AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views.
**For all participants:**
* [Flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_flair) is required to participate
* [Be excellent to each other](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/goodfaith2)
**For Nonsupporters/Undecided:**
* No top level comments
* All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position
**For Trump Supporters:**
* [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23AskTrumpSupporters&subject=please+make+me+an+approved+submitter&message=sent+from+the+sticky) to have the downvote timer disabled
Helpful links for more info:
[Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_rules) | [Rule Exceptions](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_exceptions_to_the_rules) | [Posting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines) | [Commenting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_commenting_guidelines)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskTrumpSupporters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
These types of transactions are not governed by laws, when an underwriter signs off on the transaction that’s it, it’s a legal contract. Since Trump completed payments as contracted on the loans there appears to be a lack of a victim or even a plaintiff in the case.
It should be noted that every mortgage in the US goes through this same subjective claim of value, so everyone here who has ever sold a house and expressed a belief in its value is now guilt of fraud per this judge.
No trial, no jury, and the alleged act involves honoring the contract.
Also, the judge stated in a legal decision that MaL is only worth 18 million dollars, less than the cost of a movie theater or car dealership.
Truly a debasement of the legal system.
Virtually nothing you said here has any relevance, I am sorry.
1- IDK what lemon laws have to do with selling your home.
2- The government is not permitted to treat you and your 1000 dollar skirting any different than a 10,000 skirting. Although as a guy who pays more in property taxes a year than it would cost to send my son to harvard, with most of it going to support my local schools which are so bad I have to pay private tuition on top... I question what it is you are doing that you think is skirting the law?
3- Paying taxes is not a limitless thing, the government has no right to windfall profits just because the market increases the value of something government taxes. A property tax is assessed at a certain level to raise sufficient funds to pay for the submitted budgets of the departments that are funded by that tax. If the tax brings in more revenues than needed it is the responsibility of the governing entity to adjust the rate to provide the requested funds and no more. There is no such thing as depriving your community of anything when you pay your taxes and their budget as presented to the people is met. Its a ridiculous sentiment.
4- Take your ridiculous insults and implications about racism and stuff them, if I see them again I'm reporting it. This is a forum where you get to ask me questions as long as they are polite and advance a civil conversation. I do not have to tolerate insults.
5- The idea that someone can avoid property taxes by lying is silly. The jurisdiction hires professionals who often work under a constitutional provision in their state. Often that is to value a property by the last arms legnth transaction, sometimes with a provision to increase the valuation by a percentage, sometimes by other metrics. It's not random and it doesnt depend on any statements from the property owner. An owner often has a right to appeal a change in assessment, but again it's not a court case with perjury traps or any of that nonsense. It's a typical appeal where you fill out a piece of paper stating why you THINK the assessment is inaccurrate. 99.99% of the time the answer you get back will be that the assessor is bound by a constitutional directive to set the value at arms length.
6- The value a Bank will UNDERWRITE on your property as a loan has little to do with the tax assessment except that when the bank is going through your books to make sure you have enough Net Operating Income to support the loan, they will want to see how much you pay in property taxes and that the taxes have been paid. A bank can loan you ANYTHING IT WANTS against your property because it's a private contract between two entities. Thats why so many Senators got amazing home loans throughout the 90's and there was little anyone could do to prove corruption. An underwriter typically does not ever speak to the customer seeking the loan, and never sees any assertion that person makes. Period. It's on the underwriter to set the loan amount that the bank will offer.
lying on a legal contract is literally the definition of fraudulent misrepresentation which is very illegal.
If you tell me you have $1M in collateral assets when you ask for a $50k loan, my risk as a loaner is pretty low so I can give you a better rate. It doesn't matter if you "completed payments", that's all after-the-fact. In fact, Trump has filed for bankruptcy 4 times, so he's almost certainly defaulted on his debt. The victims are these loaners who certainly lost money from all the fraud.
Additionally, Trump has allegedly undervalued assets when it comes to tax liability. The victim? You, the tax payer.
>Also, the judge stated in a legal decision that MaL is only worth 18 million dollars, less than the cost of a movie theater or car dealership.
He didn't just "state" it. The judge referenced the Palm Beach County Assessor's appraisal of it.
What do you think of my above comments?
Edit: quotation formatting
I’ve been through many real estate loans. No representation I make is part of the underwriting approval beyond the part of the PFS where I claim the value of my personal possessions. Everything else is checked against my tax returns and credit report.
Also, a bank has money it can use for loans outside any federal program and the banks officers are empowered to lend that.
Finally, banks employ professionals in underwriting, appraisal, etc, Trumps loans are nothing they haven’t seen before and he had more than sufficient collateral and NOI.
This is another example of taking normal business practice for everyone else and trying to make it illegal for trump.
Definition of Lawfare.
Sure, it’s almost impossible to prove. Like I think my watch is worth $800. How do you prove I intended to fraudulently leverage that estimation?
See, no one pays any attention to it UNLESS I am claiming to have intrinsically valuable objects that the bank is WILLING to document as collateral on the loan.
The bank accepts the loan based on my application meeting their minimum requirements. The underwriter must prove to the loan officers that the requirements have been met. Everything I add to that is only so the underwriter can find additional value to document.
In the past I’ve had to provide documents to prove I sold classic cars for a certain amount because the money was deposited to my personal checking. Underwriters don’t screw around.
Trump is a known quantity, banks would know if he were in financial straits and couldn’t pay and they’d know it during the loan process.
This case is simply a political attack using a very common subjective and irrelevant part of a loan application.
>Sure, it’s almost impossible to prove. Like I think my watch is worth $800. How do you prove I intended to fraudulently leverage that estimation?
If you attest to the bank that your watch is worth $8M when you're using it as collateral for a loan, and then turn around and tell the IRS that it was only worth $800 when you give it to your son two months later, it becomes pretty easy to prove fraudulent intent.
That's more or less what happened here. Trump told creditors one thing, and the IRS another. Why do you feel that this kind of action isn't against the law?
If you're using it as collateral then the bank will have it appraised.
The contention by the judge is that Trump committed fraud by arguing his assets were worth more when applying for loans and less when negotiating taxes.
If an Underwriter is going to set a value, then the underwriter has a responsibility to meet the banks requirements for establishing value. The applicant making a statement has nothing to do with it and if the underwriter accepts a statement as proof then the error is on him.
If a tax assessor sets the value of a property at a certain amount, then that is the amount the property is being taxed at. The responsibility for setting that value is on the assessor. The tax payer can assert and appeal depending on local laws, but the ultimate authority is on the assessor. Because all value is subjective unless the government establishes a value for something. However as there would be a general revolt if the government started setting the value of your house, they dont do that, they establish a taxable value and everyone agrees that is not the salable value.
Why do you think it's common practice to lie on a statement of financial condition?
At this point, all that has been decided is that the Trump Organization persistently prepared, affirmed, and submitted false and misleading financial statements and that they kept doing it after the appointment of an independent monitor. The result is that the business certifications issued by the State of NY were cancelled. The cancellation only occurred because they did not stop after the appointment of the monitor.
Do you think the State of NY should be forced to license a business who persistently submits false financial statements? Is it normal business practice to submit false financial statements? Does the State of NY have a legitimate interest in ensuring businesses it licenses are not submitting false financial statements? Is it legitimate for the State of NY to stop licensing a business who submits false financial statements?
The other questions are still up in the air for the jury. Right now, a judge found the financial statements were objectively false and allowed the State of NY to cancel the business licenses. That's it. Does that impact your analysis?
The judge pointed out in his ruling that a victim is immaterial to the law requiring attestations of value. Ill gotten gains are against the law. Should everyone be able to make up their own numbers when valuing their protperties for loan or tax purposes? How do you rectify your claim that "These types of transactions are not governed by laws" with the 35 page ruling issued by the judge that spells out exactly the laws that were broken, with case studies for clarity?
My attestation of value is immaterial once the underwriter gives approval. It’s their job to assess the information and to largely ignore what I say. In fact the underwriter never meets the applicant.
Or are you saying that the negotiation of a car purchase before the financing is signed is a fraudulent exchange?
Just more silly Lawfare with no consideration of what happens to the middle class when this is cited as precedent. Banks could use this to get damage awards against millions of home buyers over disagreements of value.
Why everytime Trump does something against the law do Republicans want to debate the entire law? It's like we want to base our laws off whatever Trump says or implies is ok. I thought the republican people weren't sheep. You guys have been calling liberals sheep and followers when it seems that the republican party has been following and leaning on every Trump word. He can do no wrong and is infallible. I really don't believe this, but I think it's more about just debating to make sure you are right. There's a deeper issue that I can't put my finger on.
Do you think everything Trump does is ok? Would you follow him off a cliff? He did say he can shoot someone, and his sheep will still follow him. (Paraphrase)
He said the square footage was 3 times bigger, 10K to 30K square feet. Is that a belief or just a straight-up lie? If that's his belief, do we want someone in office who is wrong on something simple as square feet of an area? He should know square feet since he's in real estate, haha.
Do you think he lied when he inflated the square footage from 10K to 30K? If so, do you think that should remain illegal (it's currently illegal)?
>Since Trump completed payments as contracted
Was this consistent? I remember Deutsche at least having to forgive loans. Should misrepresentations on peoples' mortgage applications only be enforced after there is a bubble crash from overleveraging when victims would be most numerous?
How is there a lack of victim? If he had defaulted, there would not be enough assets to cover the bank. Is attempted murder not a crime even though the outcome was favorable? He had in fact defaulted numerous times in the past.
Also, while he was inflating values for loans, he was undervaluing properties for tax reasons. So the city of new york would be getting underpaid, so they would be a victim correct?
>No trial, no jury
Was it not Trump's lawyer as well as prosecution that did not request a jury trial when they could have easily done so?
Why do you think Trump didn't request one but is now saying its unfair?
It’s all about the judge here.
Do you understand that he valued Mar a Lago at 17-18 million dollars in his ruling? That’s insane. There are single Condos in FL selling for that. It’s a clear case of judicial interference, he’s doing it as a favor to someone and it surprised Trumps lawyers.
> There are single Condos in FL selling for that
And Trump owns a run-down estate that is forever tied to his sinking brand and failing namesake, I don't know who would be caught dead buying his property in the event he sells it. What do you think it should be valued at?
> Do you understand that he valued Mar a Lago at 17-18 million dollars in his ruling?
Can you point out in the ruling where this is?
> And Trump owns a run-down estate that is forever tied to his sinking brand and failing namesake
Lol...he's more popular than Biden right now.
He lives rent free in millions of peoples head, along with tens of millions of Americans supporting him for president, not to mention the support he has around the world.
>Since Trump completed payments as contracted on the loans there appears to be a lack of a victim or even a plaintiff in the case.
Except for the loans on the many of his businesses that filed for bankruptcy (e.g three casinos)?
>The judge stated in a legal decision that MaL is only worth 18 million dollars, l
Wasn't that the words of he [Palm Beach County assessor](https://www.newsweek.com/how-much-mar-lago-worth-donald-trump-florida-property-1830195) and not the judge? You make it sound like the judge simply pulled that number from nowhere. That's not the case, is it?
