If you lie to get a good loan!

Jarod said:
Uh, read your article, it does not say that.

It says the judge cited a tax appraiser assessment, which was in evidence, as a part of his reasoning, and that assessment valued the property between 18 - 27 million between 2011 - 2021.
The Judge never said it was worth 18 Million dollars.

Why do you people lie when you can clearly see the truth? Do you thing you are fooling anyone but the most stupid of people?


The Judge ALSO cited to a report saying the property was worth 300 Million.

At no point did the judge give a value, other than that claiming 1.5 BILLION was fraud.
Click to expand...
So the judge KNEW it was worth FAR more than that but he lied about its value .

Pulitzer said the rock-bottom price for Mar-a-Lago would be $300 million. Thomson said at least $600 million. If uber-billionaires got into a bidding war, they said, a sale of a billion dollars or more would be possible.
Click to expand...
https://ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/ne...aid the rock-bottom,or more would be possible.
 
Last edited:
T. A. Gardner said:
So, you are saying the bank should get to make a bigger profit off of Trump than they did... Do you know how utterly idiotic and absurd that sounds?

It's like claiming you sold a car to someone and are no suing them because you feel you could have sold the car to them for more money...
Click to expand...

No, I did not say that. Why are you desperate to put words in my mouth.... OH, I keep forgetting you are trying to defend the indefensible.
 
Jarod said:
He did not even say what the value was, where did he lie? YOU ARE A LIAR, YOU CLAIMED HE SAID IT WAS WORTH 18 MILLION, he did not. YOU ARE SCUM.
Click to expand...

So if I said your tent was worth between 18 and 300 bucks when it was really worth $600 would I be lying? If the Judge KNEW it wasn't worth 18 million why did he even consider 18 million in his evaluation? YOU ARE A MORON. :laugh:

Jarod ==> :legion:
 
Jarod said:
If you lie to the bank and still pay back the loan on time, you still committed fraud!!!

Trump got better terms due to his lies.

The bank got defrauded out of an interest rate and took a bigger risk than they expected.
Click to expand...

who was hurt? or how was a victim hurt?
 
Jarod said:
No, I did not say that. Why are you desperate to put words in my mouth.... OH, I keep forgetting you are trying to defend the indefensible.
Click to expand...

You said this:

Jarod said:
If you lie to the bank and still pay back the loan on time, you still committed fraud!!!

Trump got better terms due to his lies.

The bank got defrauded out of an interest rate and took a bigger risk than they expected.
Click to expand...

You are claiming there that the bank should have made more profit from the loan than they did. Since the loan was paid off in full, the risk involved is now moot.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
You said this:



You are claiming there that the bank should have made more profit from the loan than they did. Since the loan was paid off in full, the risk involved is now moot.
Click to expand...

I am not saying they should have, I am saying they would have.
 
Jarod said:
I am not saying they should have, I am saying they would have.
Click to expand...

Woulda, shoulda, coulda... It is all saying they should have made more profit.

Your version is like saying if you sold a car to someone and they paid you in full for it, then afterwards you discover you could have sold the car for more, you being able to sue the buyer and get that additional money.

That isn't how contract law works, and you can't sue just because you made a bad deal. Fraud involves loss, and there is no loss in this particular case so there is no fraud case to be made.
 
volsrock said:
who was hurt? or how was a victim hurt?
Click to expand...

The banks were harmed. They loan money and receive interest in exchange. Trump got a far more favorable interest rate on money loaned to him than if he had valued his collateral accurately. Therefore the bank was defrauded out of interest that they could have received had the valuations been correct. Yes, they received some interest plus the principle part of the loaned funds. But they should have received more interest. This isn't like a car loan where you pay a few hundred dollars in interest over the life of the loan. This is MILLIONS of dollars lost due to the fraud.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Woulda, shoulda, coulda... It is all saying they should have made more profit.

Your version is like saying if you sold a car to someone and they paid you in full for it, then afterwards you discover you could have sold the car for more, you being able to sue the buyer and get that additional money.

That isn't how contract law works, and you can't sue just because you made a bad deal. Fraud involves loss, and there is no loss in this particular case so there is no fraud case to be made.
Click to expand...

No, it is saying two different things, even so, it does not excuse criminal conduct.

Criminal fraud does not require loss in NY.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Trump is being sued civilly, not criminally.
Click to expand...

No, not really. Its is not civil or criminal. He is being prosecuted by the State of New York for having violated laws, it is civil enforcement but it uses criminal laws. It is a hybrid.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
The banks were harmed. They loan money and receive interest in exchange. Trump got a far more favorable interest rate on money loaned to him than if he had valued his collateral accurately. Therefore the bank was defrauded out of interest that they could have received had the valuations been correct. Yes, they received some interest plus the principle part of the loaned funds. But they should have received more interest. This isn't like a car loan where you pay a few hundred dollars in interest over the life of the loan. This is MILLIONS of dollars lost due to the fraud.
Click to expand...

Oh, another mental midget chimes in that the bank should have made more profit on Trump's loans than they actually did. The bank lost nothing. They simply made less profit. I'd think someone of your ilk would be happy that a big corporation made less profit.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Oh, another mental midget chimes in that the bank should have made more profit on Trump's loans than they actually did. The bank lost nothing. They simply made less profit. I'd think someone of your ilk would be happy that a big corporation made less profit.
Click to expand...

You obviously know nothing about banking.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Oh, another mental midget chimes in that the bank should have made more profit on Trump's loans than they actually did. The bank lost nothing. They simply made less profit. I'd think someone of your ilk would be happy that a big corporation made less profit.
Click to expand...

Thanks for conceding that you thoroughly lost the debate, Judy. :rofl2:
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
The banks were harmed. They loan money and receive interest in exchange. Trump got a far more favorable interest rate on money loaned to him than if he had valued his collateral accurately. Therefore the bank was defrauded out of interest that they could have received had the valuations been correct. Yes, they received some interest plus the principle part of the loaned funds. But they should have received more interest. This isn't like a car loan where you pay a few hundred dollars in interest over the life of the loan. This is MILLIONS of dollars lost due to the fraud.
Click to expand...

Have the banks sued him???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top