POLITICS President Trump: 100+ Mornings After (Term 1 Complete)

30 pieces of silver sounds like a Murdoch contract

 

That isn’t how it works at all.

 

Giving a favorable rate to Trump in no way disqualifies another from getting a favorable rate. The fact that he made his payments actually increases the odds that the bank would be able to provide good rates.

 

Hunter Biden is selling doodles for a million a pop. I’m betting you could find a credible person in the art world willing to say they aren’t worth the canvas they’re on.

Banks had no obligation to trust Trump’s numbers. They examined them and found them satisfactory. Apparently someone looked at Hunter’s paintings and found them valuable (although it’s obviously a new way for him to get money anonymously, but that’s not something that can be proved and not really relevant to this discussion).

I think it could be argued valuing Maralago at 18 million might be more fraudulent than what Trump claimed it was worth.

 

In fact, government property assessors frequently raise property values with no basis simply to increase tax revenue. If one could find a sympathetic judge in NY (unlikely) I’d bet finding similar fraud by the city wouldn’t be that difficult.

 

Tell it to the judge. They said it was a corruption of the market and provided detailed reasoning.

 

I find it funny how this is justice to you.

 

What is justice for a Traitor?

 

To be convicted of being a traitor and then sentenced.

 

He did the thing. He doesn't even deny it. The thing is illegal. Ya, that's how it should work.

 

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Republican Trump Ass Kissers - He can't be impeached; this is a matter for the courts.

Republican Trump Ass Kissers - He can't be charged in the courts, he was not impeached.

 

Its going to the supreme court so the immunity part is going to go away pretty quick I think. After reading more I did understand what they were trying to say on the immunity part but in this case I don't think it flies and probably shouldn't.

 

Shit why did he even show up to court if he doesn't even deny it? So you think the penalty is fair and the system worked as it should?

 

I have no reason to believe otherwise. He made 10 million off the single incident i mentioned.

 

A guy making 600 bucks a week can get thousands in speeding tickets. I don't see how a billionaire getting fined hundreds of millions for making hundreds of millions in fraud is worse.

 

10 million how? How can that be known for certain. Its pretty clear you have zero business knowledge.

 

This is not a good comparison.

 

It is all in the ruling. The remedy was the "disgorgement" of profits. That is how they came to the huge figure in part, by adding up all of the profits from getting financing for a project or enterprise fraudulently and either later selling it off at a profit or in the calculated benefits from the rate gained through fraud.

"
Simply put, the Court
found that plaintiff had capacity and standing to sue; that non-party disclaimers and party
“worthless clauses” do not insulate defendants’ material misrepresentations; that intent, scienter,
and reliance are not elements of a stand-alone § 63(12) claim; that disgorgement of profits is an
available remedy; and that the subject financial statements materially misrepresented the value of
the Trump Tower Triplex, The Seven Springs Estate, certain apartments in Trump Park Avenue,
40 Wall Street, Mar-a-Lago, and a golf course in Aberdeen, Scotland. NYSCEF Doc. 1531."

Page 5, summary judgement. I am not a business expert. I think New York has some.

An example of the calculating the benefits gained through fraud on page 47 and 48:

"Michiel McCarty
Michiel McCarty testified as an expert witness for plaintiff on banking and capital markets. 28
He is the chairman and CEO of an investment bank called MM Dillon & Company, where he
works on debt, convertible, and equity transactions, and mergers and acquisitions. TT 3031-
3032. He has worked in the banking industry since 1975, holds an MBA from the Wharton
School with a concentration in capital markets, and has worked on financing engagements and
underwriting projects for Fannie Mae, the Marriot Corporation, AT&T, and the late Queen
Elizabeth II. TT 3032-3040.
He has been qualified as an expert witness more than a dozen times in adequacy of equity and
terms and conditions of debt, structure of debt, knowledge of participants who bought debt, and
generally in capital markets. TT 3037-3039.
In performing his expert review, McCarty conducted an analysis of the risk differentials of the
various loans and loan proposals at issue in this action. In so doing, he “looked at the internal
documents by Deutsche Bank of analyzing first the credit level of the guarantor versus the credit
level of the collateral, then the project itself without a guarantee” for the Doral, Old Post Office,
and Trump Chicago loans. TT 3051-3054.
In calculating the interest rate differentials for the perceived credit risks with and without a
personal guarantee on the Doral loan, McCarty took the competing loan proposal terms that
Deutsche Bank’s commercial real estate group had offered (which was LIBOR + 8% with a floor
of LIBOR + 2%, or 10%) and compared them to the terms extended by Deutsche Bank’s Private
Wealth Management Division that were contingent upon a personal guarantee from Donald
Trump (which was between 1.8% and 4.1%, depending on whether it was pre- or post-
renovation). PX 1780; TT 3066-3067, 3132-3136. He also analyzed the Old Post Office and
Trump Chicago Loan using the same method, comparing the terms offered by the Private Wealth
Management Division, which were contingent on a personal guarantee and relied on his SFCs,
with those offered by the commercial real estate group for a non-recourse loan. PX 1786, 1780,
3302; TT 3068-3074.
28 McCarty charged $950 per hour for his expert review, and, at the time he testified, he had received a
little under $400,000 in total for his time. TT 3085-3086. The list of documents that McCarty reviewed
is extensive and can be found in his expert report at Appendix B. PX 1780 at 50.
INDEX NO. 452564/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1688 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/16/2024
46 of 92
Page 47 of 92
452564/2022 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, BY LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK vs.
McCarty further testified that defendants profited by paying a lower interest rate on the 40 Wall
Street Ladder Capital loan based on a fraudulent SFC than the interest rate with a non-recourse
loan, and he compared the terms of the then-existing Capital One non-recourse loan that 40 Wall
Street was subject to before refinancing, with the terms extended by Ladder Capital.
McCarty’s calculations determined that Donald Trump improperly saved the following amounts
on interest as a result of the banks relying on Donald Trump’s fraudulent SFCs and personal
guarantee: (1) $72,908,308 from 2014-2022 on the Doral loan; (2) $53,423,209 from 2015-2022
on the Old Post Office loan; (3) $17,443,359 from 2014-2022 on the Chicago loan; and (4)
$24,265,291 from 2015-2022 on the 40 Wall Street loan. PX 3302.
McCarty thoughtfully and logically explained why, contrary to defendants’ assertions, using the
default penalty rate would have been inappropriate, and, in any event, McCarty calculated the
differential using the default penalty rate and determined it would be larger than the numbers he
calculated in his report. PX 3077-3078. In fact, McCarty used conservative measures; by way
of example, even though interest rates were rising in 2017, 2018, and 2019, McCarty used a
standard flat 10% interest rate, resulting in significantly lower interest rate differentials than had
he calculated using the floating market interest rate. TT 3057-3058. He similarly conservatively
calculated his numbers using simple, not compound interest, which does not consider the time
value of money. TT 3082.
The method McCarty used to determine the amount of money defendants saved by borrowing
with full recourse, such as from Deutsche Bank’s Private Wealth Management Division, as
opposed to borrowing non-recourse, such as from Deutsche Bank’s Commercial Real Estate
Division, is simple in theory, although a little tricky in application. This Court reviewed
McCarty’s numbers and performed calculations to confirm his method and accuracy: four
examples should suffice:
(1) In 2020 the Doral loan was $125,000,000. Applying the non-recourse rate of
10% (or .01) results in an interest payment of $12,500,000. Applying the
recourse rate of 1.9348% (or .019348) results in an interest payment of
$2,418,500. Subtracting the latter from the former yields a saving of
$10,081,500, as seen on PX3302, page 4.
(2) Also in 2020, the Old Post Office loan was $170,000,000. Applying the non-
recourse rate of 8% (or .08) results in an interest payment of $13,600,000.
Applying the recourse rate of 1.9348% (or .019348) results in an interest
payment of $3,289,160. Subtracting the latter from the former yields a saving
of $10,310,840, as seen on PX3302, page 4.
(3) In 2019 the Trump Chicago loan was $45,000,000. Applying the non-
recourse rate of 7.5% (or .07500) results in an interest payment of $3,375,000.
Applying the recourse rate of 4.4116% (or .044116) results in an interest
payment of $1,985,220. Subtracting the latter from the former yields a saving
of $1,389,780, which is $13 more than the amount McCarty used, $1,389,767,
presumably because of a rounding differential, and in any event de minimis.
INDEX NO. 452564/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1688 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/16/2024
47 of 92
Page 48 of 92
452564/2022 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, BY LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK vs.
(4) In 2018 the Trump Chicago loan was $45,000,000. Applying the non-
recourse rate of 7.5% (.07500) again results in an interest payment of
$3,375,000. Applying the recourse rate of 4.0464% (or .040464) results in an
interest payment $1,820,880. Subtracting the latter from the former yields a
saving of $1,554,110, which is $19 less than the amount McCarty used,
$1,554,129, presumably because of a rounding differential, in any event de
minimis, and largely cancelled out by the $13 lower amount McCarty used for
Chicago, 2019.
McCarty calculated that defendants saved $72,908,308 on the Doral loan, $53,423,209 on the
Old Post Office loan, $17,443,359 on the Trump Chicago loan, and $24,265,291 on the 40 Wall
Street loan, for a grand total of $168,040,167, one dollar less than McCarty’s $168,040,168,
presumably because of a rounding differential (or user error by a non-accountant, and in any case
de minimis).
Defendants do not accept McCarty’s methodology, which this Court finds to be air-tight, but
they do not challenge his calculations, which this Court finds to be correct. The expert
defendants called to the stand to challenge McCarty’s methodology, Robert Unell, left McCarty
unscathed"

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24432591/ruling-in-donald-trumps-civil-fraud-trial.pdf

 

Capitalism is dead if you read this correctly. States are just making things up as they go or at least this garbage state is.

 

Will they start looking at estates that are under valued when gifting to family? That happens all the time.