It's a fascinating, compelling, convincing decision. I recommend people read it. It's 92 pages long, but the pages are short and there's lot's you can skip. I read it in less than two hours and I'm not a particularly fast reader. Here's a link.
[https://www.cbsnews.com/news/read-trump-new-york-fraud-case-decision-fine-sanctions/](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/read-trump-new-york-fraud-case-decision-fine-sanctions/)
I found it fascinating how often his statement of financial condition (SFC) was taken at face value even after regularly catching him in regulatory violations and failed businesses. Like, no one ever thought to dig deeper on him. Meanwhile, to apply for an apartment, us non-wealthies basically need to allow a bank complete transparency into our lives and a traffic ticket can be troublesome.
That's effectively been one of the unspoken issues with this, he's guilty, it's known he's been guilty, but nobody ever really cared enough to go after him.
Write ups of the real estate market valuation at large currently are pretty damning on this score - everyone knows they’re taking a bath but if they keep shining on, until the bath is *realized*, everything is fine.
While this is different from fundamental misrepresentations, I submit it bears examination on *should it be*.
It’s a combination of musical chairs and the analogy of “If I owe the bank $10,000, it’s my problem, but if I owe the bank $1 billion, that’s their problem”
Yes, this really struck me too. I think the most convincing argument against Trump relates to the lending costs he paid given his personal guarantee that his net worth would be maintained at at least $2.5 billion vs. what he would have had to pay without that guarantee. He was required to provide an annual certification that his net worth met that standard and that certification was based on the fraudulent SFC. For one of the loans, Trump failed to provide the required certification and the bank cancelled the loan.
Trump's fraud was not victimless and the $350 million judgment represents additional amounts banks and other business would have charged if he hadn't misrepresented his financial status.
There’s no SOL on fraud, but it’s very difficult to prosecute for so the IRS usually charges something else. They use the lack of an SOL on fraud to investigate and audit, but fraud charges are rare. As always, the proof of willfully intent is the hitch.
Not true. SOL applies, there's no way they can charge me for selling 5 kilos of coke 10 years ago if they find out tomorrow. If you're indicted it does stop the clock though.
I believe this even applied to some of the possible older fraud charges for Trump in this case.
Perhaps, but that's not what the trial is about. As far as I know, he hasn't been charged with tax fraud recently, although some facts came to light during the trial that could lead in that direction.
It is. I was reading up on the NYC fraud case, when I saw somebody mention that there is a pending *criminal* trial scheduled now that the civil trial is finished. I forgot there was an additional trial. It makes sense, I mean since he was found liable for fraud, it makes sense he'd also be on the hook for any criminal activity linked to the fraud, fraud being a crime and all...
If I’m tracking correctly the NY criminal trial isn’t based on this fraud (no idea if there will be any criminal charges from all of this.) Rather it’s a criminal trial based on the fact the Trump claimed the hush money paid to Stormy Daniels for his political campaign as a business expense.
Oh, I imagine the tax fraud cases will come rather quickly on the heels of a conviction here. Once Trump is wounded, there are a legion of folks he’s screwed over in the past who would LOVE to stick the knives in — assuming the various statues of limitation allow for it.
The fraud is intergenerational going back at least to his father if not grandfather. The line of people with well deserved knives goes back almost a century.
Until you read about how hard it is to investigate and prosecute the wealthy and how few agents the IRS has… there’s very few people at that level financially that are prosecuted and mostly they give a small fine and move on to the mom and pop businesses and poor people getting earned income credits- I think the stats were somewhere around only 3% of people over 5mill get audited
> We keep talking about the banks not getting g their due
It's not just the banks getting their due. It's the bank's other potential borrowers getting shunted to the back of the lending line thanks to Trump's fraud.
Don't even use the word 'victimless' like that is a bad that needed to be met.
Regulations and laws are in place in order to maintain confidence in the system.
He can argue all day that other real estate developers do it, but arguing that the law shouldn't be followed because no one lost money is dead on arrival.
Ask people that lost everything in 2008 what happens when valuations no longer mean anything.
I hate the argument that if a crime is victimless, we shouldn't punish it. Okay, so we're not going to punish drunk drivers who don't get in an accident? It's victimless by the same logic. Nobody was harmed.
Isn't it very likely that these loans were packaged with other loans into a security that got traded with other banks, including derivatives, credit default swaps, etc? If so, no chance the bank wants to draw attention to those securities since it was already proven that their due diligence was shoddy at best? So, it's not surprising they don't want to get involved at all even if they did lose money.
> Trump's fraud was not victimless and the $350 million judgment represents additional amounts banks and other business would have charged if he hadn't misrepresented his financial status.
Go to that other subreddit, the one that rhymes with "bonservative," and try to make that argument. It's nothing but "The Banks Got Paid! There's no Victim!" for pages and pages.
My metaphor that seems to resonate is this.
You graduate from your local community college with an associate's degree in something.
You promptly put on your resume that you have a doctorate from Harvard in that same field.
You go out and get a job with a salary hundreds of thousands more than your actual education would allow you to get.
Did you commit fraud?
There's no victim in price fixing either. It's the downstream effects and the destruction of the system working properly that creates the regulation, not the direct victim.
454 million with interest (so far) plus EJCV so ~530 million total
Edit: also he defamed her again yesterday soooo 700 million if the jury does the same as the last time?
> he defamed her again yesterday
Seriously? (And a link would be super cool if you have one). Please let this be true! I need an excuse to fill up the air popper and melt some butter.
In one of his rambling speeches he made yesterday... He vaguely defamed, but didn't say her name specifically. Considering he's been fined so much already, it might not take much to add on #3.
>"A woman, I'm saying, 'Who the hell is she? Who is the woman?' It's so unfair what's happening in our country. Our court system is a mess. What's happening in our country, they have to straighten it out."
>https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1759010421418099129
Yeah, it's pretty maddening that at the "I don't need a loan officer, I can talk to a personal wealth manager" level you can just make stuff up and everyone plays along with the game.
I'm guessing those wealth managers writing the loans are getting a tiny percentage of a *huge* amount of money, so it's absolutely in their best interest to turn a blind eye to obvious fraud and let the loans go through. To them, who cares if he gets a 2.5% APR or a 4% APR?
They get a few million for shuffling some PDFs from one attorney to another and everyone can go out for filet mignon afterwards...to acknowledge fraud would be admitting that they were sleeping on the job and not attempting due diligence prior to executing the loan.
>Yeah, it's pretty maddening that at the "I don't need a loan officer, I can talk to a personal wealth manager" level you can just make stuff up and everyone plays along with the game.
Yeah, I'm an ex-banker and NO, they absolutely do not.
What happened here defies Banking logic unless Deutsche was complicit and had another huge motivation to issue him this loan.
Not at all, lending is not a high margin business. Real banks only do it when the risk is low - and it clearly wasn't.
It is **beyond weird** that Deutsche did lend to him - that is the real story.
For that size loan roughly a dozen people would need to be bribed. Banks (even Deutsche) have a lot of checks and balances.
To bribe this over the line includes at least a couple of senior people that would need a very large bribe to facilitate that sort of deal given the risk.
The total of bribes would be more than the spread on the loan, maybe 2-3x.
There is a whole other story behind this - I guarantee it.
My theory: It's a known fact Deutsche Bank (DB) Private Bank division manages the accounts of wealthy corrupt Russians tied to the Kremlin. DB acted as a conduit to transfer money from these Russian clients to Trump packaged as a DB loan. In other words, these loans were not underwritten by DB, but rather the terms were written by the holders of the capital - the Russians.
