Trump lies about his assets

QP! said:
Terry i say this for your own good. You need to accept you are a stupid person and speak less to stop showing it. This case amongst other defines the type of precedent that exists in ALL States that allows them to stop fraud BEFORE victims occur.

INTENT TO DEFRAUD STATUTE NYS LAW.




Again by Terry's derp logic, he or anyone can start a Financial firm based on clear lies and fraud and start raising all sorts of money, and deploying it, and the gov't can do nothing. They must wait the years it may take for the fraud to collapse and create a victim and then and only then, can the gov't act. That is not true and is stupid. Thus why Terry believes it.
Click to expand...

False equivalence fallacy.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
That's criminal law. Trump is in a civil suit.
Click to expand...

So you are still maintaining that ANYONE can create a new financial firm based on complete and obvious fraud, the gov't can see it is a fraud, and they can raise as much money for as many years as they want the government can do NOTHING, up until losses come in maybe years later?

Is that really your position Terry? That even in the face of obvious and clear stated fraud, nothing can be done until losses begin to be generated?

So if the government knows that a mortgage broker is creating fraudulent loans based on fraudulent income statements and selling them into various securities, as long as the people are covering those loans and they are not defaulting (yet) there is nothing the gov't can do to stop that firm writing those fraudulent loans documents?

Really Terry? Really? Are you this stupid that you think only once a loss is incurred can the gov't act to protect the systems??
 
Last edited:
Here is what Terry is arguing and thinks is smart.

Any one today can open up a loan firm in NYS (any State) and advertise, for example they can get 'recent bankrupt' people loans at prime or near prime, when they have been refused every where else.

Terry believes if this firm only picks out high earners who have cleared all (mostly all of their debt) and thus they can afford a near prime loan, his firm will just lie and put on the forms 'no bankruptcy', and get the loans, they otherwise would not get, and as long as that person pays the loan (which many recent bankrupts can due to having debt cleared) that the government can do nothing about it until there are failing loans.

Terry is arguing the entire business can be based on (advertise even) a clear fraud, and it cannot be stopped. They can take in money, write loans, submit them to banks and get them funded, and go years and years, as long as there is no loss, and the government cannot stop them.


This is the most recent right wing derp stupid point being repeated right now over and over on derp media. That loss must be established and that is not true. State AG's mandates include protecting the SYSTEMS (banking and Insurance, etc) from fraudulent activity that could create losses in the future (like the mortgage crisis of 2008), such that these fraudulent loans or insurance or other, do not build up in the system like a bomb because they are performing and paying during a good market but explode and cause mass losses in a bad market.

Terrys position that EVERYONE can simply lie and make up whatever statements about employment and net worth and property values they want to get a loan, insurance, etc, and as long as they do not default, no one can touch them, is simply wrong. And stupid. It would always lead to potential 2008 type crashes where in strong markets brokers and others could write tons of fraudulent loans and get paid, until the markets turned and those loans blew up. Terry's view of the law leaves gov't hopeless to prevent that.
 
QP! said:
So you are still maintaining that ANYONE can create a new financial firm based on complete and obvious fraud, the gov't can see it is a fraud, and they can raise as much money for as many years as they want the government can do NOTHING, up until losses come in maybe years later?

Is that really your position Terry? That even in the face of obvious and clear stated fraud, nothing can be done until losses begin to be generated?

So if the government knows that a mortgage broker is creating fraudulent loans based on fraudulent income statements and selling them into various securities, as long as the people are covering those loans and they are not defaulting (yet) there is nothing the gov't can do to stop that firm writing those fraudulent loans documents?

Really Terry? Really? Are you this stupid that you think only once a loss is incurred can the gov't act to protect the systems??
Click to expand...

Attempted proof by contrivance. A fallacy.
 
floridafan said:
His companies did, no difference
Click to expand...

Trump is arguably the biggest LOSING business man in American history. And by the time Lettisha James is done liquidating his remaining holdings any doubt of that might be gone.