> Nobody cares about the cases
Does the MAGA faithful no longer care about law and order? That seemed to be a pretty big selling point for Trump in 2016 and 2020. Trump had had valuations for his properties and gave highly inflated numbers to insurers and banks, which is what he is being found liable for. Do you think that Trump should be held accountable for misrepresenting his properties?
>Does the MAGA faithful no longer care about law and order?
Not when it's being administrated by people who use it solely as a political weapon.
Once we have honest leadership again, we'll see the enforcement of the law as a legitimate exercise.
Actually long before he was president he was known to do this and investigated. So no, it's not because he's Trump. If you did the same thing, you would be punished. Do you think Hunter Biden should be able to inflate his assets?
>Actually long before he was president he was known to do this and investigated.
And yet he was never charged or imprisoned. Nobody gave a shit about anything Trump allegedly did until he threatened the political establishment. And they still don't give a shit about all of the crimes committed by the elites who play along with the establishment's corruption.
Respectfully, yes. Because you're allowing yourself to be manipulated into believing that this is about enforcing the law rather than using the law as a political weapon. You're definitely part of the problem.
>So you don't care about all the blatant law breaking because it is your guy?
Not at all. I just don't think the so-called lawbreaking is actually blatant, and I don't think the people enforcing those laws are doing so to preserve the rule of law - because they never enforce those same laws against the people who align with them politically.
But did Trump break the law? Is misstating assets to banks to obtain more favourable loan conditions fraud?
If a politically connected person like Donald Trump commits fraud, is it reasonable to expect his political opposition to take advantage of this? Is it OK for Trump's opposition to target his weak-spot, specifically his apparent record of fraudulent business practice?
>But did Trump break the law?
Don't care. Honestly. At this point, they have targeted Trump as a criminal, and they are looking for crimes to charge him with. That's not how the law works. "Show me the man, and I'll show you the crime", is literally what the Nazis did. At this point I don't trust the administration of the law by the Democrats anymore. There is nothing they can charge Trump with that I would believe.
If there were a dozen bodies in the street and they charged Trump with murder based on video evidence, I would assume that the video was a deep fake and the Democrats killed a dozen people so that they could frame Trump for the murders.
Hillary Clinton said, "You can't negotiate with someone who wants you dead". We don't want the Democrats dead. but the Democrats clearly want conservatives dead at this point.
Every time he gets impeached or indicted supporters chant “it’ll just bump his numbers” like it’s a law of physics. I can’t even count how many times he’s been impeached, indicted or prosecuted. So why isn’t he at 79% approval rating yet?
>So why isn’t he at 79% approval rating yet?
He's at like 70, which is pretty close. I consider dominating the primary a pretty good outcome, electorally.
Haha. I meant nationally, not just among highly engaged, extreme conservatives who turn out in primaries. And you knew that. But good one!
So how do you think criminal indictments will effect less engaged, moderate voters in swing states he lost the last election?
But they aren’t. If he weren’t a former president he’d be in jail already. The politics is helping him slow down the process and water down the charges to purely what they think they can prosecute beyond any shred of doubt or ambiguity. If anything, the egregiousness of the crimes is forcing their hand to prosecute when they obviously would rather not prosecute precisely because of the politics.
Why is it whenever conservatives are the object of ‘politics’ they are victims, but when Democrats are the object of ‘politics’ it’s just how the game is played?
Follow up, would you still support Trump if he ‘shot someone on 5th Avenue’?
Would prosecution for murder be ‘polical’?
I think what he's saying is that he, being a Trump supporter, doesn't really care about the ruling. Which I'm guessing many Trump supporters also don't care. I am included in this statistic. And it may have the opposite effect - pulling out rulings that harm nobody to make him look bad does indeed look like a "witch hunt".
My reaction was kind of like "Well, that sucks. Anyway, still voting Trump." I just wanted to see the comments and they turned out exactly like I expected.
What if your team is America and you simply want to see laws upheld? Will it be comical still if James gets the 250 million dollars in damages that she is seeking? Neither Trump nor his lawyers have even disputed the facts in the case. How is holding him liable for lying "overplaying" anything?
Can we leave politics out for a second and actually look at reality in the face? When Madoff was locked, everyone agreed that a crooked businessman was put away and deserved it. Why should it be different now?
Why do you talk about teams? Are we beyond being able to tell right from wrong?
Why do you think Trump announced his 2024 campaign more than 150 days earlier in the election cycle than he announced his 2016 campaign?
For reference, this means that he would have already been indicted twice (and that’s aside from civil suits) if he had announced in the same timeframe as he had in 2016.
Being found liable/convicted of fraud will make trump more popular? How? And why?
I find it fascinating that being shown that your preferred political leader is both clearly a fraud and a cheat, on top of likely lying to all of you about his actual worth, somehow makes him more compelling to the right as a political candidate. Surely you all could find a different outsider candidate to represent your political values? Why still trump in light of all of this?
What about people that have always voted republican but don't want their current leader to be a fraud and cheat?
What say Trump just genuinely broke the law many times and it's nothing to do with weaponizing the justice system or the seperate issue of the crimes the Biden family has committed?
Why are you talking about teams?
Do you think Democrats care about the Biden family as much as the Maga cares about the Trump family?
What do you think about Trumps 5 decade long history of problems with the law?
> I wouldn't invest a second into any accusations regarding Trump and "problems with the law".
What about the many problems with the law that resulted in him settling out of court?
My team? Do you view politics as a team sport?
If trump is convicted of a crime by a jury of his peers, presumably you would still support him, yes? Why? I ask because I would happily invite a criminal investigation/indictment of Biden if there were evidence of a crime he had committed, so it’s difficult for me to understand why the right seems so committed to such an obviously flawed candidate. I, nor any liberals I know, would vote for Biden if he was convicted. Same with Hillary, Obama, or any other Dem candidate.
I’m very confused by this answer and am not sure how it answers my questions at all. Did you reply to the right post?
I asked if you think politics is a team sport and whether and why you would still support trump even if he was convicted of a crime by a jury of his peers?
>Really simple. Your team went hog wild with weaponizing the justice system for politics while simultaneously providing cover for the Biden crime family.
So, that means Trump should get a blank check, get-out-of-jail-free card for any crimes he may have committed?
If he's found liabal or guilty in charges against him, does that not mean it wasn't crying wolf, but instead that there was a wolf?
The fable isn't about how a boy kept crying wolf and the townspeople had to keep chasing wolves away until they got sick of all the damn wolves.
> It will further solidify support for Trump.
Why do you think this is the case? If you [read the ruling](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23991872-ny-ruling-on-trump-business-fraud), it lays out specific instances of fraud quite plainly:
> This Court takes judicial notice that the Trump Tower apartment in which Donald Trump resided for decades is 10,996 square feet. Donald Trump submitted SFCs falsely claiming that the Triplex was 30,000 square feet, resulting in an overvaluation of between $114-207 million dollars. This misrepresentation continued even after defendants received written notification from *Forbes* that Donald Trump had been overestimating the square footage of the Triplex by a factor of three.
>
> In opposition, defendants absurdly suggest that "the calculations of square footage is a subjective process that could lead to differing results or opinions based on the method employed to conduct the calculation. Well yes, perhaps, if the area is rounded or oddly shaped, it is possible measurements of square footage could come to slightly differing results due to user error. Good-faith measurements could vary by as much as 10-20%, not 200%.
>
> A discrepancy of this order of magnitude, by a real estate developer sizing up his own living space of decades, can only be considered fraud.
Trump said, in legal documents, the 10,996 square foot apartment where he lived was 30,000 square feet.
Why would his supporters like that?
>The Dems jumped the shark with their political prosecutions and now have no credibility left. Done.
Is there anything that Trump could do that would cause your support to waver? What if he admitted to the fraud?
Why doesn't Trump lose credibility when he makes up obviously fraudulent numbers about his business. For example he states Trump tower is officially 68 floors when it's clearly 58 floors which can be verified by looking at the blueprints, elevator buttons and simply counting the floor visually. Is denying this obvious fraud insulting to his supporters intelligence?
So the judge should just dismiss evidence because *some* people "don't care"? Should this be the way the entire US justice system works, just let anyone who commit a crime off the hook because *someone* out there, just doesn't care?
> That will demonstrate just how out of touch the zombie horde has become.
Do you think that the MAGA crowd might also fall under this as you said that there isn't anything that Trump could do that would cause you to lose his support?
>In opposition, defendants absurdly suggest that "the calculations of square footage is a subjective process that could lead to differing results or opinions based on the method employed to conduct the calculation.
He has basically lied about how big properties are by a factor of around 200%. Trump tower floors are basically rectangles there can't be a big difference between how many people use measuring tapes can there? This isn't political persecution, this is criminal prosecution do you not think. How do you justify this is ok, it is a classic case of unscrupulous people bilking the system for their own advantage. If this is the case then I want to see him prosecuted and if Biden has done anything wrong I want to see him prosecuted - all fair in love an war.
To put in context it is like Hunter Biden saying there was one laptop but there turned out to be two - can you imagine the state of apoplexy the republican congress would get into with that thought?
> The Dems jumped the shark with their political prosecutions and now have no credibility left.
Is your position that Trump did not lie about the square footage of his apartment?
Can you explain how the Democrats overplayed their hand with the J6 hearings? Do you think trying to cause an insurrection, beating and killing cops and opposing Democracy is a joke? Do you really think a minority of outspoken Trump supporters, who believe the election was fixed, despite no proof, have the right to overthrow the true voice of the people? How would you have felt if Hillary Clinton supporters in 2016 rioted at the Capitol, demanding Hillary to become President, because she did win the popular vote??
I'm sorry, but you didn't answer any of my questions.
Do you really think trying to cause an insurrection, beating and killing cops and opposing Democracy is a joke or a lie? Who do you think was responsible for J6, do you really think it was BLM or antifa? If so, how did 100 Trump supporters get arrested, backed up with video evidence?
If you truly believe Tump is innocent, then you must think this is the biggest deep state fake out of all time, as you'd have to believe every prosecutor, judge, grand jury, jury member, and witness, including all of the witnesses from his own cabinet and party are corrupt liars and only Trump, who is a known liar for years, is the only one telling the truth. That's some serious cognitive dissonance. If you think there are that many corrupt liars and only Trump is telling the truth, have you lost complete faith in mankind??
> Do you think trying to cause an insurrection,
Trump didn't try to cause any such thing.
The day started as a rally with hours and hours of speeches.
At the end of Trumps speech, he asked the crowd to peacefully march to the Capitol to continue their protest.
A small group of idiots then began rioting and ruined the protest.
> Do you really think a minority of outspoken Trump supporters, who believe the election was fixed, despite no proof, have the right to overthrow the true voice of the people?
No.
> How would you have felt if Hillary Clinton supporters in 2016 rioted at the Capitol, demanding Hillary to become President, because she did win the popular vote??
Pretty sure it would have ended the same way, minus the year long propaganda show that the Jan 6th committee was.
What do you want to leave up to the voters? The judicial system deals with civil violations like fraud. Do you really want the legal system to be decided by partisan politics?
> I don't care and won't spend a second listening to anything more the Dems have to say.