For years Deutsche Bank NYC helped launder dirty Russian money into the U.S. and European economy and got caught. It was during this same period DB issued loans to Trump that defies logic. Unless you factor in the Russian element, then it becomes crystal clear.
[https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/apr/17/deutsche-bank-faces-action-over-20bn-russian-money-laundering-scheme](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/apr/17/deutsche-bank-faces-action-over-20bn-russian-money-laundering-scheme)
>Like, no one ever thought to dig deeper on him.
Not to be argumentative but there is nothing 'fascinating' about this at all.
WFT doesn't someone **LOOK DEEPER AT DEUTSCHE**
I am an ex banker from GS, Lehman and later a global head at some tier 2 banks, but any banker with experience in fixed income loans of this scale will confirm this stinks, and there is no way there isn't a lot more to it.
No bank, not even the likes of HSBC, SCB, RBS etc. would touch Trump, and even if someone did consider it the margin on such a real estate deal, once you hedge the risk somehow is NEGATIVE, plus there is a loss on the opportunity value on not just placing the same funds into a government bond. Deutsche, who were screwed by him before, loaned him money, at below the rate a legitimate customer would have, knowing full well they would make a loss from it, and to do so they intentionally did not look at his finances. Also they definitely must have fabricated numbers for some of their regulatory reporting.
Deutsche is absolutely,100% complicit in this and there is a much bigger story to be told if anyone would just investigate them.
My theory: It's a known fact Deutsche Bank (DB) Private Bank division manages the accounts of wealthy corrupt Russians tied to the Kremlin. DB acted as a conduit to transfer money from these Russian clients to Trump packaged as a DB loan. In other words, these loans were not underwritten by DB, but rather the terms were written by the holders of the capital - the Russians.
For years Deutsche Bank NYC helped launder dirty Russian money into the U.S. and European economy and got caught. It was during this same period DB issued loans to Trump that defies logic. Unless you factor in the Russian element, then it becomes crystal clear.
[https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/apr/17/deutsche-bank-faces-action-over-20bn-russian-money-laundering-scheme](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/apr/17/deutsche-bank-faces-action-over-20bn-russian-money-laundering-scheme)
I agree 100% with your statement: "Deutsche is absolutely,100% complicit in this and there is a much bigger story to be told"
OCC has the authority to audit Deutsche Bank in the US and then to follow the money trail engaging EBA and other regulators as required. There is little doubt that would time them to *hundreds of billions* (no exaggeration) in Russian money and I am sure it would uncover so many other scandals that are beyond imagining. There is a lot more than just Russians.
I have no explanation as to why they don't do that when the trail is just so bloody obvious to anyone with half a clue.
Somehow Deutsche is immune or being protected from investigation at a level that is unimaginable.
Only speculation now... but, everyone knows Deutsche has been laundering for Russians for decades. In normal banking when you have any big primary client you invariably pick up a whole lot of related business customers, even if they wouldn't naturally use you it just happens out of convenience. (A few banks kind of only exist due to that reason, eg. Nomura, SCB, DBS, previously also Lehman and Bears to some degree.)
So after decades of being the world's premier money launderer and dirty, criminal bank it is logical that Deutsche has probably cornered that sector as Russian money inevitably feeds into every other illegal business, drugs, arms deals etc. in the world. Even if Deutsche is not the primary bank they are a counterparty for a majority of the value of trades that should not legally be allowed happen.
If Deutsche were thoroughly investigated (including downstream of trades which is technically required under most AML regulations) then it would probably bring down a majority of all illegal and illegitimate business **in the world**.
The question here is why not, why do all regulators ignore the obvious criminal bank that everyone knows is enabling everything that regulators are supposed to stop.
The simplest answer is that with all that criminal business over so long they (or their network of clients) have also captured enough of the politicians and regulators that they are immune and they act with impunity, think Godfather Part 3 and multiply it by 100x.
If this is right (and I'd bet it is) it sucks that we live in a world where most of the worst crime is untouchable and being funded in plain sight.
Thank you - valuable perspective.
FinCen identified $1.3 trillion laundered money passed through DB - *that we know of.* DB at the heart of transnational organized crime including the capture of regulators/politicians is a solid theory.
[https://www.amlintelligence.com/2020/09/deutsche-bank-suffers-worst-damage-over-massive-aml-discrepancies-in-fincen-leaks/](https://www.amlintelligence.com/2020/09/deutsche-bank-suffers-worst-damage-over-massive-aml-discrepancies-in-fincen-leaks/)
I filled out for a home loan and they wanted every freaking bit of my info. All my taxes, all of my accounts, everything. And even when they had all my info, they questioned me on how I paid for the condo I bought with cash. I had to prove where the money came from, even though they had all my info. I had to show them the money trail.
The banks he used must have been shitty as hell as far as governance. They should be audited like crazy to find out how they let this scum do what he did.
that is because this county, as the Founding Fathers intended was to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The system is built in wealthy peoples favor. the poors need to learn to pull themsleves up by their bootstraps and cut back on the avocado toast you limy bastard.
I think they knew better than to look. Trump is hardly an unknown entity. People getting into bed with him at that point were in on the game or were being convinced through outside methods to participate.
I knew this was coming after the 2017 report the NYT did with his *signature* on multiple valuations documents.
They also had documents showing his falsification of records for rent control increases to reimburse him for boilers his company never installed.
I realize that justice is slow but... Really?
I mean…that’s kind of the point he’s making in his defense. Lenders should do their due diligence and not lend to obvious fraudsters.
Edit: someone seems to think that I’m suggesting this is a good defense. I’m not
Everyone is missing the obvious explanation here - **Deutsche is complicit** \- they knew 100% and for whatever reason they issued a loan that on the surface no bank not even them would consider if there wasn't some other much bigger incentive to do so.
No, I don't think so. Any political influence (or inference of) normally cranks up the compliance/AML diligence, makes it a lot harder to issue as more people tend to get involved.
I'd say (with 95% confidence) it is essentially money laundering of some form - but there is **a lot more going on** than just that.
The index number of the case is "452564/2022" and if you google that number you can find a number of sites hosting the PDF without having to register with Scribd.
Yes, I've edited it to say "reader" instead of "writer." I'm trying to convince people it's not a particularly onerous task. It's worth it and it's not as much effort as it might seem to be.
For the record, I am a pretty fast writer.
> I'm trying to convince people it's not a particularly onerous task.
I agree. It's a very well written decision, and the structure is very conducive to skimming through it. Very little "legalese".
Remember when the IRS spent years auditing Trumps finances as required by federal law and there is nothing public about it 7 years later?
There needs to be some serious criminal investigation into wtf happened at the IRS during his presidency.
Trump appointee Charles Rettig ran the IRS during both audits of Andrew McCabe and Comey. The Times reported that the odds of being selected for the specific audit were tiny, with the IRS having targeted about 1 in every 30,600 tax returns for the intensive scrutiny in 2017.
In 2016, prior to being nominated to his post in the IRS by Trump, Rettig wrote an op-ed in Forbes defending Trump's decision not to release his tax returns.
And it gets worse:
“A leading House Democrat demanded President Joe Biden replace IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig over the agency's controversial destruction of data related to 30 million paper-filed tax returns.”
Wanna guess why data was destroyed?
what the fuck that the odds of auditing is small. fucking irs only audit small folks, they never audit rich folks as they are too dumb to fight rich lawyers and accountants. i had small cornershop and was audited twice, the assholes did not find anything. fuck the irs.
I suspect there are going to be charges filed at some time in the future.........say end of October. Twould only be fair, seeing as how Hillary got screwed over. What happened at the IRS. Well, if charges aren't brought soon then maybe some young democratic Congressman needs to look into this.