Forget "The Apprentice" — Trump's taxes show he was really "The Biggest Loser"
Between Poppa Trump and Mark Burnett, Trump was gifted $840 million — but he may still owe as much as $1 billion


During the 2016 Republican primary, polling showed that Trump supporters were bamboozled by "The Apprentice," mistaking the fictional Trump of the "reality" TV show for the real Trump, a repeated business failure with a series of bankruptcies under his belt. To this day, about half of Americans still believe that Trump is a competent steward of the American economy, despite the worst downturn since the Great Depression, because they mistook a character he played on TV for the real thing. Trump has boosted this lie about his business acumen by concealing decades of his tax returns so that he could claim to be a successful billionaire without being fact-checked by his own accountants. ...


Unsurprisingly, the documents suggest Trump cheats on his taxes, as he cheats in every other aspect of life, from marriages to presidential elections. Perhaps more importantly, the documents show that Trump's entire persona as a successful businessman isn't just a lie, but the inverse of reality. If we're going strictly on profit and loss, Donald Trump is the worst living businessman in America.

Trump has twice been basically gifted half a billion dollars by benefactors — twice! — first by his father and then by reality-show producer Mark Burnett for "The Apprentice." In both cases, tax documents suggest he took more money than most people can even dream of, and flushed it straight down the toilet. Trump isn't a successful businessman. He's the photographic negative of a successful businessman. If "The Apprentice" had been honestly named, it would have been called "The Biggest Loser."

As the Times reports, Trump's work on "The Apprentice," for which he did very little beyond showing up to perform before the cameras, earned him "a total of $427.4 million." Instead of investing this cash bonanza, which he received through no skill or effort beyond letting makeup artists and editors make him look as good as possible, Trump turned around and dumped that money into businesses "that in the years since have steadily devoured cash," such as $315 million in reported losses for his golf clubs and $55 million in losses for his Washington hotel. He does make money off Trump Tower, but the massive losses are part of the reason Trump has avoided paying income taxes for so many years.

Not only did Trump blow all the money that Burnett basically handed to him, he also appears deeply in the hole. He owes an eye-popping $421 million to various banks, most of which is coming due in the next four years. On top of that, he may owe another $100 million to the federal government, due to his shady tax practices. As Forbes journalist Dan Alexander calculated on Sunday, Trump's debts may total more than a billion dollars.

Trump isn't the "stable genius" he claims to be, but no doubt the man has a gift for losing money.

What makes this even more outrageous is this is the second time Trump was given nearly half a billion dollars that he proceeded to set on fire. As the New York Times pieced together in 2018 from documents provided by Trump's niece, his father, Fred Trump, funneled $413 million to his profligate son (often illegally), only to watch The Donald waste it all on vanity projects.

In fact, as with the "Apprentice" money, Trump not only lost the cash Daddy gave him, but kept spending. Trump's tax documents from 1985 to 1994 obtained by the New York Times show that he lost a billion dollars during that time. In 1990, in fact, Trump was so strapped for cash, despite his father's largess, that he pressured Fred, who was then 85 and suffering from dementia, to change his will in order to bail his wildly and unimaginably irresponsible son out of debt.

Trump was likely only saved from ruin in the last decade or so by the infusion of Burnett cash — but then he went deeply into debt yet again. ...
Click to expand...

Business Genius Trump Lost More Money Than Anyone in America Between 1985-1994
The "art of the deal" apparently involves losing hundreds of millions of dollars year after year, according to a new report from the New York Times

The news organization obtained the president’s tax information from 1985-1994, and the numbers reveal that the only real skill possessed by the vaunted real estate mogul was hemorrhaging obscene amounts of money. In fact, Trump lost more money than any other American taxpayer over the course of the decade in question: $1.17 billion.

Trump lost so much money between 1985 and 1994 — including over 250 million in both 1990 and 1991 — that he didn’t even have to pay income taxes in eight of the 10 years....

The president’s losses over the 10-year period were brought on by a series of poor investments — his USFL team, his airline, etc. — and wild spending despite his businesses failing to generate much revenue. In an effort to offset the losses, Trump began a practice of buying shares of a company to stoke speculation that he could be contemplating becoming a majority owner, waiting for the price of the stock to rise and then dumping the shares at a profit. Investors eventually became wise to the scheme, and Trump proceeded to lose the millions he gained from it....
Click to expand...
 
