LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Trump banker testifies that they did DD and got all monies lent paid back. So where was any fraud committed?

The fraud was only in the fevered minds of the anti-American Democrat Party.
 
If I steal money from the bank, invest it and then give it back, obviously no theft ever took place - except in the fevered minds of the anti-American capitalists.
 
Bray123 said:
If I steal money from the bank, invest it and then give it back, obviously no theft ever took place - except in the fevered minds of the anti-American capitalists.
Click to expand...
He was not charged with stealing any money. That is a figment of your fevered imagination.
 
Bray123 said:
It was fraud. The bank was defrauded, try to imagine it.
Click to expand...
According to testimony, the bank assessed the values of the properties themselves prior to making any financial deals. Thus, if there was fraud, it was the bank defrauding itself.

What James is hinging her prosecution on is that the bank didn't agree with the values which Trump said the properties were worth. This is where she claims he was inflating the prices.

Unfortunately for James this theory doesn't work in the free marketplace. For instance, if I'm selling a car and believe it's worth $15,000 I didn't inflate the value. If someone offers me $10,00 for the case and I accept, the original asking price is not fraudulent when compared to the selling price. Instead acceptance of the lower price is based on what the buyer was willing to pay.

Here, the bank didn't accept the valuations Trump gave them. Instead the bank offered loans based on their lower assessments of the value of the properties and Trump accepted. This is not fraud, it's offer/acceptance and consistent with the time honored tradition of bargaining.
 
1. Facts and reality fuel my hatred.
2. You can continue arguing ad nauseam that no fraud has been committed but thatā€™s not what this judge has said he is determining.
3. Allen Weisselbergā€˜s testimony has been damaging towards trump.
4. This link only shows that Nicholas Haigh and Deutsche Bank took whatever holdings trump, represented by Weisselberg, gave without doing proper risk management. That does not excuse the original fraud.
5. This link indicates that Trump intends on testifying. I do not see this happening, but eagerly await for the defendant his right to clear the air and set my wrongful hatred straight.
 
HisArpy said:
According to testimony, the bank assessed the values of the properties themselves prior to making any financial deals. Thus, if there was fraud, it was the bank defrauding itself.

What James is hinging her prosecution on is that the bank didn't agree with the values which Trump said the properties were worth. This is where she claims he was inflating the prices.

Unfortunately for James this theory doesn't work in the free marketplace. For instance, if I'm selling a car and believe it's worth $15,000 I didn't inflate the value. If someone offers me $10,00 for the case and I accept, the original asking price is not fraudulent when compared to the selling price. Instead acceptance of the lower price is based on what the buyer was willing to pay.

Here, the bank didn't accept the valuations Trump gave them. Instead the bank offered loans based on their lower assessments of the value of the properties and Trump accepted. This is not fraud, it's offer/acceptance and consistent with the time honored tradition of bargaining.
Click to expand...
Please shut your hole until someone with legal expertise chimes in.
 
HisArpy said:
According to testimony, the bank assessed the values of the properties themselves prior to making any financial deals. Thus, if there was fraud, it was the bank defrauding itself.

What James is hinging her prosecution on is that the bank didn't agree with the values which Trump said the properties were worth. This is where she claims he was inflating the prices.

Unfortunately for James this theory doesn't work in the free marketplace. For instance, if I'm selling a car and believe it's worth $15,000 I didn't inflate the value. If someone offers me $10,00 for the case and I accept, the original asking price is not fraudulent when compared to the selling price. Instead acceptance of the lower price is based on what the buyer was willing to pay.

Here, the bank didn't accept the valuations Trump gave them. Instead the bank offered loans based on their lower assessments of the value of the properties and Trump accepted. This is not fraud, it's offer/acceptance and consistent with the time honored tradition of bargaining.
Click to expand...
And there you have it, another well-crafted refutation of left-wing ignorance.(y)
 
HisArpy said:
According to testimony, the bank assessed the values of the properties themselves prior to making any financial deals. Thus, if there was fraud, it was the bank defrauding itself.

What James is hinging her prosecution on is that the bank didn't agree with the values which Trump said the properties were worth. This is where she claims he was inflating the prices.

Unfortunately for James this theory doesn't work in the free marketplace. For instance, if I'm selling a car and believe it's worth $15,000 I didn't inflate the value. If someone offers me $10,00 for the case and I accept, the original asking price is not fraudulent when compared to the selling price. Instead acceptance of the lower price is based on what the buyer was willing to pay.

