Most Trump antagonists seem to be laughing and salivating. I suppose they would enjoy seeing the man tortured. It's bizarrely shortsighted. Do they think Trump is uniquely evil and nothing that happens to him will set a precedent?
ADDED: I made a tag for Cenk Uygur, then searched my archive and found I'd only used his name once before, in the end of 2007, when another blogger was listing the year's worst quotes from The Daily Kos. I wrote:
Let's see what 10 things Jack came up with:
9) ... So, is the argument that Jesus didn't have a d*ck?" -- Cenk Uygur
Okay, I cut most of the quote, because it was just dumb meandering about a chocolate Jesus and why are people so uptight about it. It reads like a transcript of a high schooler's late-night YouTube. I'll just turn on the camera and see what comes out. Presumably, "Cenk Uygur" is the name or pen name of the person doing the typing. Who cares?
The name is more familiar now, but I'm only just noticing how he sees himself: "What to know about Democratic presidential candidate Cenk Uygur/Cenk Uygur is a political commentator known for co-creating 'The Young Turks'" (ABC News). That had flown under my radar until 5 minutes ago.
Posts
109 comments:
Most Trump antagonists seem to be laughing and salivating
Just substitute Jews for Trump and it all becomes historically understandable.
"Someday, of course, what goes around will come around for Democrats"
I have mentioned this numerous times on this blog .... the Harry Reid orchestrated filibuster change on judge confirmations. The Lefties think they will be in power forever.
The other thing that our Commie friends are discovering is the tide is slowly turning on Trump's legal cases.
The Dems have a very short memory. Don't they remember that Harry Reid's prior change to the filibuster rules (cloture) led to the Supreme Court being 6-3 conservative majority?
Short answer: yes
I'm a life-long conservative but have never voted for Trump. He is a vulgar buffoon unfit to be President. He can be boorish and stupidly self-destructive. An 11 year old boy in a rich, bloated body.
That said, the two NY cases that seek to destroy him financially will force me to vote for him for the first time as a protest. I think others will do the same.
(FYI, in Massachusetts so my voted doesn't matter)
I won't allow these assholes to think past the verdict. There’s no such thing as ‘objective valuation methods’- it is something an old leftie judge on his way out of life used to gain a guilty verdict. There’s no ‘old laws on the books’ or whatever fanciful thing trending this week to justify it. It’s a verdict that capitalizes on the public innumeracy and emotion and nothing else…
…and yes, like all the other dirty tricks they pull the left should suffer the consequences. Good thing is, in their zeal for domination many of them have become real criminals, so on the off chance a constructive batch of politicos congeals they won’t have to rely on the lawless tactics the left is using…
Do they think Trump is uniquely evil and nothing that happens to him will set a precedent?
Sorry but based on past behavior, they do not have the ability to see 4 minutes into the future to reason out how this may [and likely will] come back around and bite them in the ass.
They learned ZERO from all the #metoo astroturfing. Targeted Trump but would up hitting many more of their own. Side benefit, finished exposing the feminists movement for the hypocritical hacks they always were.
Trump antagonists is about 0.002% of the population, so when Althouse says most, it's still a very very small number of actual people. She's using the same tictac as the global warming carbon reduction statistical two-step.
I only know that turks guy from the exploding heads videos from the night Trump won. Imma look those videos up for a mood elevator with a cocktail later…
Just like the French Revolution, sort of.
The radicals in 1793 seized property owned by the church and royals. They called their policy Biens Nationaux....For the Good of the Nation.
In 1794 came the Thermidorian Reaction in which the most extreme radicals lost their heads.
No matter. Things stayed bad. Food shortages caused riots. Inflation worsened.
In came Napoleon in 1799. War for 15 years until he was exiled. The first time.
Fun times!
The Left in general has so lost their minds over Trump, I cannot even look at them as sane people any longer. My view of the lot of them and their approach to Trump is shown here.
She's a witch!.
"He is a vulgar buffoon unfit to be President. "
This crap makes me angry. The buffoon as you call him was instrumental in overturning Roe v. Wade. You're an idiot. Stay in Massachusetts please.
It reads like a transcript of a high schooler's late-night YouTube.
He may have flown under your radar, but it sounds like you had the measure of the man from the start.
Every time Dems have dominated Washington, they thought they would have a permanent majority and so they don't have to worry about setting precedents that may one day be used against them.
rrsafety .
What is it about peace and prosperity that you find particularly odious?
You're concerned with outward appearances. What he says. I'm concerned about what he does.
