value of the property, and it cost someone.

Who did it cost? The bank? The loan was paid back...

It's ok though, I also have weird data limits. I'll just wait to see what it sells for next time, to see who was closer to honest. It sure looks like the prosecutor is full of it.

If you're really interested go find out. But I guess if you found out for yourself you wouldn't be Just Asking Questions in order to dispute the answers from a position of ignorance.

It's not at all a position of ignorance.

The local real estate experts, Trump and the banks assessor, were on the opposite side of this loan. Both agreed the value was WAY more than the unconnected faraway democrat activist.

If Trump was wrong, so was the bank and both need to be charged.

If the activist AG was wrong, does she get charged?

This time, they'll get him!

[Brian Peacock]

I was asking specifically about this Mar-A-Lago fraud.

Someone lied about the value of the property, and it cost someone.

Who did it cost? The bank? The loan was paid back...

It's ok though, I also have weird data limits. I'll just wait to see what it sells for next time, to see who was closer to honest. It sure looks like the prosecutor is full of it.

If you're really interested go find out. But I guess if you found out for yourself you wouldn't be Just Asking Questions in order to dispute the answers from a position of ignorance.

It's not at all a position of ignorance.

The local real estate experts, Trump and the banks assessor, were on the opposite side of this loan. Both agreed the value was WAY more than the unconnected faraway democrat activist.

If Trump was wrong, so was the bank and both need to be charged.

If the activist AG was wrong, does she get charged?

This time, they'll get him!

Yeah, Deutsche Bank valued Trump's assets at $2bn less than he did, and still gave him loans! But it doesn't mean that Trump hasn't fallen foul of the law.

[Cunt]

If they don't charge the co-conspirator (the Bank) then it is transparently an anti-Trump action by yet another rabid Democrat activist.

But they'll get him THIS TIME!!

[pErvinalia]

I suspect they will get him this time on one or more of the hundred-odd charges. But that will just be proof of the weaponised Biden justice department.

[JimC]

I've already alluded to the possibility of action being taken against the banks and other financial institutions that uncritically accepted Trump's inflated valuations. However, their actions are in a whole different category to the fraudulent statements by Trump et al. They probably could face fines from a financial regulatory authority for a lack of due diligence, not fraud.

And Cunt, you seem to keep hinting that Trump's valuations were correct, and a Democrat witch hunt has deliberately and falsely lowered them. From all the accounts that I've read, the more realistic figures have been agreed on by multiple parties, and that part of the fraud was very clear-cut, involving deliberately altering the physical dimensions of apartments etc.

[Cunt]

Which parties? Are they closer to the matter than the lender and borrower?

Mar-A-Lago. I'm not sure which apartment you are talking about. I was talking about specifically the HUGE difference between NY and Trump.

I'm not hinting that 'Trump's valuations were correct'. I'm outright stating that the assessment of Trump, PLUS the assessment from the bank lending against the property, is more trustworthy, more factual, than a democrat politician who ran on a campaign of 'get Trump'.
Many years later.
In a faraway state.

[JimC]

Well, Cunt, it seems that the legal authorities in the US have the temerity to disagree with you...

[JimC]

A fact checking report by the BBC on the Trump fraud case:

https://www.bbc.com/news/66989373

Some of the points raised:

To fit the case into his wider "witch hunt" rhetoric, Mr Trump claimed that Ms James was corrupt, and that she was coordinating with and taking orders from the US Department of Justice.
"It's all run by DOJ, which is corrupt, in Washington - everything goes through them," he alleged.
He has shown no evidence of coordination. Also, this is a civil fraud case based on New York state laws, not a federal one. The Justice Department has no jurisdiction here.

"There were no victims"
This is very important to Mr Trump. He believes there should be no case because "there was no crime".
"No bank was affected. No bank was hurt," he said moments before the start of the trial, noting that all his loans were paid back on time.
Under this New York statute, however, the attorney general did not have to show that there were victims, only that Mr Trump committed ongoing fraud.

In an unusual step, the judge has already ruled that Trump properties were worth less than the former president and his company stated. That was part of a summary judgement delivered last week.
"What he did - undervaluing these properties - is a disgrace to our nation," Mr Trump said on Monday.
However, it was not Judge Engoron who came up with the valuations. The ones he cited in his ruling were from official assessors.
Take Mar-a-Lago, for example, the former president's Florida resort. It was the Palm Beach County assessor - not the judge - that appraised the market value of Trump's primary residence at between $18m-$27.6m (£14.5m-£22.5m).
Mr Trump continues to claim it is probably worth 50 to 100 times more.

[L'Emmerdeur]

I pointed out upthread that the county assessor had valued the property at far below the Trump Organization's valuation--it doesn't matter because Trump has got to be in the right here, not the nasty district attorney and horrible judge. One might even note: 'Orange man good!'

Part of the scam is that as an unencumbered private residence the value of the property would tend to be higher than its real market value. However, it's on the National Register of Historic Places (has been since 1969, long before Trump bought it) so cannot be redeveloped to any significant extent, which brings the value of the site down. In addition there is a restrictive covenant on the deed preventing it being sold as a private residence.

Part of the higher valuation used by the Trump Organization (aside from their blue-sky imaginative inflated value) is an assumption that they could get a court to strike that restrictive covenant as well as manage to get Mar-a-Lago removed from the National Register. The first might be done but the second is more difficult. The restrictive covenant on the deed is a result of Trump's own work--it was put in place as part of the agreement after he petitioned the local jurisdiction to turn the site from a private residence into a club in the mid-90s.

Noting here again that Mar-a-Lago is not the only property that was significantly overvalued by the organization. It is only one example, though Trump has made it his talking point.

[Tero]

After Biden gets re-elected Hillary will be named a secretary. She will run the re-education camps for MAGAts.

[Cunt]

Was that a tax assessment? Or a sales assessment?

Most of the properties here sell WAY above the tax assessment.

So no victims in a Florida transaction, but New York activists get to claim it is fraud? Summary judgement, eh? Sounds like it isn't just another in the dozens of 'GET TRUMP' mania attacks, but totally sensible action.

Matthew Russel Lee has that beat. I think I'll go check out Inner City Press, and get his take. I already know the one being pushed by the Establishment.

Re-education camps...wonder where we've heard that idea before...

[pErvinalia]

He broke the law, plain and simple. The DA didn't rule that.

[Brian Peacock]

But other people have broken other laws, and similar laws, and they're not splashed across the lamestream media, therefore it's a stitch-up.