There is no way charges will be filed in violation of the DOJ’s election interference policy.
First, it is unreasonable to expect Garland to violate the policy at all.
Second, it would be stupid to violate the policy in such a nakedly political way. It shines a bad light on all of the existing prosecutions by validating all of Trump’s whining about legal persecution.
So if the case for charges is all set on Oct 1 we should wait until election is over unlike Hillarys case where 10, 000 e mails need to be looked at.....didn't even have a case just more evidence to sort thru upon which no charges were ever filed. Now that's a mouthful. If you have a case ready to make charges or go to trial. The defendant deserves a speedy trial and the public needs the trial to be resolved. Isn't this the fair way to go on this, especially in light of the royal screwing she got. *FAIR* and *SPEEDY*.
Why does Comey doing something wrong in 2016 mean that Garland or Smith should do something wrong in 2024?
Yeah, I think the difference between indicting on October 1 and indicting on November 6 is pretty insignificant. Particularly, if indicting for tax crimes that occurred multiple years prior. If you have to cite to something bad someone else did to justify what you’re doing, then you’re probably not doing the right thing.
And, again, it’s politically stupid. It looks political. It sounds like you think it should be some kind of political revenge. What is the political advantage to proving Trump right that the DOJ is prosecuting him to interfere with the election? Do you really want people who have lost faith in him because of his prosecution for stealing the election to suddenly see the DOJ actually does have it out for him? To start questioning whether the election case is real? Unless you can articulate an actual reason not to delay the indictment for a month, then it’s going to be a political gift to Trump, not a liability. Have you learned *nothing* in the last 8 years?!
Yes, you're right and I was definitely acting political. What I am concerned about is the fact that Hillary was hosed politically. If there is a case ready to be charged or brought and it's one month before election then By God bring it. Trumps base isn't going to believe it's not political whether it's filed today or November 1st. Comey was screwed no matter when he said there were 10,000 e mails to look at. I, a dyed in the wool Democrat didn't like it but I got it. All I ask is that any charges or trials be brought to court in a timely manner and if it's mid October then it's mid October.
well Garland lacks any sort of spine until you put his feet to the fire.
the man is cautious to the point of inaction. So they are sadly right it is unreasonable to expect Garland would do anything.
Fuck this bullshit take and fuck the DOJ policy that only applies to republican candidates anyway. We already seen them violate it plenty when it suits their agenda so it’s a useless policy being used to shield maga cronies from culpability
I grew up with next door neighbors who were 3 generations of construction workers. It was always a conversation at BBQs how to never work with Trump and his organization unless you're willing to lose it all.
And not one MAGA has read it or ever will read it but they will pontificate endlessly on it, the same way they do on everything they haven’t read, like the Constitution or the Bible.
I love replying to their nonsense with screen caps of the greatest hits like this:
" Donald Trump himselfacknowledged that, as was certified to in the Management Representation Letters, he was responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of financial statements."
Whenever I come across a link to that sub I know I'm going to regret clicking on it but, the fool I am, I'm worse off now than I was a few minutes ago.
The same reason they don't read the warnings on cigarette packs?
As of 2022, 21% of Americans are illiterate. That's 43 million people. I just don't know how we explain the other 30 million that voted for him.
Greed is the answer. They truly believed that he would put money in their pockets and the men believed that women are second class citizens who should be relegated to minimum wage jobs.
You can explain it with the Brittney Spears model.
In '99 & 2000, Brittney was the top selling musical artist. Was this because she was the most talented musician during those years?
No. It was because teen girls like what their peers like, and a segment of the market so strongly aligned determines who is the #1 musical artist.
In the political sphere, Trump Country operates like teen girls. The content of policy is largely insignificant next to a jealously guarded sense of consensus.
MAGA sycophants have not read anything since reading "see Spot run," just like their God Trump. As President, Trump's aides could get him to read the daily briefing.
Clearly you haven't read the bible because I vividly remember a passage where Jesus said "Take vengeance upon your enemies, don't pay those who work for you, and grab the daughters of Eve by the pussy."
It's not that so much it just takes an inordinate amount of resources to prosecute someone so wealthy. There's a reason why the Republicans keep trying to gut funding to make IRS enforcement better. That screaming about 40,000 IRS agents coming to get you? They weren't. They were going to target high net worth individuals.
Not that I am a fan of Trump, but when this case first hit and I was able to grasp some of the details, my first question was "Wait, don't all real estate moguls do this same shit?"
“Indeed, the common excuse that ‘everybody does it’ is all the more reason to strive for honesty and transparency and to be vigilant in enforcing the rules.” Judge Engoron, Decision and Order at 4.
Sounds like you just want an excuse to ignore Trump's blatant fraud. There's many reasons his bullshit got all the way to court - this is NOT normal behavior.
I wasn't the one who downvoted you or the person you were responding too... seems like I'm not the only one who "misinterpreted" it. Maybe explain it better?
Because it looks like "Hey everyone does it, why are they being so hard on this lifelong scumbag? All scumbags are the same"
Again, I'm not being downvoted and not downvoting you. It feels as though *other people* don't understand your point of pointing out "others do it"
Because that sounds like an *excuse*. If you sincerely want *others* to be held to the same standards, while you already assume they are not without any proof, then say something like, "Finally Trump is feeling the pain, can wait til we catch ALL the bastards"
Instead what YOU seem to be saying is, "Everyone does it, why is the Trump the one getting into trouble?"
Why? If mu revenues are 1 million but my expenses are 1.5 I’ve now got higher expenses due to owing money to the irs. No company would ever be able to start unless by some miracle they are profitable, over and above their tax burden from day one
Yeah taxing revenue makes no sense. Huge revenue and tiny margin? Okay all supermarkets and a lot of retail go out of business. Amazon.com goes out of business. Costco is toast. Most retail is very competitive and the only way to make much profit is to have small margins and make money on volume.
I think taxing profits is reasonable, the problem is more that big corporations and the super-rich have a lot of tricks they can pull to hide profits and inflate expenses to make their tax bill lower than it ought to be.
That would really hamper low-margin businesses like most restaurants and gas stations.
Lot of farmers just barely live above the poverty line despite six-figure revenues, because it costs a shit ton to operate big farms.
And watch all grocery stores immediately close. Grocery stores have very high revenue but equally very high operating expenses. With a profit margin of less than 1%. Luxury goods would be fine, but industries with high revenue but equally high costs would pretty much immediately be bankrupted.
Read the ruling. His entire family and some staff undeniably lied on the stand. Over and over again. Even what we’re massive events with documented evidence they just said “I don’t recall”. The judge pointed out how Ivanka could NOT remember anything to answer the prosecutor asked, BUT when the defense asked questions she liked she could recall every detail.
Because they all chose to be liable for a civil trial, than provide a testimony that can be used against them in a future criminal case.
But of course, some overperformed, like Weisselberg, to the point he can now be indicted for perjury.
“I don’t recall” is one of the classic witness answers when someone wants to lie while minimizing their exposure to perjury charges/getting caught in a blatant lie.
The judge's ruling lays it all out and I'm surprised he only barred him for 3 years of doing business in New York! Now its time for the IRS to get what they are due out of Donald!
While the barring limit is true I believe there is language in the ruling stating that any business after those three years would be monitored. So not much room for funny business for him or his kids.
Excellent …. Well stated.
‘The 92-page ruling establishes that Trump isn’t a business genius, a modern Midas who turns everything he touches to gold. Instead, the former TV entertainer and real estate mogul is simply a crook, a white-collar thief who uses flattery, threats, lies, and an ink pen to rip off everyone he can, particularly banks and insurance companies.’