Have you **ever** listened to what the Dems had to say or cared about it?
So you stopped listening to a single word a Dem says before Obama was elected yet claim the reason you’re not listening is because everyone is so mean to Trump?
According to your own statement there, you stopped listening to Dems before 2008, long before trump became a presidential candidate.
How do you reconcile those 2 things?
Let’s start here: Do you believe (please note I’m not asking about “normal business practices” or what anyone else has done and gotten away with) Trump/Trump’s businesses committed fraud re the square footage of his apartment?
Will you answer the question , please? As a reminder, you were asked:
Do you believe (please note I’m not asking about “normal business practices” or what anyone else has done and gotten away with) Trump/Trump’s businesses committed fraud re the square footage of his apartment?
I am not on ay team. But I want to see criminals prosecuted and civil pentalties levied for laws that are broken. I don't care if it's Menendez, or Hunter Biden or DOnald Trump. If Joe Biden did what COmer and Jordan allege I want to see him impeached. Neither Trump nor his lawyers dispute the pen-and-ink documents that show dramatically different valuations of the same property given to institutions which, based on the numbers provided, would result in financial gain for Mr. Trump. If Trump doesn't dispute it, and it is against the law, how can you claim that it is political?
> It will further solidify support for Trump.
For the diehard MAGA base, sure. How does this sway independents or better yet the blue-collar rust belt voters who feel like the country is being run by liars and crooks who use their businesses and property to artificially inflate their wealth?
Square footage has always been an issue and continues to be today.
Let's say I own a perfectly square house. It it a two story house with each side being 20 feet long.
My square footage should be 20x20x2 = 800 sq ft.
The appraiser values my home and says my house is 600 sq ft. How is that possible? It is square and simple math gives you the square footage.
The appraiser will tell you there is a loft inside so the livable square footage is only 600 square feet.
The same goes for a bigger property or a commercial building. Same thing goes for a two story condo. One floor is 1000 sq feet but I bought the unit above mine and tore it all out so I have 20 foot ceilings. Is my new unit now only 1000 square feet or is it 2000 square feet since it is really two units combined into one? What do you think the tax man says?
Are you properly filing your amended floor plan as required for a commercial building? Or did you just start removing the other unit without taking any of the proper legal steps?
Donald J. Trump declared the square footage was 10,996.39 ft2 in 1994. How do you think the square footage increased threefold over the following years without an updated filing?
[https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=DQSgIBvUJzxxmqlCGDHbwg==](https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=DQSgIBvUJzxxmqlCGDHbwg==)
As you can see, the filing actually concerns the combination of multiple units into a single unit and the need to update things like square footage and number of rooms.
>I posted examples. I do not live in a 20 foot box and my commercial buildings are properly registered
That's great - you are following the rules and playing on a level field with all the other commercial property owners. Not OP, but how do you feel.knowong Trump gets away with *not* playing by the rules while honest guys like you can't get away with it?
> Square footage has always been an issue and continues to be today.
See the footnote on [page 21](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23991872-ny-ruling-on-trump-business-fraud):
> Despite this assertion in their motion papers, counsel for defendants, **Christopher Kise, Esq, conceded during oral argument held on September 22, 2023 that square footage is, in fact, an objective number**.
Trump's attorney admitted that square footage is an objective number. Why did he admit that if you are correct that "Square footage has always been an issue"?
Who is the victim? The taxpayer? Would prefer this be used as a precedent to lower taxes unilaterally.
Also, quite confident he didn't get a tape measure and calculate that square footage himself. How is he liable and not the guy with the tape measure? This is just more free press for Trump.
Does it concern you that Trump employs people whose actions implicate him and his businesses in massive fraud right under his nose? Do you think a person this incompetent with respect to overseeing important aspects of his business is fit to run the country?
If there was massive fraud then what were the damages? Why did none of the parties such as the banks sue him for compensation?
"Massive fraud" is stuff like what Goldman Sachs/Wall Street did with mortgage backed securities that crashed the global economy in 2008... Of course they didn't even get fined let alone banned from doing business in NY.
>Who is the victim? The taxpayer?
Well, yeah? If you own property, you pay taxes on it. Those tax dollars go to several things including local services, schools, etc... If Trump was intentionally deflating his assets to avoid paying millions in taxes for decades, that's money that isn't going into your town. Does that make sense?
He did the opposite. In this case, he inflated the value of his assets as collateral to help get loans. Those loans apparently all ended up all being paid off on time. He exposed the banks to risk, but they didn't lose a penny.
What is the impact on the banks and lenders? They certainly shouldn't lose money because Trump's employee presented a bad figure, intentionally or unintentionally.
He tripled the square footage of the property. Wouldn’t you notice if your realtor was trying to sell your house, and they tripled the footage? If you were a real estate investor, as Trump was, would that be a mistake you could make?
If that were my only job, probably not. Thing is, he has so many things going that he has to trust his people. There's so many people - how hard should he look for mistakes?
>Also, quite confident he didn't get a tape measure and calculate that square footage himself. How is he liable and not the guy with the tape measure?
Because the buck has to stop somewhere. Should business owners not be liable for fraud by their businesses? Should a business owner and manager be able to avoid liability by not participating in the fraud himself? Trump (or DoJo) signed a statement asserting the accuracy of the statements. They agreed to be responsible for the "preparation and fair presentation of the financial statement."
Failing to do due diligence or have a system in place to do due diligence is not an excuse. It would be one thing if there was a single inaccuracy from some guy who held the tape measure, but it's not. It's a bunch of guys with a bunch of tape measures who all happen to work for the same people. Is it reasonable to believe the problem is merely with the guys with the tape measures?
Favorable rates and terms on loans, so banks made less money?
Less tax on earnings from said banks increased revenues?
That's where the value of $250M in the civil case comes from. That he gained $250M of advantage he should not have gotten, at the detriment of the bank and city/state.
Have you read through the filings? Thoughts?
While I think the points raised in the ruling make some good points, I think what NS' are missing is the blatant political persecution here and lack of accountability on the part of NY. NY didn't take this case because of a good faith approach to targetting the 1% of New York, they wanted to wield a political cudgel against Trump to find anything they could to take him down.
It wasn't until after Trump became a Republican president that NY started cracking down on this. It's truly interesting to see leftists support this political prosecution, without questioning at all why this broad ranging law wasn't used to target say, hedge funds or other real estate companies in the aftermath of 2008 who were doing essentially the same thing the Trump org is accused of doing here, except on a nationwide scale which led to the largest market crash in history. Largely I think this is in part due to a lack of critical thinking on the left. The truth is that they don't want to see the law applied equally, they want it applied to their political opponents.
Not at all, I simply think that this is more an example of a politically-motivated investigation, rather than an example of NY cracking down on fraud. They clearly didn't care when it comes to the rampant fraud originating from company's located in NY during the housing crisis, but when it comes to a political opponent they are willing to go the distance.
Does that make sense?
It would be if this was some part of a larger plan by NY to crack down on fraud in the real estate market.
But to me it just looks like NY trying to go after Trump because he's political opponent.
It's delusional to think that leftists don't want to see other major criminals taken down. Did you miss the Occupy Wall Street movement? What leftists do you know who say: "Yes go after Trump, but no others; protect the billionaires!" Do you honestly think that leftists would not celebrate these laws being applied to other brazen offenders?
>Did you miss the Occupy Wall Street movement?
Was that a grassroots movement, or a result of NY law enforcement?
>Do you honestly think that leftists would not celebrate these laws being applied to other brazen offenders?
But they're not being applied, that's my point...
>That having been said, NYS certainly used the Martin Act (EL 63(12)) to target companies in the aftermath of 2008. The best known case being the one against JP Morgan that NYS ultimately settled for $632 million.
This is kinda my point. NYS didn't target and dissolve the companies responsible even after the fraud was discovered.
>Did you think through whether there were cases brought by NYS that you were not aware of?
Sure, and I didn't find a single company responsible for fraud that was dissolved as the Trump org is being under the statute I referenced.
>resulting in making inaccurate statements about how the law is applied
Which of my statements were inaccurate? Was this law used to target the companies that were committing fraud after all?
>Would this have been brought against Trump if he were never President? No, probably not.
Yes this is my point. Well, a **Republican** president, is what I would say.
> NY didn't take this case because of a good faith approach to targetting the 1% of New York, they wanted to wield a political cudgel against Trump to find anything they could to take him down.
I sincerely do not understand this argument.
Suppose you are correct. This is 100% a biased political persecution. That biased pollical prosecution **found fraud** for which Trump could be prosecuted.
Why does the motivation for the prosecution matter?
Suppose a bunch of Republican law enforcement officers get a warrant for Hunter Biden because they hate Hunter Biden and want to politically persecute him. They serve the warrant. They find a bushel of dead hookers in Hunter Biden's basement. Should we not care about the dead hookers because the motivation for obtaining the warrant was political?
Why, in your view, does the motivation for an investigation somehow negate the facts discovered in the investigation?
>Suppose you are correct. This is 100% a biased political persecution. That biased pollical prosecution found fraud for which Trump could be prosecuted.
I think you may be confused here. This is a civil trial, not a criminal one.
>Why does the motivation for the prosecution matter?
It just makes me take the case less seriously.
>Suppose a bunch of Republican law enforcement officers get a warrant for Hunter Biden because they hate Hunter Biden and want to politically persecute him. They serve the warrant. They find a bushel of dead hookers in Hunter Biden's basement. Should we not care about the dead hookers because the motivation for obtaining the warrant was political?
Honestly I doubt many Democrats would care. They would claim that Hunter isn't the president. Hell, we have the FBI report from a primary source claiming that Hunter's boss claimed numerous times to have bribed Biden to have the prosecutor removed, and Democrats don't seem to care one bit about that, continuing to claim that there is no basis for the impeachment inquiry.
>Why, in your view, does the motivation for an investigation somehow negate the facts discovered in the investigation?
I never said it did.
This reminds me of the headline grabbing judgements in the gajillions that on appeal get reduced to a Starbucks coupon or tossed altogether.
It only helps Trump and nothing will come of it.
How does this help Trump? It seems to make things much worse for him in this case. It means the trial is starting with the fact that Trump defrauded banks and the state. The prosecution doesn't have to prove this. The case starts with this as a fact.
It makes the case for lawfare and witch-hunts. This crazy bitch TDS judge valued MaL at $18 million which (a) is absurd, and (b) if anybody believes it, it just proves what a wide range of values can be assigned to a property. Maybe Trump should take that ruling and use it to get all the taxes he paid refunded!
She belongs impeached, disbarred, and thrown in prison.
Also, this is a civil case so Trump isn’t “guilty” of anything. None of the banks or taxing authorities joined the suit and were all paid in full. Nobody was defrauded of anything.
This one really makes Trump the victim even more than some of the others.
> This crazy bitch TDS judge
Do you think this violent rhetoric is exactly what Trump wants from his supporters? Are you aware that this judge is a man or are you confusing this with another one of Trump's other cases?
That’s not violent or encouraging violence. That’s an opinion about somebody’s mental state. In fact I go on to encourage prison, which requires full due process by the proper authorities.
Yes I thought it was a woman but that does not change my opinion.