Prediction: When (not if) the exact same sort of lawfare is turned toward Democrats, the media will uniformly describe it as "unprecedented."
Why haven't I heard the term "Catch-22" applied to Trump having to post the ridiculous bond before he can appeal the ridiculous bond?
Dems lovin themselves on some bullying. They even required classes on it in school systems.
Expertise in action..
But, but... Trump is spreading hate and disenfranchisement.
isn't it NEAT?
how many "life-long conservatives", have never voted for anyone but a democrat in their entire lives?
The communist Neo-Marxist lying liar left are short-sided?
Yes.
Most Trump antagonists seem to be laughing and salivating
The antagonists salivating the most are the withes on The View.
My brain froze at "chocolate Jesus".
Democrats think they will never not be in power, and they will employ any means necessary to make it so. All for the greater good, of course.
It's bizarrely shortsighted.
It's also bizarre in that none one them seem aware that they're championing the "oppressors" in the banking industry.
The Lefties think they will be in power forever.“
No. They just never look beyond the end of their noses.
Really! What took them so long?
I’m not a Trump fan but the Democrats are about to be the dog that caught the car. This whole proceeding is so blatantly political and, yes, unfair, that the undecided voters are offended. It will energize the Trump faithful and, when the ads start running about how unfair the whole proceeding is, it probably will turn the undecideds away from the Ds. The Ds may rue the day this started.
rrsafety said...
(FYI, in Massachusetts so my voted doesn't matter)
I think this view is understandable but very short-sighted. Yes, it's almost impossible for any one vote to be proven determinative in even a small election, and more so where one party is dominant. While it's true that the national popular vote has no Constitutional role in the Presidential election I expect that even more social and legal pressure will be brought to bear on Electors to throw their EVs if Trump does win than happened in 2016. A popular vote plurality or even majority likely won't stop it but it should provide a pretty blatant illustration of how much of our Constitutional and legal procedures the Democrats are willing to destroy to 'protect Our Democracy(TM)' (i.e. their grip on power).
“William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”
Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”
William Roper: “Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!”
Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!”
― Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons: A Play in Two Acts
It's structure (right) vs feelings (left). The left seeing something coming back to bite you moves a structure problem which they're incapable of seeing into the realm of feelings, where they can see it.
The founding fathers were structure guys right off.
To be fair to the leftists, they've spent the last six decades or so listening to conservatives cry out "next time there will be consequences", so it's understandable that most of them are calling another bluff.
Pfft. I'm more worthy of an Althouse tag than Cenk Uygur. Fortunately.... :-)
--- Most Trump antagonists seem to be laughing and salivating. I suppose they would enjoy seeing the man tortured. It's bizarrely shortsighted.
Yes, another day will arrive for them.
On that day the deaf will hear the words of the scroll,
and out of the deep darkness the eyes of the blind will see...
For the ruthless will vanish, the mockers will disappear,
and all who look for evil will be cut down—
those who indict a man with a word, who ensnare the mediator at the gate,
and who with false charges deprive the innocent of justice.
--Isaiah 29:18-21
Most Trump antagonists seem to be laughing and salivating. Yup. And a few of them post comments here every single day and glory in it.
Well, that's embarrassing, I miscomputed something. LOL
.002% of the population is 6600. I think that's an underestimate.
As penance for my poor math this morning, I will go shovel snow.
I think I finally know how to pronounce this guys name: Jenk Weeger.
“ Humperdink said.. "He is a vulgar buffoon unfit to be President. "
This crap makes me angry. The buffoon as you call him was instrumental in overturning Roe v. Wade. You're an idiot. Stay in Massachusetts please”
Humperdink, you don’t understand: rrsafety is a Principled Conservative. He is noble and high. He is Steve Hayes and Jonah Goldberg. He deigns, here, down to our rabble level. You must wash his feet.
He Gets Us.
YouTube: What is being done to Trump, in our name is a microcosm of a regression to our earliest crude instincts.
More: The regression, mentioned above, removes the possibility of error correction.
Either with it, or against it, full throttle, all the time.
"It's bizarrely shortsighted."
Why? Precedent doesn't matter. Lawfare works only one-way. The left fights, the right not so much. Which lefty billionaire should be afraid?
Cynically speaking, gamblng that the Left's Lawfare will never come back to bite them is a safe bet. New York, California, DC and any other deep blue state is never going to prosecute Leftists under the same legal standards they apply to Trump and his supporters, and in any event, the judges and jury pools can be counted on to acquit any that are. Look at the non-prosecution of BLM/Antifa rioters and insurrectionists for burning down and looting major business and police stations contrasted with the minor offenses of Jan. 6 demonstrators serving felony time in prison.