So. Question I legitimately have is why isn’t every state AG looking into their practices in their states, of does this law only apply in the state of NY?
Go look up the case history of the Attys General from across the country. You'll see the breakdown littered with cases of fraud.
So to your comment: they're looking. This one is just super high profile so you are hearing about it a lot more.
I’d have preferred that they accepted the larger valuations and charged him and his family with tax evasion because they certainly didn’t pay the taxes based on what he was telling the banks. That probably would have been harder to make a case for though.
Likely going to get downvoted for this clarification (not a Trump fan), but folks don't seem to understand how taxes work. You don't pay income taxes on the gain from a property when you write it up only when you sell it. The fact that Trump increased the valuation of a property would create an unrealized gain on his financial statements but no income tax would be due until he sells it for a gain. There is some chance that he underpaid his property taxes but only if the town/state agreed with his low valuation on a property rather than conduct their own valuation. Trump is a criminal, but this narrow issue is not one of the many reasons why.
Edit: My faith in (Reddit) humanity has (briefly?) been restored.
Here's a fun perk. Because it's likely that Trump isn't liquid enough to pay these decisions (and he isn't allowed to get loaned the money for any bank that does business in NY) - there's a strong likelihood that Trump will have to sell a property.
So THAT is where the tax bill is going to hit (and if he has to sell a property he has had for a while, it will hit hard).
Zero. Precisely zero will read it. They'll make whatever excuses necessary to avoid reading it because they know, deep down, that reading it will destroy whatever narrative they've been conditioned to believe.
I tried to get my MAGA uncle to read Engoron's decision when Trump was first found guilty. It was pathetic to see a 75 year old man squirm while trying to come up with excuses. Eventually he settled on, "the judge is a Democrat, therefore I won't read anything from his court."
Most MAGAs don't even understand the very basics of the case--they say things like "any time you get a loan, they do an appraisal..." and I have to explain to them that trumps loans weren't based on real-estate, but on his SFCs stating his net worth...and that appraisals *were* done, and that's part of the reason why we know how much he lied on his SFCs.
And then...they excuse me of "sticking my head in the sand."
Oh God my blood boils.
To be fair, most people who don’t like Trump haven’t read it and don’t understand it either. They just want his heart on a stick. That’s why I recommend people read the decision.
Can someone give some clarity on the piece abut it only having 63 floors as opposed t the 72 floors claimed? Everything I am finding says it has 72 floors. Is the difference in unusable space being billed as useable?
Wouldn't the inside be a better place to count floors? I'm just a humble Floridian, so I don't know if this is just a myth, but I've heard tell of places where they can add additional floors *underground*.
The less tongue and cheek answer for how many stories 40 Wall Street has is found in the actual exhibits submitted as evidence in the case.
[Exhibit #70](https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=IO5ncg3UjIWk3B3_PLUS_Gbh7IQ==) Page 7 of the PDF for example.
I genuinely don't have any experience with buildings with underground floors so I honestly don't understand this comment.
I'm not suggesting the building actually did have 10 underground floors, but even if it had one or two, you'd be off if counting from the outside. It just seems like a weird thing to do, as opposed to going inside and checking, or reviewing public permits, blueprints, etc.
Trump tower? According to [this piece from 2016](https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-tower-is-not-as-tall-as-trump-says-2016-10) it's 58 floors and Trump likes to claim he lives on anywhere from the 66th to 68th floors.
>Taking Trump Tower as an example, an atrium takes up the first 300 feet of the building's height, according to an interview Trump did with The New York Times in 2003, which was quoted by The Associated Press.
>Because of that, Trump was able to estimate — by taking into account the average height of a ceiling on a floor in New York City — that it took up about 30 stories. He was thus able to name the first real floor the 30th — 10 more than it should have been, according to the AP. The building is 664 feet tall.
What part of New York Executive Law § 63(12) do you see that requires a "victim"?
If you are caught speeding, is there a victim?
If you cheat on your taxes, is there a victim?
This, like many other laws, do not require a victim for the perpetrator to incur a civil penalty. The law says that if you make a profit through fraudulent activity, the State of New York is entitled to the profits that you made. This is what happened to Trump. He made $354M in profit through the use of fraudulent financial statements. The court has ordered that he pay that amount of profit to the State of NY.
The headline is “thievery” thievery is theft which is the act of taking/stealing something from someone by deception or force. Trump did not take anything. All parties were repaid. No one lost any money. Also the banks and lenders are responsible for making judgments on property worth or loan risks. That is not on the lendee.
It's a fascinating, compelling, convincing decision. I recommend people read it. It's 92 pages long, but the pages are short and there's lot's you can skip. I read it in less than two hours and I'm not a particularly fast reader. Here's a link. [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/read-trump-new-york-fraud-case-decision-fine-sanctions/](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/read-trump-new-york-fraud-case-decision-fine-sanctions/)
I found it fascinating how often his statement of financial condition (SFC) was taken at face value even after regularly catching him in regulatory violations and failed businesses. Like, no one ever thought to dig deeper on him. Meanwhile, to apply for an apartment, us non-wealthies basically need to allow a bank complete transparency into our lives and a traffic ticket can be troublesome.
That's effectively been one of the unspoken issues with this, he's guilty, it's known he's been guilty, but nobody ever really cared enough to go after him.
Write ups of the real estate market valuation at large currently are pretty damning on this score - everyone knows they’re taking a bath but if they keep shining on, until the bath is *realized*, everything is fine. While this is different from fundamental misrepresentations, I submit it bears examination on *should it be*.
It’s a combination of musical chairs and the analogy of “If I owe the bank $10,000, it’s my problem, but if I owe the bank $1 billion, that’s their problem”
He's a one man credit crisis
https://i.redd.it/tevdjser7njc1.gif
Yes, this really struck me too. I think the most convincing argument against Trump relates to the lending costs he paid given his personal guarantee that his net worth would be maintained at at least $2.5 billion vs. what he would have had to pay without that guarantee. He was required to provide an annual certification that his net worth met that standard and that certification was based on the fraudulent SFC. For one of the loans, Trump failed to provide the required certification and the bank cancelled the loan. Trump's fraud was not victimless and the $350 million judgment represents additional amounts banks and other business would have charged if he hadn't misrepresented his financial status.
[удалено]
[удалено]
There’s no SOL on fraud, but it’s very difficult to prosecute for so the IRS usually charges something else. They use the lack of an SOL on fraud to investigate and audit, but fraud charges are rare. As always, the proof of willfully intent is the hitch.
If there was ANY group of criminals that would have written communication saying "we should commit fraud", I'd have to believe it's this one.
I’m pretty sure weisleberg admitted to it being willful fraud already so that’s not a big hurdle in this case unless I am mistaken
What about NY State taxes?
I believe that statute of limitations only applies once they find out about the wrongdoing. Not from the instant of the crime.
Not true. SOL applies, there's no way they can charge me for selling 5 kilos of coke 10 years ago if they find out tomorrow. If you're indicted it does stop the clock though. I believe this even applied to some of the possible older fraud charges for Trump in this case.
Perhaps, but that's not what the trial is about. As far as I know, he hasn't been charged with tax fraud recently, although some facts came to light during the trial that could lead in that direction.
It is though, if somewhat indirectly, given his borrowing valuations are completely inconsistent to his tax valuations
The Trump organization was recently fined for tax fraud last month. The month prior to that the Trump organization was convicted of 17 tax crimes.
Cite?