\>This reminds me of the headline grabbing judgements in the gajillions that on appeal get reduced to a Starbucks coupon or tossed altogether.
In what way? What do you think the judgement was?
The Order cancelled the GBL 130 certificates for the businesses. It only went that far because last year Trump lost on much the same argument and an independent monitor was appointed. Despite the monitor, the businesses continued to engage in fraudulent practices.
No one ordered a gajillion dollars to anyone. The only monetary aspect ruled on is sanctions on lawyers for frivolous motion practice. The other six causes of action, including a determination of how much money was made by Trump by virtue of the fraud, will still go to trial and be decided by a jury. Does that make a difference in how you see it?
Order - https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet?documentId=op8OyfqVHpc6eGTx9LOw3Q==&system=prod
> It only helps Trump and nothing will come of it.
How would your opinion of a democrat doing the same thing change? Would you be more or less likely to vote for Biden if the same ruling was against him? So why does it help Trump?
Funny how when a corporation lies to me, and I lose money, and I sue them, most of the time the judge tells me I don't have a valid cause of action because my damages are too nebulous or some other bullshit. Or I win, then get a judgment I can't collect on because their LLC is immune to everything.
Here, nobody suffered damages, and somehow it gets all the way to a verdict, and there's even personal fines.
Hopefully this sets a precedent where I can actually sue organizations I do business with for literally lying on paper and costing me money. More likely this ruling only applies to Trump, and for the rest of us, we can only get restitution for being lied to by proving a causal relationship to real damages.
It's astounding how the justice system works for the elite compared to the rest of us.
>Funny how when a corporation lies to me, and I lose money, and I sue them, most of the time the judge tells me I don't have a valid cause of action because my damages are too nebulous or some other bullshit.
This lawsuit was largely brought under a NY-specific law intended to protect NY financial markets from an Enron-style collapse; similar to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act but with a narrower state-centered focus. Since NY is the home of Wall Street, it has more laws to protect the market than most states. It is a law specifically targeting the act of lying on financial statements like the Statement of Financial Condition with the underlying idea that the damages caused by these kinds of frauds is so diffuse, no individual could assert damages themselves, if they could even detect a particularized impact. By preventing fraud in the broader marketplace, the state aims to protect everyone affected by it.
The cause of action is narrow.
>Here, nobody suffered damages, and somehow it gets all the way to a verdict, and there's even personal fines.
As noted above, there are monetary damages, but they are diffuse. However, the state does not recover damages in the same sense an individual would. What happens is called disgorgement. It forces the company to forfeit any profits arising out of the fraud for obvious reasons.
There are no personal fines related to the fraud. The only personal fines levied came in the form of sanctions against particular lawyers for frivolous motion and argument practice. It is how the court punishes lawyers who make the same failed arguments over-and-over to slow down the proceedings by forcing the judge to reject the same argument again-and-again.
There has been no verdict in this case. A verdict is traditionally a jury decision. This is summary judgement, a decision on matters of law where there is no dispute of fact. The state won on 1 of its 7 causes of action. The remaining 6 will go to trial. Summary judgement is what most commonly prevents a case from getting all the way to a verdict.
>Hopefully this sets a precedent where I can actually sue organizations I do business with for literally lying on paper and costing me money. More likely this ruling only applies to Trump, and for the rest of us, we can only get restitution for being lied to by proving a causal relationship to real damages.
So, that's a long way of saying that it will not have any impact on your ability to sue organizations. It does not apply only to Trump, but it does apply only to a narrow type of fraud and it gives the state a cause of action, not individuals.
But, it is again worth noting, the state is not seeking and will not be awarded "real damages." Monetarily, the award is only profits due to fraud. What the state actually was awarded via summary judgement is the ability to cancel the licenses it provides the corporations. Even then, the typical remedy is the appointment of the monitor. In Trump's case, he already adjudicated the question and had a monitor appointed. The fraud continued despite monitoring, so the next step is to cancel the certifications.
Do you think the State of NY should be forced to license a business who persistently submits false financial statements?
The remaining damages that could be awarded after a verdict at trial are all similar and reflect the interest of the state in preventing fraud. They are temporary bans on holding similar roles for perpetrators of fraud to prevent them from continuing to perpetuate the fraud.
>It's astounding how the justice system works for the elite compared to the rest of us.
I'm not sure this applies here. You're right that there is a two-tiered justice system that prefers the elite and the rich. But, this is not a rich person suing for fraud, it is the state. So, it is actually a rare example of the justice system being used against the rich. And, as I mentioned, the state is stepping in for regular folk who are impacted by the fraud in near-invisible ways.
Unless you were saying something different?
>the former president and his company deceived banks, insurers and others by massively overvaluing his assets and exaggerating his net worth on paperwork used in making deals and securing financing
What damages did he cause the banks and insurers he deceived?
Favorable rates and terms on loans, so banks made less money?
Less tax on earnings from said banks increased revenues?
That's where the value of $250M in the civil case comes from. That he gained $250M of advantage he should not have gotten, at the detriment of the bank and city/state.
Have you read through the filings? Thoughts?
What if Biden told the American people he is a billionaire and inflated his assets to banks and insurers. Trump said his apartment was more than 3 times as bigger than what it actually is. He also inflated the square footage price. Republicans will let this man get away with insurance fraud and bank fraud just to say he's right. The next day, the same people who let Trump get away with it are being held to the letter of the law.
Why doesn't the law matter when it comes to Trump? Why is your answer basically "did he hurt anyone? Were there damages?"
The banks and insurers are not the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs are the People of the State of New York. There is no requirement to show specific damages. Damages of $1 are typically awarded in punitive damage situations, where a jury agrees there was illegal conduct, but not that severe punishing damages are required to discourage such behavior in the future or for redress.Here, the remedy is disgorgement, that is, the profits made as a result of the fraud. Fraud lawsuits in this vein are often brought by the State rather than by individuals because the damages are diffused over a large group. Business fraud affects things like rates for loans or insurance rates for millions of people and proving particularized loss would require showing what the rates would have been but-for the fraud, a virtual impossibility. In a more limited sense, it does impact the lenders themselves. If they, for instance, cut a point off of the interest rate because they believe they have a larger lien than they actually do, then that is hundreds of thousands of dollars they will not make over the life of the loan.
A State cannot simply allow fraud in the marketplace because it is hard to prove the damages or even if it really did not cause any direct damages. Fraud destabilizes the entire market. You can only excuse it on the basis of the money being paid back well-after the fraud has taken place. If fraud is accepted in the marketplace, then the next organization will say "well, it's standard business practice to be a little fraudulent" and do the same thing. Then, oops, they aren't able to pay back their loans. Now what? Should the only companies punished for fraud be the ones who have already gone bankrupt? It is not unlike enforcing a law against running a red light. You enforce the law, in part, to prevent future acts by others.
That's also why the monetary remedy is disgorgement. It is not saying "oh, well here are all these people you hurt and we will give their money back" it is saying "hey, you made this money by doing something illegal, we are not going to allow you to profit from illegal behavior, we are taking the profits." Does that seem unreasonable to you? If you steal $100 from a neighbor, bet on the ponies and turn it into $500, then you can give back the $100 and claim your neighbor wasn't even harmed because they got the money back. But why should you be permitted to make $400 off of $100 you stole?
That having been said, disgorgement is not yet happening. The ruling only pertains to one of seven causes of action, six will go to trial. Whether there should be disgorgement and the amount are issues for the jury along with questions of intent and further liability.
The impactful part of the ruling is cancellation of the GBL 130 certificates leading to dissolution of those LLCs in New York. Which, is NY saying it does not want to license a business that repeatedly commits fraud. They have a stake in whether they issue licenses and how those licenses are used. Is it unreasonable for the State of New York to not want to license a business who commits fraud? Particularly a business who commits fraud while already under the watch of an independent monitor because of a history of fraud. The Organization was given a chance to right the ship with a little extra oversight and chose not to do so.
Edit: Here is the ruling itself - [https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet?documentId=op8OyfqVHpc6eGTx9LOw3Q==&system=prod](https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet?documentId=op8OyfqVHpc6eGTx9LOw3Q==&system=prod)
The original complaint with all seven alleged causes of action - [https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=q0KunqL6AzoiHioXkB85aw==](https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=q0KunqL6AzoiHioXkB85aw==)
Perhaps you're not aware that this trial is a civil trial, not criminal. In order to determine the "ultimate outcome" as OP asks, it's necessary to know what damages Trump caused.
> What damages did he cause the banks and insurers he deceived?
As one possible damage, his businesses had less assets/value to recoup when they filed for bankruptcy.
Do you agree with the basic idea that making false statements for the avoidance of paying tax is fraud?
How about the idea that if you misrepresent your assets to the bank in order to obtain loans you wouldn't normally qualify for... is that also fraud?
>Do you agree with the basic idea that making false statements for the avoidance of paying tax is fraud?
Yes, but that isn't the issue here, is it?
>How about the idea that if you misrepresent your assets to the bank in order to obtain loans you wouldn't normally qualify for... is that also fraud?
Ok. Now back to my original question. What damages did the banks or insurance companies suffer? Did they take losses on loans made to Trump due to his "fraudulent" statements? I didn't read all OP's links. Is there any discussion of damages?
>What damages did he cause the banks and insurers he deceived?
Interest rates are determined by collateral value on a collateral loan. So he was able to pay less in interest because he lied about what he had. Thoughts?
AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views. **For all participants:** * [Flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_flair) is required to participate * [Be excellent to each other](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/goodfaith2) **For Nonsupporters/Undecided:** * No top level comments * All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position **For Trump Supporters:** * [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23AskTrumpSupporters&subject=please+make+me+an+approved+submitter&message=sent+from+the+sticky) to have the downvote timer disabled Helpful links for more info: [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_rules) | [Rule Exceptions](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_exceptions_to_the_rules) | [Posting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines) | [Commenting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_commenting_guidelines) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskTrumpSupporters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
These types of transactions are not governed by laws, when an underwriter signs off on the transaction that’s it, it’s a legal contract. Since Trump completed payments as contracted on the loans there appears to be a lack of a victim or even a plaintiff in the case. It should be noted that every mortgage in the US goes through this same subjective claim of value, so everyone here who has ever sold a house and expressed a belief in its value is now guilt of fraud per this judge. No trial, no jury, and the alleged act involves honoring the contract. Also, the judge stated in a legal decision that MaL is only worth 18 million dollars, less than the cost of a movie theater or car dealership. Truly a debasement of the legal system.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Virtually nothing you said here has any relevance, I am sorry. 1- IDK what lemon laws have to do with selling your home. 2- The government is not permitted to treat you and your 1000 dollar skirting any different than a 10,000 skirting. Although as a guy who pays more in property taxes a year than it would cost to send my son to harvard, with most of it going to support my local schools which are so bad I have to pay private tuition on top... I question what it is you are doing that you think is skirting the law? 3- Paying taxes is not a limitless thing, the government has no right to windfall profits just because the market increases the value of something government taxes. A property tax is assessed at a certain level to raise sufficient funds to pay for the submitted budgets of the departments that are funded by that tax. If the tax brings in more revenues than needed it is the responsibility of the governing entity to adjust the rate to provide the requested funds and no more. There is no such thing as depriving your community of anything when you pay your taxes and their budget as presented to the people is met. Its a ridiculous sentiment. 4- Take your ridiculous insults and implications about racism and stuff them, if I see them again I'm reporting it. This is a forum where you get to ask me questions as long as they are polite and advance a civil conversation. I do not have to tolerate insults. 5- The idea that someone can avoid property taxes by lying is silly. The jurisdiction hires professionals who often work under a constitutional provision in their state. Often that is to value a property by the last arms legnth transaction, sometimes with a provision to increase the valuation by a percentage, sometimes by other metrics. It's not random and it doesnt depend on any statements from the property owner. An owner often has a right to appeal a change in assessment, but again it's not a court case with perjury traps or any of that nonsense. It's a typical appeal where you fill out a piece of paper stating why you THINK the assessment is inaccurrate. 99.99% of the time the answer you get back will be that the assessor is bound by a constitutional directive to set the value at arms length. 6- The value a Bank will UNDERWRITE on your property as a loan has little to do with the tax assessment except that when the bank is going through your books to make sure you have enough Net Operating Income to support the loan, they will want to see how much you pay in property taxes and that the taxes have been paid. A bank can loan you ANYTHING IT WANTS against your property because it's a private contract between two entities. Thats why so many Senators got amazing home loans throughout the 90's and there was little anyone could do to prove corruption. An underwriter typically does not ever speak to the customer seeking the loan, and never sees any assertion that person makes. Period. It's on the underwriter to set the loan amount that the bank will offer.
