So what do you Brits make of Trump ?

[KnightHawk 2.0]

Is the law catching up with Trump-world? Hope springs eternal...

"Regarding Trump Tower, on Fifth Avenue in Manhattan, James said: “Mr Trump represented that his apartment spanned more than 30,000 sq ft, which was the basis for valuing the apartment.
In reality, the apartment had an area of less than 11,000 sq ft, something that Mr Trump was well aware of. And based on that inflated square footage the value of the apartment in 2015 and 2016 was $327m.
“To this date, no apartment in New York City has ever sold for close to that amount.
...
“Claiming you have money that you do not have does not amount to the art of the deal. It’s the art of the steal… No one is above the law.”
New York attorney general announces civil lawsuit against Trump and family (yahoo.com)

The walls are closing in on The Trump Crime Family.

[Stavros]

I read this a short while ago, and I am puzzled -

"Armen Morian, a former prosecutor in the New York Attorney General’s Office, thinks Donald Trump might have a point.The former president has claimed that New York can’t bring a $250m fraud lawsuit against him and his family company because the Trump Organization consistently warned banks and insurers to rely on their own valuations before offering him business.
“What the disclaimers are saying is, ‘Beware when you read these financial statements,’” Mr Morian told Insider. “That’s all it has to do.”
Trump news - live: Ex-president owes National Archives more lost records as Mary says he’s plotting ‘revenge’ (yahoo.com)

Does this mean that when Trump signs a document confirming its contents are true, that in fact the signature means nothing? Is it always the case that signing a document does not confirm anything, and that say, the Banks can look at a signed declaration by Trump claiming the value of Property A is X, and automatically assume it is false?

How about other documents with signatures, like a marriage licence or
The Declaration of Independence, 4th July 1776, signed by all those traitors to the King?

[tslvr]

I read this a short while ago, and I am puzzled -

"Armen Morian, a former prosecutor in the New York Attorney General’s Office, thinks Donald Trump might have a point.The former president has claimed that New York can’t bring a $250m fraud lawsuit against him and his family company because the Trump Organization consistently warned banks and insurers to rely on their own valuations before offering him business.
“What the disclaimers are saying is, ‘Beware when you read these financial statements,’” Mr Morian told Insider. “That’s all it has to do.”
Trump news - live: Ex-president owes National Archives more lost records as Mary says he’s plotting ‘revenge’ (yahoo.com)

Does this mean that when Trump signs a document confirming its contents are true, that in fact the signature means nothing? Is it always the case that signing a document does not confirm anything, and that say, the Banks can look at a signed declaration by Trump claiming the value of Property A is X, and automatically assume it is false?

How about other documents with signatures, like a marriage licence or
The Declaration of Independence, 4th July 1776, signed by all those traitors to the King?

I don't want a fight, but please name one bank or lending firm that hands out loans or finances building projects that goes on the word of the borrower. Every car and home loan, I've ever gotten, the lending institution did an appraisal of the the property itself and a background check of my credit. I am not saying a word here about Trump being some kind of nice guy, but someone has to admit that the entire world has gotten pretty chaotic since the last US elections.

[Stavros]

I don't want a fight, but please name one bank or lending firm that hands out loans or finances building projects that goes on the word of the borrower. Every car and home loan, I've ever gotten, the lending institution did an appraisal of the the property itself and a background check of my credit. I am not saying a word here about Trump being some kind of nice guy, but someone has to admit that the entire world has gotten pretty chaotic since the last US elections.

This goes way back years, so the investigations into the allegations by the New York Attorney General James begs a profound question -what was the quality of the due diligence that lenders, auditors, lawyers and others responsible did when evaluating Trump's claims? If it is the case that Trump exaggerated the size of his apartment in Trump Tower, why did nobody notice when, as the AG pointed out, its valuation would have made it the most expensive apartment in New York? Can nobody in the business notice the difference between 11,000 sq ft and 30,000 sq ft?

If it were the case that prestigious Accountants were in on the game, or turned a blind eye to suspicious claims, doesn't this rock the world of New York finance to its knees?

Again, we know Trump was close to bankruptcy in the early 1990s when his New Jersey casinos went belly up, so how did he manage to acquire bank loans when he had a string of business failures and was clearly a risky investment, with a record of rarely if ever paying his debts? Was it the collateral he provided to the banks that convinced the Banks? Was it the value of the property portfolio he inherited from his father?

And again, where is the evidence that Trump was investigated for money laundering for the Russian mafia in his New Jersey casinos -indeed, was this one of the reasons they collapsed?- and did anyone 'join the dots' when Trump went into business in Trump Soho with Felix Sater, a convicted racketeer for the Russian mafia? The Scottish Govt is investigating Trump's purchase of golf clubs in Scotland because of the manner in which they were purchased.

To many people, Trump got away with these potential or actual crimes, tying people down through multiple law suits and Chapter 11 bankruptcies, forever using the system to avoid scrutiny of his books, or by settling out of court, as happened with 'Trump University'.