T. A. Gardner said:
If Trump paid back the loan in full there was no fraud because there was no loss. The plaintiff in civil fraud case has to show loss to gain anything. Simply being lied to... even egregiously lied to by the defendant who made good on the loan does not constitute fraud.

I'm not defending Trump here, nor saying he didn't lie to get the loan. I'm saying for fraud to be proven he had to harm the plaintiff economically in some way. No loss, no case.
Click to expand...

I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one online. This is why it's best left up to the courts to decide.
 
Lionfish said:
Derp, derp, TDS, derp, derp.
Click to expand...

Yup you got TDS bad.

As i have stated prior you think that on this political forum, in the lead up to an election there should be no discussions on Trump and even in Trump threads you will ALWAYS show up to cry wanting people to leave Trump alone.
 
Doc Dutch said:
I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one online. This is why it's best left up to the courts to decide.
Click to expand...

Well, Deutsche Bank executives who were called to testify in this trial pretty much demolished the prosecution's case. They stated they didn't take Trump's valuations at face value and that he paid back the loans made on time. Without any victims, a civil fraud case is going nowhere. The supposed victims say they weren't in the least and that the whole over valuation thing is, essentially, bullshit since the bankers were smart enough to do their own valuations and homework before giving out the loans...
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Well, Deutsche Bank executives who were called to testify in this trial pretty much demolished the prosecution's case. They stated they didn't take Trump's valuations at face value and that he paid back the loans made on time. Without any victims, a civil fraud case is going nowhere. The supposed victims say they weren't in the least and that the whole over valuation thing is, essentially, bullshit since the bankers were smart enough to do their own valuations and homework before giving out the loans...
Click to expand...

Trump Deceived Deutsche Bank, Former Exec Testifies
He vastly overstated his wealth to obtain favorable loan deals, prosecutors allege.

A former Deutsche Bank executive testified this week that the German financial behemoth only agreed to make massive loans to Donald Trump because of Trump’s vast personal fortune. The problem? The bank apparently thought, based at least partly on financial statements provided by Trump, that he was far wealthier than he really was....
Click to expand...
.
 
QP! said:
.
Click to expand...

Doesn't change that the loans were paid back in full on time. Where's the victim? Who lost money as a result of this? Without a victim and a loss you can't win a civil fraud case.

Even your article from the radical Leftist magazine Mother Jones admits it.

The Deutsche Bank exec, Nicholas Haigh, was testifying in Manhattan as part of New York Attorney General Letitia James’ $250 million civil fraud lawsuit against Trump. Going over internal documents in court with Haigh, James’ attorneys showed that the bankers didn’t really believe all of Trump’s claims about his wealth. They estimated that Trump was significantly less wealthy than he claimed, but they were still convinced that he had more money than he really did.

They weren't defrauded because Trump paid the loans off in full.

When Trump’s attorneys had an opportunity to cross-examine Haigh, they once again didn’t attempt to discredit either Haigh or the documents. Instead, they wheedled out of him an admission that Deutsche Bank had not lost money lending to Trump—even if Trump had deceived the bank when he asked for the loans.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Well, Deutsche Bank executives who were called to testify in this trial pretty much demolished the prosecution's case. They stated they didn't take Trump's valuations at face value and that he paid back the loans made on time. Without any victims, a civil fraud case is going nowhere. The supposed victims say they weren't in the least and that the whole over valuation thing is, essentially, bullshit since the bankers were smart enough to do their own valuations and homework before giving out the loans...
Click to expand...
How awesome for Trump. :)
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Doesn't change that the loans were paid back in full on time. Where's the victim? Who lost money as a result of this? Without a victim and a loss you can't win a civil fraud case.
Click to expand...
[FONT=&quot]The German bank loaned a cumulative total of around $2.5 billion to Trump projects over the past two decades, and the bank continued writing him nine-figure checks even after he defaulted on a $640 million obligation and sued the bank, blaming it for his failure to pay back the debt.[FONT=&quot]May 22, 2019[/FONT]
[/FONT]
17qy2qwAAAABJRU5ErkJggg==

https://www.propublica.org › article

[h=3]Why Did Deutsche Bank Keep Lending to Donald Trump? — “Trump, Inc.” Podcast[/h]




 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top