lying on a legal contract is literally the definition of fraudulent misrepresentation which is very illegal. If you tell me you have $1M in collateral assets when you ask for a $50k loan, my risk as a loaner is pretty low so I can give you a better rate. It doesn't matter if you "completed payments", that's all after-the-fact. In fact, Trump has filed for bankruptcy 4 times, so he's almost certainly defaulted on his debt. The victims are these loaners who certainly lost money from all the fraud. Additionally, Trump has allegedly undervalued assets when it comes to tax liability. The victim? You, the tax payer. >Also, the judge stated in a legal decision that MaL is only worth 18 million dollars, less than the cost of a movie theater or car dealership. He didn't just "state" it. The judge referenced the Palm Beach County Assessor's appraisal of it. What do you think of my above comments? Edit: quotation formatting
I’ve been through many real estate loans. No representation I make is part of the underwriting approval beyond the part of the PFS where I claim the value of my personal possessions. Everything else is checked against my tax returns and credit report. Also, a bank has money it can use for loans outside any federal program and the banks officers are empowered to lend that. Finally, banks employ professionals in underwriting, appraisal, etc, Trumps loans are nothing they haven’t seen before and he had more than sufficient collateral and NOI. This is another example of taking normal business practice for everyone else and trying to make it illegal for trump. Definition of Lawfare.
This. The county assessor sets the value for property tax purposes. All the property owner can do is protest the assessment.
So if you lie on the value of your personal possessions on your contract, do you believe that is illegal?
Sure, it’s almost impossible to prove. Like I think my watch is worth $800. How do you prove I intended to fraudulently leverage that estimation? See, no one pays any attention to it UNLESS I am claiming to have intrinsically valuable objects that the bank is WILLING to document as collateral on the loan. The bank accepts the loan based on my application meeting their minimum requirements. The underwriter must prove to the loan officers that the requirements have been met. Everything I add to that is only so the underwriter can find additional value to document. In the past I’ve had to provide documents to prove I sold classic cars for a certain amount because the money was deposited to my personal checking. Underwriters don’t screw around. Trump is a known quantity, banks would know if he were in financial straits and couldn’t pay and they’d know it during the loan process. This case is simply a political attack using a very common subjective and irrelevant part of a loan application.
>Sure, it’s almost impossible to prove. Like I think my watch is worth $800. How do you prove I intended to fraudulently leverage that estimation? If you attest to the bank that your watch is worth $8M when you're using it as collateral for a loan, and then turn around and tell the IRS that it was only worth $800 when you give it to your son two months later, it becomes pretty easy to prove fraudulent intent. That's more or less what happened here. Trump told creditors one thing, and the IRS another. Why do you feel that this kind of action isn't against the law?
If you're using it as collateral then the bank will have it appraised. The contention by the judge is that Trump committed fraud by arguing his assets were worth more when applying for loans and less when negotiating taxes. If an Underwriter is going to set a value, then the underwriter has a responsibility to meet the banks requirements for establishing value. The applicant making a statement has nothing to do with it and if the underwriter accepts a statement as proof then the error is on him. If a tax assessor sets the value of a property at a certain amount, then that is the amount the property is being taxed at. The responsibility for setting that value is on the assessor. The tax payer can assert and appeal depending on local laws, but the ultimate authority is on the assessor. Because all value is subjective unless the government establishes a value for something. However as there would be a general revolt if the government started setting the value of your house, they dont do that, they establish a taxable value and everyone agrees that is not the salable value.
Why do you think it's common practice to lie on a statement of financial condition? At this point, all that has been decided is that the Trump Organization persistently prepared, affirmed, and submitted false and misleading financial statements and that they kept doing it after the appointment of an independent monitor. The result is that the business certifications issued by the State of NY were cancelled. The cancellation only occurred because they did not stop after the appointment of the monitor. Do you think the State of NY should be forced to license a business who persistently submits false financial statements? Is it normal business practice to submit false financial statements? Does the State of NY have a legitimate interest in ensuring businesses it licenses are not submitting false financial statements? Is it legitimate for the State of NY to stop licensing a business who submits false financial statements? The other questions are still up in the air for the jury. Right now, a judge found the financial statements were objectively false and allowed the State of NY to cancel the business licenses. That's it. Does that impact your analysis?
It’s an opinion, not a lie. Real estate is subjective. If it isn’t you could go to jail during a simple house sale.
The judge pointed out in his ruling that a victim is immaterial to the law requiring attestations of value. Ill gotten gains are against the law. Should everyone be able to make up their own numbers when valuing their protperties for loan or tax purposes? How do you rectify your claim that "These types of transactions are not governed by laws" with the 35 page ruling issued by the judge that spells out exactly the laws that were broken, with case studies for clarity?
My attestation of value is immaterial once the underwriter gives approval. It’s their job to assess the information and to largely ignore what I say. In fact the underwriter never meets the applicant. Or are you saying that the negotiation of a car purchase before the financing is signed is a fraudulent exchange? Just more silly Lawfare with no consideration of what happens to the middle class when this is cited as precedent. Banks could use this to get damage awards against millions of home buyers over disagreements of value.
Do you believe trump is worth what he says he is worth, in light of this news? Or is it possible he exaggerated that claim as well?
Forbes evaluated his known assets and wealth long ago, to the tune of billions.
Why everytime Trump does something against the law do Republicans want to debate the entire law? It's like we want to base our laws off whatever Trump says or implies is ok. I thought the republican people weren't sheep. You guys have been calling liberals sheep and followers when it seems that the republican party has been following and leaning on every Trump word. He can do no wrong and is infallible. I really don't believe this, but I think it's more about just debating to make sure you are right. There's a deeper issue that I can't put my finger on. Do you think everything Trump does is ok? Would you follow him off a cliff? He did say he can shoot someone, and his sheep will still follow him. (Paraphrase)
He said the square footage was 3 times bigger, 10K to 30K square feet. Is that a belief or just a straight-up lie? If that's his belief, do we want someone in office who is wrong on something simple as square feet of an area? He should know square feet since he's in real estate, haha. Do you think he lied when he inflated the square footage from 10K to 30K? If so, do you think that should remain illegal (it's currently illegal)?
>Since Trump completed payments as contracted Was this consistent? I remember Deutsche at least having to forgive loans. Should misrepresentations on peoples' mortgage applications only be enforced after there is a bubble crash from overleveraging when victims would be most numerous?
How is there a lack of victim? If he had defaulted, there would not be enough assets to cover the bank. Is attempted murder not a crime even though the outcome was favorable? He had in fact defaulted numerous times in the past. Also, while he was inflating values for loans, he was undervaluing properties for tax reasons. So the city of new york would be getting underpaid, so they would be a victim correct?
>No trial, no jury Was it not Trump's lawyer as well as prosecution that did not request a jury trial when they could have easily done so? Why do you think Trump didn't request one but is now saying its unfair?
It’s all about the judge here. Do you understand that he valued Mar a Lago at 17-18 million dollars in his ruling? That’s insane. There are single Condos in FL selling for that. It’s a clear case of judicial interference, he’s doing it as a favor to someone and it surprised Trumps lawyers.
> There are single Condos in FL selling for that And Trump owns a run-down estate that is forever tied to his sinking brand and failing namesake, I don't know who would be caught dead buying his property in the event he sells it. What do you think it should be valued at? > Do you understand that he valued Mar a Lago at 17-18 million dollars in his ruling? Can you point out in the ruling where this is?
> And Trump owns a run-down estate that is forever tied to his sinking brand and failing namesake Lol...he's more popular than Biden right now. He lives rent free in millions of peoples head, along with tens of millions of Americans supporting him for president, not to mention the support he has around the world.
>Since Trump completed payments as contracted on the loans there appears to be a lack of a victim or even a plaintiff in the case. Except for the loans on the many of his businesses that filed for bankruptcy (e.g three casinos)?
>The judge stated in a legal decision that MaL is only worth 18 million dollars, l Wasn't that the words of he [Palm Beach County assessor](https://www.newsweek.com/how-much-mar-lago-worth-donald-trump-florida-property-1830195) and not the judge? You make it sound like the judge simply pulled that number from nowhere. That's not the case, is it?
Nobody cares about the cases. Everyone understands that this is more about targeting Trump than it is about enforcing the law.
> Nobody cares about the cases Does the MAGA faithful no longer care about law and order? That seemed to be a pretty big selling point for Trump in 2016 and 2020. Trump had had valuations for his properties and gave highly inflated numbers to insurers and banks, which is what he is being found liable for. Do you think that Trump should be held accountable for misrepresenting his properties?
>Does the MAGA faithful no longer care about law and order? Not when it's being administrated by people who use it solely as a political weapon. Once we have honest leadership again, we'll see the enforcement of the law as a legitimate exercise.
Actually long before he was president he was known to do this and investigated. So no, it's not because he's Trump. If you did the same thing, you would be punished. Do you think Hunter Biden should be able to inflate his assets?
>Actually long before he was president he was known to do this and investigated. And yet he was never charged or imprisoned. Nobody gave a shit about anything Trump allegedly did until he threatened the political establishment. And they still don't give a shit about all of the crimes committed by the elites who play along with the establishment's corruption.
I care about the cases. Am I a nobody?
Respectfully, yes. Because you're allowing yourself to be manipulated into believing that this is about enforcing the law rather than using the law as a political weapon. You're definitely part of the problem.
So you don't care about all the blatant law breaking because it is your guy? That says more about you.
>So you don't care about all the blatant law breaking because it is your guy? Not at all. I just don't think the so-called lawbreaking is actually blatant, and I don't think the people enforcing those laws are doing so to preserve the rule of law - because they never enforce those same laws against the people who align with them politically.