Here, the bank didn't accept the valuations Trump gave them. Instead the bank offered loans based on their lower assessments of the value of the properties and Trump accepted. This is not fraud, it's offer/acceptance and consistent with the time honored tradition of bargaining.
Click to expand...


Iā€™m not gonna make fun of you here.
Iā€™ll refer you to my 2nd point.

2. You can continue arguing ad nauseam that no fraud has been committed but thatā€™s not what this judge has said he is determining.
 
Rightguide said:
And there you have it, another well-crafted refutation of left-wing ignorance.(y)
Click to expand...

Fraud is defined as a knowingly false statement, made with the intent for someone to rely upon it, and there was actual reliance, to the detriment of the person relying on the statement.

Here, Trump didn't make a knowingly false statement. The values are what he believed the properties to be worth. Those values weren't intended for the bank to rely upon them because Trump knew the bank would appraise the properties. Finally, the fact that the bank did appraise the properties shows they didn't rely on Trump's numbers. Nor did the bank suffer any harm or loss in doing so.

There is no fraud here except in the fact that Letticia James believes she has a case.
 
HisArpy said:
Fraud is defined as a knowingly false statement, made with the intent for someone to rely upon it, and there was actual reliance, to the detriment of the person relying on the statement.

Here, Trump didn't make a knowingly false statement. The values are what he believed the properties to be worth. Those values weren't intended for the bank to rely upon them because Trump knew the bank would appraise the properties. Finally, the fact that the bank did appraise the properties shows they didn't rely on Trump's numbers. Nor did the bank suffer any harm or loss in doing so.

There is no fraud here except in the fact that Letticia James believes she has a case.
Click to expand...
You could fit what you and trump "know" on a pin head.
 
HisArpy said:
Fraud is defined as a knowingly false statement, made with the intent for someone to rely upon it, and there was actual reliance, to the detriment of the person relying on the statement.

Here, Trump didn't make a knowingly false statement. The values are what he believed the properties to be worth. Those values weren't intended for the bank to rely upon them because Trump knew the bank would appraise the properties. Finally, the fact that the bank did appraise the properties shows they didn't rely on Trump's numbers. Nor did the bank suffer any harm or loss in doing so.

There is no fraud here except in the fact that Letticia James believes she has a case.
Click to expand...

Thank you for this!
This allows me to bring home my first point of factual hatred.
See, I ALREADY KNOW that the Trump organization has already paid a sizable fine of 25 mil for defrauding veterans with his fake online university.
I ALREADY KNOW that the trump Foundation had to pay 2 million to various charities in New York and that he and his children arenā€™t allowed to run anymore charities without significant oversight.
All this (my hatred of known facts) would preclude me from being an impartial juror.
It does not preclude Letitia James, or any competent AG, from bringing other charges of fraud.
 
Let me repeat my first reason for factual hatred, but much, much slower so that my pro-military, chicken hawk friends on the right can follow:

Defrauding! Military veterans! 25 million!

Unfit for office then. Unfit for office now.
 
The fraud is that such over-under evaluation is fraudulent, and loans gotten this way are denying loans to those not being fraudulent. Was this a trick question? Is the OP having trouble with his/her moral compass?
 
18xoxo said:
Of course, the amount of hate towards him blinds all to facts Clearly, the testimony in court by the bank today indicated that they double and triple checked. Everything. Didn't trust them at all and lend him the money. Based on their own calculations and there was no fraud. No crime, nobody lost money, no victim.
Click to expand...
 
KeithD said:
The fraud is that such over-under evaluation is fraudulent, and loans gotten this way are denying loans to those not being fraudulent. Was this a trick question? Is the OP having trouble with his/her moral compass?
Click to expand...
The bank didn't lend on his evaluation, the bank lent on the evaluation of their own evaluatorss
 
Bn2F
You can post any links of irrelevant cases, but they have no bearing on the NY case.
 
Trump's fraud resulted in unexpected and unintended risk for the financial institutions. Whether that resulted in harm is irrelevant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

U
Trump, Clinton and Soros
Replies
3
Views
574
Ulaven_Demorte
Ulaven_Demorte
4
Why are they always so angry, bitter and personal?
2
Replies
41
Views
1K
coastal-boy
C
SusanJillParker
  • Locked
Wow! They rejected my story, an essay, actually. What happened to freedom of speech?
2 3 4
Replies
94
Views
6K
AwkwardlySet
AwkwardlySet
VaticanAssassin
So the Wall Street crew are marching for this guy?
Replies
12
Views
835
akatrex
akatrex
Obama_Sucks
Your Assignment: Compile Obamaā€™s Flip-Flops
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
Pad_Foot
Pad_Foot
Back
Top