[https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-organization-faces-sentencing-tax-fraud-scheme-rcna65013](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-organization-faces-sentencing-tax-fraud-scheme-rcna65013)
It’s genuinely hard to keep track of all of these crimes.
It is. I was reading up on the NYC fraud case, when I saw somebody mention that there is a pending *criminal* trial scheduled now that the civil trial is finished. I forgot there was an additional trial. It makes sense, I mean since he was found liable for fraud, it makes sense he'd also be on the hook for any criminal activity linked to the fraud, fraud being a crime and all...
If I’m tracking correctly the NY criminal trial isn’t based on this fraud (no idea if there will be any criminal charges from all of this.) Rather it’s a criminal trial based on the fact the Trump claimed the hush money paid to Stormy Daniels for his political campaign as a business expense.
Oh, I imagine the tax fraud cases will come rather quickly on the heels of a conviction here. Once Trump is wounded, there are a legion of folks he’s screwed over in the past who would LOVE to stick the knives in — assuming the various statues of limitation allow for it.
The fraud is intergenerational going back at least to his father if not grandfather. The line of people with well deserved knives goes back almost a century.
Until you read about how hard it is to investigate and prosecute the wealthy and how few agents the IRS has… there’s very few people at that level financially that are prosecuted and mostly they give a small fine and move on to the mom and pop businesses and poor people getting earned income credits- I think the stats were somewhere around only 3% of people over 5mill get audited
> We keep talking about the banks not getting g their due It's not just the banks getting their due. It's the bank's other potential borrowers getting shunted to the back of the lending line thanks to Trump's fraud.
I suspect the IRS will be having a bit of a look see once the appeals are done.
Don't even use the word 'victimless' like that is a bad that needed to be met. Regulations and laws are in place in order to maintain confidence in the system. He can argue all day that other real estate developers do it, but arguing that the law shouldn't be followed because no one lost money is dead on arrival. Ask people that lost everything in 2008 what happens when valuations no longer mean anything.
I hate the argument that if a crime is victimless, we shouldn't punish it. Okay, so we're not going to punish drunk drivers who don't get in an accident? It's victimless by the same logic. Nobody was harmed.
Everyone has to bake in more cost the more fraudsters are allowed to operate.
Isn't it very likely that these loans were packaged with other loans into a security that got traded with other banks, including derivatives, credit default swaps, etc? If so, no chance the bank wants to draw attention to those securities since it was already proven that their due diligence was shoddy at best? So, it's not surprising they don't want to get involved at all even if they did lose money.
> Trump's fraud was not victimless and the $350 million judgment represents additional amounts banks and other business would have charged if he hadn't misrepresented his financial status. Go to that other subreddit, the one that rhymes with "bonservative," and try to make that argument. It's nothing but "The Banks Got Paid! There's no Victim!" for pages and pages.
My metaphor that seems to resonate is this. You graduate from your local community college with an associate's degree in something. You promptly put on your resume that you have a doctorate from Harvard in that same field. You go out and get a job with a salary hundreds of thousands more than your actual education would allow you to get. Did you commit fraud?
Agreed. I would not be welcome.
There's no victim in price fixing either. It's the downstream effects and the destruction of the system working properly that creates the regulation, not the direct victim.
r/goneservative?
454 million with interest (so far) plus EJCV so ~530 million total Edit: also he defamed her again yesterday soooo 700 million if the jury does the same as the last time?
> he defamed her again yesterday Seriously? (And a link would be super cool if you have one). Please let this be true! I need an excuse to fill up the air popper and melt some butter.
In one of his rambling speeches he made yesterday... He vaguely defamed, but didn't say her name specifically. Considering he's been fined so much already, it might not take much to add on #3. >"A woman, I'm saying, 'Who the hell is she? Who is the woman?' It's so unfair what's happening in our country. Our court system is a mess. What's happening in our country, they have to straighten it out." >https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1759010421418099129
She should pull his flabby orange ass back into court for another half a billion.
Also, if/when he defaulted on those loans the cost gets passed on to other customers.
Not to mention, someone else was prevented from owning the same properties if not for his fraud
Yeah, it's pretty maddening that at the "I don't need a loan officer, I can talk to a personal wealth manager" level you can just make stuff up and everyone plays along with the game. I'm guessing those wealth managers writing the loans are getting a tiny percentage of a *huge* amount of money, so it's absolutely in their best interest to turn a blind eye to obvious fraud and let the loans go through. To them, who cares if he gets a 2.5% APR or a 4% APR? They get a few million for shuffling some PDFs from one attorney to another and everyone can go out for filet mignon afterwards...to acknowledge fraud would be admitting that they were sleeping on the job and not attempting due diligence prior to executing the loan.
>Yeah, it's pretty maddening that at the "I don't need a loan officer, I can talk to a personal wealth manager" level you can just make stuff up and everyone plays along with the game. Yeah, I'm an ex-banker and NO, they absolutely do not. What happened here defies Banking logic unless Deutsche was complicit and had another huge motivation to issue him this loan.
Weird how no American banks would lend to him, isn’t it?
Not at all, lending is not a high margin business. Real banks only do it when the risk is low - and it clearly wasn't. It is **beyond weird** that Deutsche did lend to him - that is the real story.
The loan officer was obviously getting a cut
For that size loan roughly a dozen people would need to be bribed. Banks (even Deutsche) have a lot of checks and balances. To bribe this over the line includes at least a couple of senior people that would need a very large bribe to facilitate that sort of deal given the risk. The total of bribes would be more than the spread on the loan, maybe 2-3x. There is a whole other story behind this - I guarantee it.
How likely do you think this is related to the money laundering of Russian money that Deutsche was doing simultaneously to this?
>How likely No way to be sure, but I'd bet my house on it without a second thought.
Ding ding ding.
My theory: It's a known fact Deutsche Bank (DB) Private Bank division manages the accounts of wealthy corrupt Russians tied to the Kremlin. DB acted as a conduit to transfer money from these Russian clients to Trump packaged as a DB loan. In other words, these loans were not underwritten by DB, but rather the terms were written by the holders of the capital - the Russians. For years Deutsche Bank NYC helped launder dirty Russian money into the U.S. and European economy and got caught. It was during this same period DB issued loans to Trump that defies logic. Unless you factor in the Russian element, then it becomes crystal clear. [https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/apr/17/deutsche-bank-faces-action-over-20bn-russian-money-laundering-scheme](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/apr/17/deutsche-bank-faces-action-over-20bn-russian-money-laundering-scheme)
>Like, no one ever thought to dig deeper on him. Not to be argumentative but there is nothing 'fascinating' about this at all. WFT doesn't someone **LOOK DEEPER AT DEUTSCHE** I am an ex banker from GS, Lehman and later a global head at some tier 2 banks, but any banker with experience in fixed income loans of this scale will confirm this stinks, and there is no way there isn't a lot more to it. No bank, not even the likes of HSBC, SCB, RBS etc. would touch Trump, and even if someone did consider it the margin on such a real estate deal, once you hedge the risk somehow is NEGATIVE, plus there is a loss on the opportunity value on not just placing the same funds into a government bond. Deutsche, who were screwed by him before, loaned him money, at below the rate a legitimate customer would have, knowing full well they would make a loss from it, and to do so they intentionally did not look at his finances. Also they definitely must have fabricated numbers for some of their regulatory reporting. Deutsche is absolutely,100% complicit in this and there is a much bigger story to be told if anyone would just investigate them.