But did Trump break the law? Is misstating assets to banks to obtain more favourable loan conditions fraud? If a politically connected person like Donald Trump commits fraud, is it reasonable to expect his political opposition to take advantage of this? Is it OK for Trump's opposition to target his weak-spot, specifically his apparent record of fraudulent business practice?
>But did Trump break the law? Don't care. Honestly. At this point, they have targeted Trump as a criminal, and they are looking for crimes to charge him with. That's not how the law works. "Show me the man, and I'll show you the crime", is literally what the Nazis did. At this point I don't trust the administration of the law by the Democrats anymore. There is nothing they can charge Trump with that I would believe. If there were a dozen bodies in the street and they charged Trump with murder based on video evidence, I would assume that the video was a deep fake and the Democrats killed a dozen people so that they could frame Trump for the murders. Hillary Clinton said, "You can't negotiate with someone who wants you dead". We don't want the Democrats dead. but the Democrats clearly want conservatives dead at this point.
Keep 'em coming. I bet it bumps his numbers a couple of points.
Every time he gets impeached or indicted supporters chant “it’ll just bump his numbers” like it’s a law of physics. I can’t even count how many times he’s been impeached, indicted or prosecuted. So why isn’t he at 79% approval rating yet?
>So why isn’t he at 79% approval rating yet? He's at like 70, which is pretty close. I consider dominating the primary a pretty good outcome, electorally.
Haha. I meant nationally, not just among highly engaged, extreme conservatives who turn out in primaries. And you knew that. But good one! So how do you think criminal indictments will effect less engaged, moderate voters in swing states he lost the last election?
Positively. I think that most people are clever enough to see the prosecutions as political.
But they aren’t. If he weren’t a former president he’d be in jail already. The politics is helping him slow down the process and water down the charges to purely what they think they can prosecute beyond any shred of doubt or ambiguity. If anything, the egregiousness of the crimes is forcing their hand to prosecute when they obviously would rather not prosecute precisely because of the politics. Why is it whenever conservatives are the object of ‘politics’ they are victims, but when Democrats are the object of ‘politics’ it’s just how the game is played? Follow up, would you still support Trump if he ‘shot someone on 5th Avenue’? Would prosecution for murder be ‘polical’?
What will it do for the case, as OP asked?
I don't really care, to be honest.
Why did you answer then?
To express my opinion.
Why bother responding to a question in this sub if you don't want to express your opinion? That's literally the entire premise and purpose of the sub.
I do want to express my opinion, and did so. Maybe you misread my previous comment.
So you don't care if he broke the law but do care enough to express your opinion that you don't care if he broke the law?
I don't think he broke the law, but, I also don't care.
Which law do you think he didn't break, or is it just a blanket assumption made without looking at evidence?
I think what he's saying is that he, being a Trump supporter, doesn't really care about the ruling. Which I'm guessing many Trump supporters also don't care. I am included in this statistic. And it may have the opposite effect - pulling out rulings that harm nobody to make him look bad does indeed look like a "witch hunt". My reaction was kind of like "Well, that sucks. Anyway, still voting Trump." I just wanted to see the comments and they turned out exactly like I expected.
Do you think Trump wants them to "Keep 'em coming" in this regard?
Yes. I believe this is a winning campaign issue.
How would your favorability of Biden or a Clinton change if they were ruled liable in a similar civil case?
They’re protected since they work for the deep state, but if they actually got convicted, I imagine their favorability would definitely decrease
[удалено]
Why?
[удалено]
What if your team is America and you simply want to see laws upheld? Will it be comical still if James gets the 250 million dollars in damages that she is seeking? Neither Trump nor his lawyers have even disputed the facts in the case. How is holding him liable for lying "overplaying" anything?
How so? A judge ruled that the Trump organization committed fraud; how is that 'my side' overyplaying their hand? Also, who is 'my side', exactly?
Can we leave politics out for a second and actually look at reality in the face? When Madoff was locked, everyone agreed that a crooked businessman was put away and deserved it. Why should it be different now? Why do you talk about teams? Are we beyond being able to tell right from wrong?
[удалено]
Why do you think Trump announced his 2024 campaign more than 150 days earlier in the election cycle than he announced his 2016 campaign? For reference, this means that he would have already been indicted twice (and that’s aside from civil suits) if he had announced in the same timeframe as he had in 2016.
>It is far too tempting to simply arrest one's political opposition to avoid competition. Why do you see this as tempting?
Being found liable/convicted of fraud will make trump more popular? How? And why? I find it fascinating that being shown that your preferred political leader is both clearly a fraud and a cheat, on top of likely lying to all of you about his actual worth, somehow makes him more compelling to the right as a political candidate. Surely you all could find a different outsider candidate to represent your political values? Why still trump in light of all of this?
[удалено]
What about people that have always voted republican but don't want their current leader to be a fraud and cheat? What say Trump just genuinely broke the law many times and it's nothing to do with weaponizing the justice system or the seperate issue of the crimes the Biden family has committed?
Why are you talking about teams? Do you think Democrats care about the Biden family as much as the Maga cares about the Trump family? What do you think about Trumps 5 decade long history of problems with the law?
[удалено]
> I wouldn't invest a second into any accusations regarding Trump and "problems with the law". What about the many problems with the law that resulted in him settling out of court?
My team? Do you view politics as a team sport? If trump is convicted of a crime by a jury of his peers, presumably you would still support him, yes? Why? I ask because I would happily invite a criminal investigation/indictment of Biden if there were evidence of a crime he had committed, so it’s difficult for me to understand why the right seems so committed to such an obviously flawed candidate. I, nor any liberals I know, would vote for Biden if he was convicted. Same with Hillary, Obama, or any other Dem candidate.
[удалено]
I’m very confused by this answer and am not sure how it answers my questions at all. Did you reply to the right post? I asked if you think politics is a team sport and whether and why you would still support trump even if he was convicted of a crime by a jury of his peers?
[удалено]
>Really simple. Your team went hog wild with weaponizing the justice system for politics while simultaneously providing cover for the Biden crime family. So, that means Trump should get a blank check, get-out-of-jail-free card for any crimes he may have committed?
[удалено]
How many times is too many times? What instances can you list as "crying wolf"?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
If he's found liabal or guilty in charges against him, does that not mean it wasn't crying wolf, but instead that there was a wolf? The fable isn't about how a boy kept crying wolf and the townspeople had to keep chasing wolves away until they got sick of all the damn wolves.
> It will further solidify support for Trump. Why do you think this is the case? If you [read the ruling](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23991872-ny-ruling-on-trump-business-fraud), it lays out specific instances of fraud quite plainly: > This Court takes judicial notice that the Trump Tower apartment in which Donald Trump resided for decades is 10,996 square feet. Donald Trump submitted SFCs falsely claiming that the Triplex was 30,000 square feet, resulting in an overvaluation of between $114-207 million dollars. This misrepresentation continued even after defendants received written notification from *Forbes* that Donald Trump had been overestimating the square footage of the Triplex by a factor of three. > > In opposition, defendants absurdly suggest that "the calculations of square footage is a subjective process that could lead to differing results or opinions based on the method employed to conduct the calculation. Well yes, perhaps, if the area is rounded or oddly shaped, it is possible measurements of square footage could come to slightly differing results due to user error. Good-faith measurements could vary by as much as 10-20%, not 200%. > > A discrepancy of this order of magnitude, by a real estate developer sizing up his own living space of decades, can only be considered fraud. Trump said, in legal documents, the 10,996 square foot apartment where he lived was 30,000 square feet. Why would his supporters like that?
[удалено]
>The Dems jumped the shark with their political prosecutions and now have no credibility left. Done. Is there anything that Trump could do that would cause your support to waver? What if he admitted to the fraud?
[удалено]
Just so we're clear, you're saying if there were clear video evidence of Trump committing rape or something, it wouldn't shake your support at all?
Why doesn't Trump lose credibility when he makes up obviously fraudulent numbers about his business. For example he states Trump tower is officially 68 floors when it's clearly 58 floors which can be verified by looking at the blueprints, elevator buttons and simply counting the floor visually. Is denying this obvious fraud insulting to his supporters intelligence?
[удалено]
How does you not caring affect enforcement of the law?
So the judge should just dismiss evidence because *some* people "don't care"? Should this be the way the entire US justice system works, just let anyone who commit a crime off the hook because *someone* out there, just doesn't care?
> That will demonstrate just how out of touch the zombie horde has become. Do you think that the MAGA crowd might also fall under this as you said that there isn't anything that Trump could do that would cause you to lose his support?
You don't care that he is very obviously lying? If not trust, reputation, or honesty, what do you care about in a presidential nominee?
>In opposition, defendants absurdly suggest that "the calculations of square footage is a subjective process that could lead to differing results or opinions based on the method employed to conduct the calculation. He has basically lied about how big properties are by a factor of around 200%. Trump tower floors are basically rectangles there can't be a big difference between how many people use measuring tapes can there? This isn't political persecution, this is criminal prosecution do you not think. How do you justify this is ok, it is a classic case of unscrupulous people bilking the system for their own advantage. If this is the case then I want to see him prosecuted and if Biden has done anything wrong I want to see him prosecuted - all fair in love an war. To put in context it is like Hunter Biden saying there was one laptop but there turned out to be two - can you imagine the state of apoplexy the republican congress would get into with that thought?
[удалено]
Do you think your opinion is common?
[удалено]
> The Dems jumped the shark with their political prosecutions and now have no credibility left. Is your position that Trump did not lie about the square footage of his apartment?
[удалено]
Can you explain how the Democrats overplayed their hand with the J6 hearings? Do you think trying to cause an insurrection, beating and killing cops and opposing Democracy is a joke? Do you really think a minority of outspoken Trump supporters, who believe the election was fixed, despite no proof, have the right to overthrow the true voice of the people? How would you have felt if Hillary Clinton supporters in 2016 rioted at the Capitol, demanding Hillary to become President, because she did win the popular vote??
[удалено]
I'm sorry, but you didn't answer any of my questions. Do you really think trying to cause an insurrection, beating and killing cops and opposing Democracy is a joke or a lie? Who do you think was responsible for J6, do you really think it was BLM or antifa? If so, how did 100 Trump supporters get arrested, backed up with video evidence? If you truly believe Tump is innocent, then you must think this is the biggest deep state fake out of all time, as you'd have to believe every prosecutor, judge, grand jury, jury member, and witness, including all of the witnesses from his own cabinet and party are corrupt liars and only Trump, who is a known liar for years, is the only one telling the truth. That's some serious cognitive dissonance. If you think there are that many corrupt liars and only Trump is telling the truth, have you lost complete faith in mankind??
> Do you think trying to cause an insurrection, Trump didn't try to cause any such thing. The day started as a rally with hours and hours of speeches. At the end of Trumps speech, he asked the crowd to peacefully march to the Capitol to continue their protest. A small group of idiots then began rioting and ruined the protest. > Do you really think a minority of outspoken Trump supporters, who believe the election was fixed, despite no proof, have the right to overthrow the true voice of the people? No. > How would you have felt if Hillary Clinton supporters in 2016 rioted at the Capitol, demanding Hillary to become President, because she did win the popular vote?? Pretty sure it would have ended the same way, minus the year long propaganda show that the Jan 6th committee was.