Could it be that what Trump did was involve people in his 'business' schemes that made them liable to financial penalties, and that because of this they went along with them in the hope they would at least get their money back from them?

He was exposed during his 'Presidency' as a liar, a crook and a traitor, and yet he insists he is the Greatest President of all Time, and can de-classify Federal documents merely by thinking it. Like Darth Vader.

It is long past the time when he was exposed to the rule of law, along with the people who enabled him over the years.

[Stavros]

Looks like we have gone from 'Are we on the same page?' to 'Are we on the same planet?'. Maybe these two men really are as stupid as they make out to be, in which case why were they in such influential positions in US Govt?

"Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows told incoming Biden White House chief of staff Ron Klain that "no president" received a daily intelligence briefing, after the longtime Democratic aide told his GOP counterpart that the incoming president wanted to be briefed on a daily basis, according to a new book by New York Times journalist Maggie Haberman."
Meadows Told Ron Klain 'No President' Received Daily Briefing: Book (businessinsider.com)

"CNN reports that Kevin McCarthy, the GOP leader in the House of Representatives who stands a good chance of becoming its speaker next year, told officers who fought with the mob that then-president Donald Trump had no idea it was his supporters causing the violence – even though he addressed them just prior to the attack"
Kevin McCarthy claimed Trump had no idea his supporters carried out Capitol attack – live (theguardian.com)

[broncofan]

I don't want a fight, but please name one bank or lending firm that hands out loans or finances building projects that goes on the word of the borrower.

It doesn't happen in the normal course of business.

It has happened numerous times in well publicized cases of corruption. Sometimes there's an entanglement between a loan officer or bank executive and the borrower that permits the uncreditworthy person to get a loan and sometimes the bank's underwriters are fooled by fraudulent financials that are provided to them. On this last point, many documents that are provided to a bank when someone secures a loan are created by the borrower. Even if you provide tax documents, we have a system where the taxpayer calculates his own taxes and is subject to audit only in rare cases.

This is just one example but there are numerous ones from the 1980s and 1990s. https://www.deseret.com/1990/7/6/188...m-ex-s-l-chief

Edit: in the article you'll notice Spiegel did many things wrong. Note the 28 million dollar loan to Howard Schneider, who spent the rest of his life in prison.

[filghy2]

Even if you provide tax documents, we have a system where the taxpayer calculates his own taxes and is subject to audit only in rare cases.

Presidential tax returns are supposed to be subject to mandatory annual audits. During the Trump years the IRS failed to apply it's own policy.
https://www.usnews.com/news/business...nder-spotlight

[broncofan]

Presidential tax returns are supposed to be subject to mandatory annual audits. During the Trump years the IRS failed to apply it's own policy.
https://www.usnews.com/news/business...nder-spotlight

Good point. I guess my main point is that during the lending process there are lots of inaccurate disclosures a person can make that banks might rely on.

For the post above, I could have added that in some cases Trump had gotten appraisals of properties, didn't like the appraisals and provided his own made-up values. Now I'd assume if the bank ordered the appraisal they would be provided a copy of it, but he shouldn't have provided the bank with phony financial statements. It is possible that whoever approves the loan relies on the financial statements, is not aware of the appraisal, etc.

'James also said the Trumps “received a series of bank ordered appraisals for the commercial property at 40 Wall Street in New York City that calculated the value of the property at $200m as of August 2010 and $220m as of November 2012.


“Yet in his 2011 statement, Mr Trump listed 40 Wall Street with a value of $524m, which increased to $530m over the next two years, more than twice the value calculated by the professionals."

[broncofan]

I don't want a fight, but please name one bank or lending firm that hands out loans or finances building projects that goes on the word of the borrower. Every car and home loan, I've ever gotten, the lending institution did an appraisal of the the property itself and a background check of my credit. I am not saying a word here about Trump being some kind of nice guy, but someone has to admit that the entire world has gotten pretty chaotic since the last US elections.

I also want to point out that the valuations he lied about were used to determine his net worth. Banks do not typically order appraisals for every asset you claim to own. For instance, he lied about the value of an apartment he owns by inflating its square footage by threefold.

The bank will order an appraisal of the property you're getting the mortgage to purchase (and they apparently wanted appraisals of other selected properties bc maybe they thought them crucial to determining his creditworthiness), but if you lie about your net worth and holdings, they are not going to be able to confirm that. And how much his other properties are worth relative to the debt on them matters a lot.

[filghy2]

Good point. I guess my main point is that during the lending process there are lots of inaccurate disclosures a person can make that banks might rely on.

There's also a problem with incentives in the financial sector. Someone would be making a commission from writing the loan.

As you know, there is moral hazard in banking because the government is forced to bail them out if necessary to protect deposits. Bank executives are rarely prosecuted - there were only a few minor officials prosecuted after the 2008 crisis. The worse that can happen in general is that their contract is terminated with a big payout.

Add in political influences, and I can see why noone might have looked too closely at Trump's valuations.