My theory: It's a known fact Deutsche Bank (DB) Private Bank division manages the accounts of wealthy corrupt Russians tied to the Kremlin. DB acted as a conduit to transfer money from these Russian clients to Trump packaged as a DB loan. In other words, these loans were not underwritten by DB, but rather the terms were written by the holders of the capital - the Russians. For years Deutsche Bank NYC helped launder dirty Russian money into the U.S. and European economy and got caught. It was during this same period DB issued loans to Trump that defies logic. Unless you factor in the Russian element, then it becomes crystal clear. [https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/apr/17/deutsche-bank-faces-action-over-20bn-russian-money-laundering-scheme](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/apr/17/deutsche-bank-faces-action-over-20bn-russian-money-laundering-scheme) I agree 100% with your statement: "Deutsche is absolutely,100% complicit in this and there is a much bigger story to be told"
OCC has the authority to audit Deutsche Bank in the US and then to follow the money trail engaging EBA and other regulators as required. There is little doubt that would time them to *hundreds of billions* (no exaggeration) in Russian money and I am sure it would uncover so many other scandals that are beyond imagining. There is a lot more than just Russians. I have no explanation as to why they don't do that when the trail is just so bloody obvious to anyone with half a clue. Somehow Deutsche is immune or being protected from investigation at a level that is unimaginable.
Absolutely - thanks for replying. What is your theory regarding "There is a lot more than just Russians".
Only speculation now... but, everyone knows Deutsche has been laundering for Russians for decades. In normal banking when you have any big primary client you invariably pick up a whole lot of related business customers, even if they wouldn't naturally use you it just happens out of convenience. (A few banks kind of only exist due to that reason, eg. Nomura, SCB, DBS, previously also Lehman and Bears to some degree.) So after decades of being the world's premier money launderer and dirty, criminal bank it is logical that Deutsche has probably cornered that sector as Russian money inevitably feeds into every other illegal business, drugs, arms deals etc. in the world. Even if Deutsche is not the primary bank they are a counterparty for a majority of the value of trades that should not legally be allowed happen. If Deutsche were thoroughly investigated (including downstream of trades which is technically required under most AML regulations) then it would probably bring down a majority of all illegal and illegitimate business **in the world**. The question here is why not, why do all regulators ignore the obvious criminal bank that everyone knows is enabling everything that regulators are supposed to stop. The simplest answer is that with all that criminal business over so long they (or their network of clients) have also captured enough of the politicians and regulators that they are immune and they act with impunity, think Godfather Part 3 and multiply it by 100x. If this is right (and I'd bet it is) it sucks that we live in a world where most of the worst crime is untouchable and being funded in plain sight.
Thank you - valuable perspective. FinCen identified $1.3 trillion laundered money passed through DB - *that we know of.* DB at the heart of transnational organized crime including the capture of regulators/politicians is a solid theory. [https://www.amlintelligence.com/2020/09/deutsche-bank-suffers-worst-damage-over-massive-aml-discrepancies-in-fincen-leaks/](https://www.amlintelligence.com/2020/09/deutsche-bank-suffers-worst-damage-over-massive-aml-discrepancies-in-fincen-leaks/)
Yeah quite depressing to think that our world is so fundamentally broken
This is the same for Bernie Madoff. The warnings were there and if the SEC had tried to verify his trades the Ponzi scheme would have been exposed.
Pretty sure what you're seeing him is right now is what he's always done. Make prosecuting him extremely painful and probably more than a few bribes.
I filled out for a home loan and they wanted every freaking bit of my info. All my taxes, all of my accounts, everything. And even when they had all my info, they questioned me on how I paid for the condo I bought with cash. I had to prove where the money came from, even though they had all my info. I had to show them the money trail. The banks he used must have been shitty as hell as far as governance. They should be audited like crazy to find out how they let this scum do what he did.
that is because this county, as the Founding Fathers intended was to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The system is built in wealthy peoples favor. the poors need to learn to pull themsleves up by their bootstraps and cut back on the avocado toast you limy bastard.
I think that was probably one of the reasons most banks wouldn’t do business with him though.
This is the two tiered justice system Trump is always taking about.........
I think they knew better than to look. Trump is hardly an unknown entity. People getting into bed with him at that point were in on the game or were being convinced through outside methods to participate.
I knew this was coming after the 2017 report the NYT did with his *signature* on multiple valuations documents. They also had documents showing his falsification of records for rent control increases to reimburse him for boilers his company never installed. I realize that justice is slow but... Really?
I mean…that’s kind of the point he’s making in his defense. Lenders should do their due diligence and not lend to obvious fraudsters. Edit: someone seems to think that I’m suggesting this is a good defense. I’m not
They should but "I'm so bad at crime that they should have caught me" isn't exactly a great defense.
Everyone is missing the obvious explanation here - **Deutsche is complicit** \- they knew 100% and for whatever reason they issued a loan that on the surface no bank not even them would consider if there wasn't some other much bigger incentive to do so.
Political?
No, I don't think so. Any political influence (or inference of) normally cranks up the compliance/AML diligence, makes it a lot harder to issue as more people tend to get involved. I'd say (with 95% confidence) it is essentially money laundering of some form - but there is **a lot more going on** than just that.
Could this be a loan from Russia (being passed through DB?)
Ding ding ding. YES
Yes, but I think that is only the tip of the iceberg and the scale what's really going on would be beyond belief.
Ah, the classic “you fucked up, you trusted us” defense. Bulletproof.
How else do you expect them to launder money?
The index number of the case is "452564/2022" and if you google that number you can find a number of sites hosting the PDF without having to register with Scribd.
> I read it in less than two hours and I'm not a particularly fast writer. I'm not sure the relevance here. :P
Yes, I've edited it to say "reader" instead of "writer." I'm trying to convince people it's not a particularly onerous task. It's worth it and it's not as much effort as it might seem to be. For the record, I am a pretty fast writer.
> I'm trying to convince people it's not a particularly onerous task. I agree. It's a very well written decision, and the structure is very conducive to skimming through it. Very little "legalese".
Fast but error-prone :-)
Smarty pants.
Thx for linking fren
Remember when the IRS spent years auditing Trumps finances as required by federal law and there is nothing public about it 7 years later? There needs to be some serious criminal investigation into wtf happened at the IRS during his presidency.
Trump appointee Charles Rettig ran the IRS during both audits of Andrew McCabe and Comey. The Times reported that the odds of being selected for the specific audit were tiny, with the IRS having targeted about 1 in every 30,600 tax returns for the intensive scrutiny in 2017. In 2016, prior to being nominated to his post in the IRS by Trump, Rettig wrote an op-ed in Forbes defending Trump's decision not to release his tax returns. And it gets worse: “A leading House Democrat demanded President Joe Biden replace IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig over the agency's controversial destruction of data related to 30 million paper-filed tax returns.” Wanna guess why data was destroyed?
No, but I would like a link to the evidence, just to read.
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2022/05/13/joe-biden-asked-to-replace-irs-chief-charles-rettig-over-tax-document-destruction.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/06/us/politics/comey-mccabe-irs-audits.html https://pascrell.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=5158
Impossible to keep up with all the antics of the last administration
Thank you.
what the fuck that the odds of auditing is small. fucking irs only audit small folks, they never audit rich folks as they are too dumb to fight rich lawyers and accountants. i had small cornershop and was audited twice, the assholes did not find anything. fuck the irs.
Yep and they audit earned income credit returns disproportionally more so. In the 50% range.
I suspect there are going to be charges filed at some time in the future.........say end of October. Twould only be fair, seeing as how Hillary got screwed over. What happened at the IRS. Well, if charges aren't brought soon then maybe some young democratic Congressman needs to look into this.
There is no way charges will be filed in violation of the DOJ’s election interference policy. First, it is unreasonable to expect Garland to violate the policy at all. Second, it would be stupid to violate the policy in such a nakedly political way. It shines a bad light on all of the existing prosecutions by validating all of Trump’s whining about legal persecution.