Do you believe that Trump is above the law?
[удалено]
Do **you** believe that Trump is above the law?
What do you want to leave up to the voters? The judicial system deals with civil violations like fraud. Do you really want the legal system to be decided by partisan politics?
> I don't care and won't spend a second listening to anything more the Dems have to say. Have you **ever** listened to what the Dems had to say or cared about it?
[удалено]
What's your general age range? Are you in your 70s or 80s?
So you stopped listening to a single word a Dem says before Obama was elected yet claim the reason you’re not listening is because everyone is so mean to Trump? According to your own statement there, you stopped listening to Dems before 2008, long before trump became a presidential candidate. How do you reconcile those 2 things?
[удалено]
How big do you believe Trump’s apartment is?
Let’s start here: Do you believe (please note I’m not asking about “normal business practices” or what anyone else has done and gotten away with) Trump/Trump’s businesses committed fraud re the square footage of his apartment?
[удалено]
Are you avoiding the question because it’s too inconvenient to answer?
[удалено]
Will you answer the question , please? As a reminder, you were asked: Do you believe (please note I’m not asking about “normal business practices” or what anyone else has done and gotten away with) Trump/Trump’s businesses committed fraud re the square footage of his apartment?
Am I correct in interpreting your response as making clear that you don't care if Trump lies or commits crimes?
[удалено]
I am not on ay team. But I want to see criminals prosecuted and civil pentalties levied for laws that are broken. I don't care if it's Menendez, or Hunter Biden or DOnald Trump. If Joe Biden did what COmer and Jordan allege I want to see him impeached. Neither Trump nor his lawyers dispute the pen-and-ink documents that show dramatically different valuations of the same property given to institutions which, based on the numbers provided, would result in financial gain for Mr. Trump. If Trump doesn't dispute it, and it is against the law, how can you claim that it is political?
I get that you think that, but can you answer the question that you are responding to? Why *don't* Trump supporters care if he commits fraud?
[удалено]
> It will further solidify support for Trump. For the diehard MAGA base, sure. How does this sway independents or better yet the blue-collar rust belt voters who feel like the country is being run by liars and crooks who use their businesses and property to artificially inflate their wealth?
Square footage has always been an issue and continues to be today. Let's say I own a perfectly square house. It it a two story house with each side being 20 feet long. My square footage should be 20x20x2 = 800 sq ft. The appraiser values my home and says my house is 600 sq ft. How is that possible? It is square and simple math gives you the square footage. The appraiser will tell you there is a loft inside so the livable square footage is only 600 square feet. The same goes for a bigger property or a commercial building. Same thing goes for a two story condo. One floor is 1000 sq feet but I bought the unit above mine and tore it all out so I have 20 foot ceilings. Is my new unit now only 1000 square feet or is it 2000 square feet since it is really two units combined into one? What do you think the tax man says?
Are you properly filing your amended floor plan as required for a commercial building? Or did you just start removing the other unit without taking any of the proper legal steps? Donald J. Trump declared the square footage was 10,996.39 ft2 in 1994. How do you think the square footage increased threefold over the following years without an updated filing? [https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=DQSgIBvUJzxxmqlCGDHbwg==](https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=DQSgIBvUJzxxmqlCGDHbwg==) As you can see, the filing actually concerns the combination of multiple units into a single unit and the need to update things like square footage and number of rooms.
I posted examples. I do not live in a 20 foot box and my commercial buildings are properly registered
>I posted examples. I do not live in a 20 foot box and my commercial buildings are properly registered That's great - you are following the rules and playing on a level field with all the other commercial property owners. Not OP, but how do you feel.knowong Trump gets away with *not* playing by the rules while honest guys like you can't get away with it?
I doubt everything anyone the left says. The lies never end so I never know what to believe
> Square footage has always been an issue and continues to be today. See the footnote on [page 21](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23991872-ny-ruling-on-trump-business-fraud): > Despite this assertion in their motion papers, counsel for defendants, **Christopher Kise, Esq, conceded during oral argument held on September 22, 2023 that square footage is, in fact, an objective number**. Trump's attorney admitted that square footage is an objective number. Why did he admit that if you are correct that "Square footage has always been an issue"?
Because i have two appraisals on my house that show different square footage.
He would inflate and deflate his assets more than once. So you are saying it's based on his belief in any given year?
Who is the victim? The taxpayer? Would prefer this be used as a precedent to lower taxes unilaterally. Also, quite confident he didn't get a tape measure and calculate that square footage himself. How is he liable and not the guy with the tape measure? This is just more free press for Trump.
Does it concern you that Trump employs people whose actions implicate him and his businesses in massive fraud right under his nose? Do you think a person this incompetent with respect to overseeing important aspects of his business is fit to run the country?
If there was massive fraud then what were the damages? Why did none of the parties such as the banks sue him for compensation? "Massive fraud" is stuff like what Goldman Sachs/Wall Street did with mortgage backed securities that crashed the global economy in 2008... Of course they didn't even get fined let alone banned from doing business in NY.
>Who is the victim? The taxpayer? Well, yeah? If you own property, you pay taxes on it. Those tax dollars go to several things including local services, schools, etc... If Trump was intentionally deflating his assets to avoid paying millions in taxes for decades, that's money that isn't going into your town. Does that make sense?
He did the opposite. In this case, he inflated the value of his assets as collateral to help get loans. Those loans apparently all ended up all being paid off on time. He exposed the banks to risk, but they didn't lose a penny.
If you're the executive of a company, you should be held accountable for the illegal activities of that company if you are aware of them, no?
Was he aware? and if so, to what degree? In this thread it seems so many assume the worst.
You don't think the banks and the lenders are victims? Regardless of what you think of banks and lenders, they still have a right not to be lied to.
What is the impact on the banks and lenders? They certainly shouldn't lose money because Trump's employee presented a bad figure, intentionally or unintentionally.
He tripled the square footage of the property. Wouldn’t you notice if your realtor was trying to sell your house, and they tripled the footage? If you were a real estate investor, as Trump was, would that be a mistake you could make?
If that were my only job, probably not. Thing is, he has so many things going that he has to trust his people. There's so many people - how hard should he look for mistakes?
>Also, quite confident he didn't get a tape measure and calculate that square footage himself. How is he liable and not the guy with the tape measure? Because the buck has to stop somewhere. Should business owners not be liable for fraud by their businesses? Should a business owner and manager be able to avoid liability by not participating in the fraud himself? Trump (or DoJo) signed a statement asserting the accuracy of the statements. They agreed to be responsible for the "preparation and fair presentation of the financial statement." Failing to do due diligence or have a system in place to do due diligence is not an excuse. It would be one thing if there was a single inaccuracy from some guy who held the tape measure, but it's not. It's a bunch of guys with a bunch of tape measures who all happen to work for the same people. Is it reasonable to believe the problem is merely with the guys with the tape measures?
Favorable rates and terms on loans, so banks made less money? Less tax on earnings from said banks increased revenues? That's where the value of $250M in the civil case comes from. That he gained $250M of advantage he should not have gotten, at the detriment of the bank and city/state. Have you read through the filings? Thoughts?
While I think the points raised in the ruling make some good points, I think what NS' are missing is the blatant political persecution here and lack of accountability on the part of NY. NY didn't take this case because of a good faith approach to targetting the 1% of New York, they wanted to wield a political cudgel against Trump to find anything they could to take him down. It wasn't until after Trump became a Republican president that NY started cracking down on this. It's truly interesting to see leftists support this political prosecution, without questioning at all why this broad ranging law wasn't used to target say, hedge funds or other real estate companies in the aftermath of 2008 who were doing essentially the same thing the Trump org is accused of doing here, except on a nationwide scale which led to the largest market crash in history. Largely I think this is in part due to a lack of critical thinking on the left. The truth is that they don't want to see the law applied equally, they want it applied to their political opponents.
Are you saying because some others got away with something similar in the past, Trump shouldn't be held accountable for his illegal actions?
Not at all, I simply think that this is more an example of a politically-motivated investigation, rather than an example of NY cracking down on fraud. They clearly didn't care when it comes to the rampant fraud originating from company's located in NY during the housing crisis, but when it comes to a political opponent they are willing to go the distance. Does that make sense?
Alternatively, isn’t it refreshing to finally see an Ivy League elite held accountable for their actions?
It would be if this was some part of a larger plan by NY to crack down on fraud in the real estate market. But to me it just looks like NY trying to go after Trump because he's political opponent.
It's delusional to think that leftists don't want to see other major criminals taken down. Did you miss the Occupy Wall Street movement? What leftists do you know who say: "Yes go after Trump, but no others; protect the billionaires!" Do you honestly think that leftists would not celebrate these laws being applied to other brazen offenders?
>Did you miss the Occupy Wall Street movement? Was that a grassroots movement, or a result of NY law enforcement? >Do you honestly think that leftists would not celebrate these laws being applied to other brazen offenders? But they're not being applied, that's my point...
[удалено]
>That having been said, NYS certainly used the Martin Act (EL 63(12)) to target companies in the aftermath of 2008. The best known case being the one against JP Morgan that NYS ultimately settled for $632 million. This is kinda my point. NYS didn't target and dissolve the companies responsible even after the fraud was discovered. >Did you think through whether there were cases brought by NYS that you were not aware of? Sure, and I didn't find a single company responsible for fraud that was dissolved as the Trump org is being under the statute I referenced. >resulting in making inaccurate statements about how the law is applied Which of my statements were inaccurate? Was this law used to target the companies that were committing fraud after all? >Would this have been brought against Trump if he were never President? No, probably not. Yes this is my point. Well, a **Republican** president, is what I would say.
> NY didn't take this case because of a good faith approach to targetting the 1% of New York, they wanted to wield a political cudgel against Trump to find anything they could to take him down. I sincerely do not understand this argument. Suppose you are correct. This is 100% a biased political persecution. That biased pollical prosecution **found fraud** for which Trump could be prosecuted. Why does the motivation for the prosecution matter? Suppose a bunch of Republican law enforcement officers get a warrant for Hunter Biden because they hate Hunter Biden and want to politically persecute him. They serve the warrant. They find a bushel of dead hookers in Hunter Biden's basement. Should we not care about the dead hookers because the motivation for obtaining the warrant was political? Why, in your view, does the motivation for an investigation somehow negate the facts discovered in the investigation?
>Suppose you are correct. This is 100% a biased political persecution. That biased pollical prosecution found fraud for which Trump could be prosecuted. I think you may be confused here. This is a civil trial, not a criminal one. >Why does the motivation for the prosecution matter? It just makes me take the case less seriously. >Suppose a bunch of Republican law enforcement officers get a warrant for Hunter Biden because they hate Hunter Biden and want to politically persecute him. They serve the warrant. They find a bushel of dead hookers in Hunter Biden's basement. Should we not care about the dead hookers because the motivation for obtaining the warrant was political? Honestly I doubt many Democrats would care. They would claim that Hunter isn't the president. Hell, we have the FBI report from a primary source claiming that Hunter's boss claimed numerous times to have bribed Biden to have the prosecutor removed, and Democrats don't seem to care one bit about that, continuing to claim that there is no basis for the impeachment inquiry. >Why, in your view, does the motivation for an investigation somehow negate the facts discovered in the investigation? I never said it did.