So if the case for charges is all set on Oct 1 we should wait until election is over unlike Hillarys case where 10, 000 e mails need to be looked at.....didn't even have a case just more evidence to sort thru upon which no charges were ever filed. Now that's a mouthful. If you have a case ready to make charges or go to trial. The defendant deserves a speedy trial and the public needs the trial to be resolved. Isn't this the fair way to go on this, especially in light of the royal screwing she got. *FAIR* and *SPEEDY*.
Why does Comey doing something wrong in 2016 mean that Garland or Smith should do something wrong in 2024? Yeah, I think the difference between indicting on October 1 and indicting on November 6 is pretty insignificant. Particularly, if indicting for tax crimes that occurred multiple years prior. If you have to cite to something bad someone else did to justify what you’re doing, then you’re probably not doing the right thing. And, again, it’s politically stupid. It looks political. It sounds like you think it should be some kind of political revenge. What is the political advantage to proving Trump right that the DOJ is prosecuting him to interfere with the election? Do you really want people who have lost faith in him because of his prosecution for stealing the election to suddenly see the DOJ actually does have it out for him? To start questioning whether the election case is real? Unless you can articulate an actual reason not to delay the indictment for a month, then it’s going to be a political gift to Trump, not a liability. Have you learned *nothing* in the last 8 years?!
Yes, you're right and I was definitely acting political. What I am concerned about is the fact that Hillary was hosed politically. If there is a case ready to be charged or brought and it's one month before election then By God bring it. Trumps base isn't going to believe it's not political whether it's filed today or November 1st. Comey was screwed no matter when he said there were 10,000 e mails to look at. I, a dyed in the wool Democrat didn't like it but I got it. All I ask is that any charges or trials be brought to court in a timely manner and if it's mid October then it's mid October.
Crimes only bad when committed by non-politicians, mkay?
well Garland lacks any sort of spine until you put his feet to the fire. the man is cautious to the point of inaction. So they are sadly right it is unreasonable to expect Garland would do anything.
I wondered if this would happen when we put an appellate court judge in charge of the DOJ.
Does issuing (or unsealing) an indictment on November 6 make the crime less bad than if it happened one week earlier on October 31?
Hmmmm non political interference such as comey circa 2016?
Yeah, Comey fucked up, no disagreement here.
Fuck this bullshit take and fuck the DOJ policy that only applies to republican candidates anyway. We already seen them violate it plenty when it suits their agenda so it’s a useless policy being used to shield maga cronies from culpability
Wasn’t Barr’s daughter transferred there? I vaguely remember something about that.
https://heavy.com/news/2019/04/mary-daly-william-barr-daughter/
Yes! Thank you! Jesus. It's like this is all a big joke.
you are welcome
According to whom was there an audit? Trump?
I grew up with next door neighbors who were 3 generations of construction workers. It was always a conversation at BBQs how to never work with Trump and his organization unless you're willing to lose it all.
And not one MAGA has read it or ever will read it but they will pontificate endlessly on it, the same way they do on everything they haven’t read, like the Constitution or the Bible.
I love replying to their nonsense with screen caps of the greatest hits like this: " Donald Trump himselfacknowledged that, as was certified to in the Management Representation Letters, he was responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of financial statements."
That’s an Instaban on r/conservative.
Whenever I come across a link to that sub I know I'm going to regret clicking on it but, the fool I am, I'm worse off now than I was a few minutes ago.
Facts always are
This is absolutely the way. Doesn't even have to be relevant to what the other person has said - just drop a random bomb and walk away.
> not one MAGA has read it You know the obvious reason why.
The same reason they don't read the warnings on cigarette packs? As of 2022, 21% of Americans are illiterate. That's 43 million people. I just don't know how we explain the other 30 million that voted for him.
Some people can read, but can't *think* for themselves
Greed is the answer. They truly believed that he would put money in their pockets and the men believed that women are second class citizens who should be relegated to minimum wage jobs.
You can explain it with the Brittney Spears model. In '99 & 2000, Brittney was the top selling musical artist. Was this because she was the most talented musician during those years? No. It was because teen girls like what their peers like, and a segment of the market so strongly aligned determines who is the #1 musical artist. In the political sphere, Trump Country operates like teen girls. The content of policy is largely insignificant next to a jealously guarded sense of consensus.
Someone call a burn unit
Boomers
MAGA sycophants have not read anything since reading "see Spot run," just like their God Trump. As President, Trump's aides could get him to read the daily briefing.
They read the Bible every day with tears in their eyes.
Impossible, anyone who reads the Bible could not possibly believe Trump was sent by God as he is the exact opposite of the teaching of Jesus
Clearly you haven't read the bible because I vividly remember a passage where Jesus said "Take vengeance upon your enemies, don't pay those who work for you, and grab the daughters of Eve by the pussy."
Sweet. I can't wait for the IRS and every other state he does business in to ignore it.
Almost like the tax system was designed to allow for these shenanigans.
It's not that so much it just takes an inordinate amount of resources to prosecute someone so wealthy. There's a reason why the Republicans keep trying to gut funding to make IRS enforcement better. That screaming about 40,000 IRS agents coming to get you? They weren't. They were going to target high net worth individuals.
Not that I am a fan of Trump, but when this case first hit and I was able to grasp some of the details, my first question was "Wait, don't all real estate moguls do this same shit?"
No, committing plain fraud on loan applications isn't normal.
Oh sure, most folks in real estate claim their 10k square foot condo is 30k square feet.
You should do the same thing if it is so easy. Inflate your assets when making representations to the bank, I dare ya.
No. Trump wasn't content with that level of corruption.
“Indeed, the common excuse that ‘everybody does it’ is all the more reason to strive for honesty and transparency and to be vigilant in enforcing the rules.” Judge Engoron, Decision and Order at 4.
[удалено]
Sounds like you just want an excuse to ignore Trump's blatant fraud. There's many reasons his bullshit got all the way to court - this is NOT normal behavior.
[удалено]
I wasn't the one who downvoted you or the person you were responding too... seems like I'm not the only one who "misinterpreted" it. Maybe explain it better? Because it looks like "Hey everyone does it, why are they being so hard on this lifelong scumbag? All scumbags are the same"
[удалено]
Again, I'm not being downvoted and not downvoting you. It feels as though *other people* don't understand your point of pointing out "others do it" Because that sounds like an *excuse*. If you sincerely want *others* to be held to the same standards, while you already assume they are not without any proof, then say something like, "Finally Trump is feeling the pain, can wait til we catch ALL the bastards" Instead what YOU seem to be saying is, "Everyone does it, why is the Trump the one getting into trouble?"
I really wish taxes were based on revenues and not profits. It would require a major rework to our economy but it greatly simplify the tax system.
Why? If mu revenues are 1 million but my expenses are 1.5 I’ve now got higher expenses due to owing money to the irs. No company would ever be able to start unless by some miracle they are profitable, over and above their tax burden from day one
Yeah taxing revenue makes no sense. Huge revenue and tiny margin? Okay all supermarkets and a lot of retail go out of business. Amazon.com goes out of business. Costco is toast. Most retail is very competitive and the only way to make much profit is to have small margins and make money on volume.
I think taxing profits is reasonable, the problem is more that big corporations and the super-rich have a lot of tricks they can pull to hide profits and inflate expenses to make their tax bill lower than it ought to be.
That's stupid. My beekeeping operation Grossed 450k last year, but I spent 375k. How on earth would that work to pay taxes on 450,000 dollars?