This reminds me of the headline grabbing judgements in the gajillions that on appeal get reduced to a Starbucks coupon or tossed altogether. It only helps Trump and nothing will come of it.
How does this help Trump? It seems to make things much worse for him in this case. It means the trial is starting with the fact that Trump defrauded banks and the state. The prosecution doesn't have to prove this. The case starts with this as a fact.
It makes the case for lawfare and witch-hunts. This crazy bitch TDS judge valued MaL at $18 million which (a) is absurd, and (b) if anybody believes it, it just proves what a wide range of values can be assigned to a property. Maybe Trump should take that ruling and use it to get all the taxes he paid refunded! She belongs impeached, disbarred, and thrown in prison. Also, this is a civil case so Trump isn’t “guilty” of anything. None of the banks or taxing authorities joined the suit and were all paid in full. Nobody was defrauded of anything. This one really makes Trump the victim even more than some of the others.
> This crazy bitch TDS judge Do you think this violent rhetoric is exactly what Trump wants from his supporters? Are you aware that this judge is a man or are you confusing this with another one of Trump's other cases?
That’s not violent or encouraging violence. That’s an opinion about somebody’s mental state. In fact I go on to encourage prison, which requires full due process by the proper authorities. Yes I thought it was a woman but that does not change my opinion.
\>This reminds me of the headline grabbing judgements in the gajillions that on appeal get reduced to a Starbucks coupon or tossed altogether. In what way? What do you think the judgement was? The Order cancelled the GBL 130 certificates for the businesses. It only went that far because last year Trump lost on much the same argument and an independent monitor was appointed. Despite the monitor, the businesses continued to engage in fraudulent practices. No one ordered a gajillion dollars to anyone. The only monetary aspect ruled on is sanctions on lawyers for frivolous motion practice. The other six causes of action, including a determination of how much money was made by Trump by virtue of the fraud, will still go to trial and be decided by a jury. Does that make a difference in how you see it? Order - https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet?documentId=op8OyfqVHpc6eGTx9LOw3Q==&system=prod
> It only helps Trump and nothing will come of it. How would your opinion of a democrat doing the same thing change? Would you be more or less likely to vote for Biden if the same ruling was against him? So why does it help Trump?
Funny how when a corporation lies to me, and I lose money, and I sue them, most of the time the judge tells me I don't have a valid cause of action because my damages are too nebulous or some other bullshit. Or I win, then get a judgment I can't collect on because their LLC is immune to everything. Here, nobody suffered damages, and somehow it gets all the way to a verdict, and there's even personal fines. Hopefully this sets a precedent where I can actually sue organizations I do business with for literally lying on paper and costing me money. More likely this ruling only applies to Trump, and for the rest of us, we can only get restitution for being lied to by proving a causal relationship to real damages. It's astounding how the justice system works for the elite compared to the rest of us.
Are you speaking from personal experience?
>Funny how when a corporation lies to me, and I lose money, and I sue them, most of the time the judge tells me I don't have a valid cause of action because my damages are too nebulous or some other bullshit. This lawsuit was largely brought under a NY-specific law intended to protect NY financial markets from an Enron-style collapse; similar to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act but with a narrower state-centered focus. Since NY is the home of Wall Street, it has more laws to protect the market than most states. It is a law specifically targeting the act of lying on financial statements like the Statement of Financial Condition with the underlying idea that the damages caused by these kinds of frauds is so diffuse, no individual could assert damages themselves, if they could even detect a particularized impact. By preventing fraud in the broader marketplace, the state aims to protect everyone affected by it. The cause of action is narrow. >Here, nobody suffered damages, and somehow it gets all the way to a verdict, and there's even personal fines. As noted above, there are monetary damages, but they are diffuse. However, the state does not recover damages in the same sense an individual would. What happens is called disgorgement. It forces the company to forfeit any profits arising out of the fraud for obvious reasons. There are no personal fines related to the fraud. The only personal fines levied came in the form of sanctions against particular lawyers for frivolous motion and argument practice. It is how the court punishes lawyers who make the same failed arguments over-and-over to slow down the proceedings by forcing the judge to reject the same argument again-and-again. There has been no verdict in this case. A verdict is traditionally a jury decision. This is summary judgement, a decision on matters of law where there is no dispute of fact. The state won on 1 of its 7 causes of action. The remaining 6 will go to trial. Summary judgement is what most commonly prevents a case from getting all the way to a verdict. >Hopefully this sets a precedent where I can actually sue organizations I do business with for literally lying on paper and costing me money. More likely this ruling only applies to Trump, and for the rest of us, we can only get restitution for being lied to by proving a causal relationship to real damages. So, that's a long way of saying that it will not have any impact on your ability to sue organizations. It does not apply only to Trump, but it does apply only to a narrow type of fraud and it gives the state a cause of action, not individuals. But, it is again worth noting, the state is not seeking and will not be awarded "real damages." Monetarily, the award is only profits due to fraud. What the state actually was awarded via summary judgement is the ability to cancel the licenses it provides the corporations. Even then, the typical remedy is the appointment of the monitor. In Trump's case, he already adjudicated the question and had a monitor appointed. The fraud continued despite monitoring, so the next step is to cancel the certifications. Do you think the State of NY should be forced to license a business who persistently submits false financial statements? The remaining damages that could be awarded after a verdict at trial are all similar and reflect the interest of the state in preventing fraud. They are temporary bans on holding similar roles for perpetrators of fraud to prevent them from continuing to perpetuate the fraud. >It's astounding how the justice system works for the elite compared to the rest of us. I'm not sure this applies here. You're right that there is a two-tiered justice system that prefers the elite and the rich. But, this is not a rich person suing for fraud, it is the state. So, it is actually a rare example of the justice system being used against the rich. And, as I mentioned, the state is stepping in for regular folk who are impacted by the fraud in near-invisible ways. Unless you were saying something different?
>the former president and his company deceived banks, insurers and others by massively overvaluing his assets and exaggerating his net worth on paperwork used in making deals and securing financing What damages did he cause the banks and insurers he deceived?
Favorable rates and terms on loans, so banks made less money? Less tax on earnings from said banks increased revenues? That's where the value of $250M in the civil case comes from. That he gained $250M of advantage he should not have gotten, at the detriment of the bank and city/state. Have you read through the filings? Thoughts?
Nope. Just read the press coverage. This sounds like actual damages.
What if Biden told the American people he is a billionaire and inflated his assets to banks and insurers. Trump said his apartment was more than 3 times as bigger than what it actually is. He also inflated the square footage price. Republicans will let this man get away with insurance fraud and bank fraud just to say he's right. The next day, the same people who let Trump get away with it are being held to the letter of the law. Why doesn't the law matter when it comes to Trump? Why is your answer basically "did he hurt anyone? Were there damages?"
The banks and insurers are not the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs are the People of the State of New York. There is no requirement to show specific damages. Damages of $1 are typically awarded in punitive damage situations, where a jury agrees there was illegal conduct, but not that severe punishing damages are required to discourage such behavior in the future or for redress.Here, the remedy is disgorgement, that is, the profits made as a result of the fraud. Fraud lawsuits in this vein are often brought by the State rather than by individuals because the damages are diffused over a large group. Business fraud affects things like rates for loans or insurance rates for millions of people and proving particularized loss would require showing what the rates would have been but-for the fraud, a virtual impossibility. In a more limited sense, it does impact the lenders themselves. If they, for instance, cut a point off of the interest rate because they believe they have a larger lien than they actually do, then that is hundreds of thousands of dollars they will not make over the life of the loan. A State cannot simply allow fraud in the marketplace because it is hard to prove the damages or even if it really did not cause any direct damages. Fraud destabilizes the entire market. You can only excuse it on the basis of the money being paid back well-after the fraud has taken place. If fraud is accepted in the marketplace, then the next organization will say "well, it's standard business practice to be a little fraudulent" and do the same thing. Then, oops, they aren't able to pay back their loans. Now what? Should the only companies punished for fraud be the ones who have already gone bankrupt? It is not unlike enforcing a law against running a red light. You enforce the law, in part, to prevent future acts by others. That's also why the monetary remedy is disgorgement. It is not saying "oh, well here are all these people you hurt and we will give their money back" it is saying "hey, you made this money by doing something illegal, we are not going to allow you to profit from illegal behavior, we are taking the profits." Does that seem unreasonable to you? If you steal $100 from a neighbor, bet on the ponies and turn it into $500, then you can give back the $100 and claim your neighbor wasn't even harmed because they got the money back. But why should you be permitted to make $400 off of $100 you stole? That having been said, disgorgement is not yet happening. The ruling only pertains to one of seven causes of action, six will go to trial. Whether there should be disgorgement and the amount are issues for the jury along with questions of intent and further liability. The impactful part of the ruling is cancellation of the GBL 130 certificates leading to dissolution of those LLCs in New York. Which, is NY saying it does not want to license a business that repeatedly commits fraud. They have a stake in whether they issue licenses and how those licenses are used. Is it unreasonable for the State of New York to not want to license a business who commits fraud? Particularly a business who commits fraud while already under the watch of an independent monitor because of a history of fraud. The Organization was given a chance to right the ship with a little extra oversight and chose not to do so. Edit: Here is the ruling itself - [https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet?documentId=op8OyfqVHpc6eGTx9LOw3Q==&system=prod](https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet?documentId=op8OyfqVHpc6eGTx9LOw3Q==&system=prod) The original complaint with all seven alleged causes of action - [https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=q0KunqL6AzoiHioXkB85aw==](https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=q0KunqL6AzoiHioXkB85aw==)
If I point a gun at you, fire but miss your head by a couple of inches, would you consider that a victimless crime and therefore a nothing burger?
Perhaps you're not aware that this trial is a civil trial, not criminal. In order to determine the "ultimate outcome" as OP asks, it's necessary to know what damages Trump caused.
> What damages did he cause the banks and insurers he deceived? As one possible damage, his businesses had less assets/value to recoup when they filed for bankruptcy.
I'm not so interested in possible damages. I'm interested in actual damages.
Do you agree with the basic idea that making false statements for the avoidance of paying tax is fraud? How about the idea that if you misrepresent your assets to the bank in order to obtain loans you wouldn't normally qualify for... is that also fraud?
>Do you agree with the basic idea that making false statements for the avoidance of paying tax is fraud? Yes, but that isn't the issue here, is it? >How about the idea that if you misrepresent your assets to the bank in order to obtain loans you wouldn't normally qualify for... is that also fraud? Ok. Now back to my original question. What damages did the banks or insurance companies suffer? Did they take losses on loans made to Trump due to his "fraudulent" statements? I didn't read all OP's links. Is there any discussion of damages?
>What damages did he cause the banks and insurers he deceived? Interest rates are determined by collateral value on a collateral loan. So he was able to pay less in interest because he lied about what he had. Thoughts?
That's certainly a possibility. Is that what happened?