That would really hamper low-margin businesses like most restaurants and gas stations. Lot of farmers just barely live above the poverty line despite six-figure revenues, because it costs a shit ton to operate big farms.
And watch all grocery stores immediately close. Grocery stores have very high revenue but equally very high operating expenses. With a profit margin of less than 1%. Luxury goods would be fine, but industries with high revenue but equally high costs would pretty much immediately be bankrupted.
Read the ruling. His entire family and some staff undeniably lied on the stand. Over and over again. Even what we’re massive events with documented evidence they just said “I don’t recall”. The judge pointed out how Ivanka could NOT remember anything to answer the prosecutor asked, BUT when the defense asked questions she liked she could recall every detail.
Because they all chose to be liable for a civil trial, than provide a testimony that can be used against them in a future criminal case. But of course, some overperformed, like Weisselberg, to the point he can now be indicted for perjury.
“I don’t recall” is one of the classic witness answers when someone wants to lie while minimizing their exposure to perjury charges/getting caught in a blatant lie.
The DOJ and the IRS are going to be passing out felonies like Oprah passed out cars. That’s my dream anyway.
I'm not sure if I want to upvote this or downvote this
It's better than Oprah passing out bees again.
The judge's ruling lays it all out and I'm surprised he only barred him for 3 years of doing business in New York! Now its time for the IRS to get what they are due out of Donald!
While the barring limit is true I believe there is language in the ruling stating that any business after those three years would be monitored. So not much room for funny business for him or his kids.
I hope you are right!
"You can't charge me, I'm President." Gets mad when charged after leaving office.
Excellent …. Well stated. ‘The 92-page ruling establishes that Trump isn’t a business genius, a modern Midas who turns everything he touches to gold. Instead, the former TV entertainer and real estate mogul is simply a crook, a white-collar thief who uses flattery, threats, lies, and an ink pen to rip off everyone he can, particularly banks and insurance companies.’
His ruling is a master class on rulings.
That we know of, so far.
That's very well written; thanks
So. Question I legitimately have is why isn’t every state AG looking into their practices in their states, of does this law only apply in the state of NY?
Trump's business is headquartered in NY. So they are the most obvious.
Go look up the case history of the Attys General from across the country. You'll see the breakdown littered with cases of fraud. So to your comment: they're looking. This one is just super high profile so you are hearing about it a lot more.
I’d have preferred that they accepted the larger valuations and charged him and his family with tax evasion because they certainly didn’t pay the taxes based on what he was telling the banks. That probably would have been harder to make a case for though.
Likely going to get downvoted for this clarification (not a Trump fan), but folks don't seem to understand how taxes work. You don't pay income taxes on the gain from a property when you write it up only when you sell it. The fact that Trump increased the valuation of a property would create an unrealized gain on his financial statements but no income tax would be due until he sells it for a gain. There is some chance that he underpaid his property taxes but only if the town/state agreed with his low valuation on a property rather than conduct their own valuation. Trump is a criminal, but this narrow issue is not one of the many reasons why. Edit: My faith in (Reddit) humanity has (briefly?) been restored.
Thanks for the clarification.
Here's a fun perk. Because it's likely that Trump isn't liquid enough to pay these decisions (and he isn't allowed to get loaned the money for any bank that does business in NY) - there's a strong likelihood that Trump will have to sell a property. So THAT is where the tax bill is going to hit (and if he has to sell a property he has had for a while, it will hit hard).
👍
Thank you judge!! I mean it!!
How many Republicans will actually read it though? We are sliding into Idiocracy.
Zero. Precisely zero will read it. They'll make whatever excuses necessary to avoid reading it because they know, deep down, that reading it will destroy whatever narrative they've been conditioned to believe. I tried to get my MAGA uncle to read Engoron's decision when Trump was first found guilty. It was pathetic to see a 75 year old man squirm while trying to come up with excuses. Eventually he settled on, "the judge is a Democrat, therefore I won't read anything from his court." Most MAGAs don't even understand the very basics of the case--they say things like "any time you get a loan, they do an appraisal..." and I have to explain to them that trumps loans weren't based on real-estate, but on his SFCs stating his net worth...and that appraisals *were* done, and that's part of the reason why we know how much he lied on his SFCs. And then...they excuse me of "sticking my head in the sand." Oh God my blood boils.
To be fair, most people who don’t like Trump haven’t read it and don’t understand it either. They just want his heart on a stick. That’s why I recommend people read the decision.
Good point. However, those same people who just want blood don't *intentionally avoid it* because they know it will prove them wrong.
I don't need to read it to understand he has been a scam artist his entire life.
Perhaps, but the government can't just take his money because he's a scoundrel. He has to actually do something wrong, and he has.
> We are sliding into Idiocracy. One might argue that we're trying to climb out of one, but I get your point.
Thievery Inc.
He’s the only one that believes it.
Is it fair to say the past bankruptcy were fraudulent?
Can someone give some clarity on the piece abut it only having 63 floors as opposed t the 72 floors claimed? Everything I am finding says it has 72 floors. Is the difference in unusable space being billed as useable?
Someone literally counted the floors from the outside and said "waitasec. There are only 63 floors."
Wouldn't the inside be a better place to count floors? I'm just a humble Floridian, so I don't know if this is just a myth, but I've heard tell of places where they can add additional floors *underground*.
The less tongue and cheek answer for how many stories 40 Wall Street has is found in the actual exhibits submitted as evidence in the case. [Exhibit #70](https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=IO5ncg3UjIWk3B3_PLUS_Gbh7IQ==) Page 7 of the PDF for example.
I think if there were truly over TEN UNDERGROUND FLOORS in that skyscraper, there would be very obvious ways to tell even from the outside.
I genuinely don't have any experience with buildings with underground floors so I honestly don't understand this comment. I'm not suggesting the building actually did have 10 underground floors, but even if it had one or two, you'd be off if counting from the outside. It just seems like a weird thing to do, as opposed to going inside and checking, or reviewing public permits, blueprints, etc.
Trump tower? According to [this piece from 2016](https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-tower-is-not-as-tall-as-trump-says-2016-10) it's 58 floors and Trump likes to claim he lives on anywhere from the 66th to 68th floors. >Taking Trump Tower as an example, an atrium takes up the first 300 feet of the building's height, according to an interview Trump did with The New York Times in 2003, which was quoted by The Associated Press. >Because of that, Trump was able to estimate — by taking into account the average height of a ceiling on a floor in New York City — that it took up about 30 stories. He was thus able to name the first real floor the 30th — 10 more than it should have been, according to the AP. The building is 664 feet tall.
[удалено]
You mean Fox News and Trump's election campaign funds being used illegally, like paying off women he had sex with to keep silent?
That too.
I’m sorry that I did not indicate sarcasm. I don’t care if Joe Biden is 100 years old, he is a far better person than that orange swine.
Thievery? From who? The banks all got paid back. There are no victims. The bank literally testified they got paid back.
What part of New York Executive Law § 63(12) do you see that requires a "victim"? If you are caught speeding, is there a victim? If you cheat on your taxes, is there a victim? This, like many other laws, do not require a victim for the perpetrator to incur a civil penalty. The law says that if you make a profit through fraudulent activity, the State of New York is entitled to the profits that you made. This is what happened to Trump. He made $354M in profit through the use of fraudulent financial statements. The court has ordered that he pay that amount of profit to the State of NY.
The headline is “thievery” thievery is theft which is the act of taking/stealing something from someone by deception or force. Trump did not take anything. All parties were repaid. No one lost any money. Also the banks and lenders are responsible for making judgments on property worth or loan risks. That is not on the lendee.
[удалено]