All the coffee spilled from my overturned cup as my jaw dropped onto my desk. Lefties actually looking at the banana-republic tactics that have been used against Trump and concluding, "This ain't right. Something smells."
I'm jealous. I miss shoveling snow. New Hampshire and Vermont are getting a foot on Saturday. God to Massholes: no snow for you!
All the coffee spilled onto my desk from my jaw drop. Lefties actually looking at the banana-republic tactics that have been used against Trump and concluding, "This ain't right. Something smells."
What I find interesting is how common it is for Trump to do what he did. It is the basis behind good branding. Put Versace or Coach on an ordinary purse made in Mexico or Asia and it will cost orders of magnitude more than the same purse without the brand. That is what Trump did, and the "fraud" is partisan politicians claims that his brand isn't worth that much. Except the banks agreed with Trump, took the risk, and both of them were proven right when Trump repaid the loans. Now New York has exercised a law that says this type of free trade is no longer legitimate, and again, it is very common in New York.
Whether this will be used against Democrats in the future is irrelevant. It will be used against others and already is. Letitia James is using the law against other businesses like they are the tobacco industry and it is 1998 again. What businesses did lawfully just a year ago is now illegal, and there is no ex post facto, because the statute has been on the books since 1956. You don't have to like Trump to realize Democrats have now made normal activities illegal, which means you may be a criminal too.
“Do they think Trump is uniquely evil and nothing that happens to him will set a precedent?”
This ascribes to the most vicious Trump haters a sense of logic and proportion that hasn’t fallen sloppy dead. (I hate him too and wish he’d gone away long ago but have maintained some maturity about it.) Instead, their position is explained by the scorpion and the frog.
Althouse said "Do they think Trump is uniquely evil and nothing that happens to him will set a precedent?" Yes, they think both of those things. Thinking Trump is uniquely evil demonstrates their inability to look in the mirror (or maybe they are vampires and literally can't see themselves in a mirror). And yes, they do think that it won't set any precedence that can be used against them. I suspect (and hope) that they are wrong about this one, too.
If the cratering of prices of office space in NYC, and the mass reduction of commercial real estate valuation there wasn't enough, Letitia is insuring that the last business left there may or may not turn off the lights. Enjoy your shithole.
There is good reason the founders prohibited Bills of Attainder. Democrats with TDS have forgotten this.
“I won't allow these assholes to think past the verdict. There’s no such thing as ‘objective valuation methods’- it is something an old leftie judge on his way out of life used to gain a guilty verdict. There’s no ‘old laws on the books’ or whatever fanciful thing trending this week to justify it. It’s a verdict that capitalizes on the public innumeracy and emotion and nothing else…”
True, but irrelevant here. The judge (intentionally) skipped the fact finding aspect of determining value through use of county appraisal values, which are notoriously inaccurate, invariably on the low side. One reason for that is that they are used for assessing property taxes. You appeal if they are too high, and don’t if they are too low. And if they are really high, you keep appealing. We go though this every 3 years for our properties in CO.
What the judge should have done, if he had truly been interested in the actual value of the properties at the time that the values were documented, was allow expert testimony, where comparables and the like are evaluated. Essentially redoing and rehashing the work done by the lenders before lending such large sums (the amount of work they put into it naturally depends on how much money they are lending). Yes, it isn’t perfect, but far better than the judge did, and good enough here that the lenders did not lose a cent on then loans. This sort of thing isn’t unprecedented - every time that a loan goes underwater, and into foreclosure, and esp large, one of a kind, loans (not as much the syndicated home ownership loans) like these by Trump, the question is why? Did someone lie? If they did, then maybe some of the loss can be recouped.
But he wasn’t interested in determining a fair value for the properties, because he wouldn’t have had a case, wouldn’t have been able to “get Trump”. The whole thing was a LawFare scam. He knew that his validation, and resulting fine, wouldn’t survive appeal. LawFare always assumes that. It doesn’t matter because of the NY rule that the excess fine, plus interest and costs, must be covered by a bond in order to appeal the judgment. And by freezing Trump’s ability to do business in NYC, that deprived Trump of the ability to borrow against the property.
God to Massholes: no snow for you!
That kinda quote just makes me picture Elaine holding a sheaf of soup recipes.
Happily (for me, at least) the heaviest snow band is south/east of Madison. I think what I shoveled is all I need to do today. Hard to accumulate when so much incoming solar energy leaks through the clouds.
"Do they think Trump is uniquely evil and nothing that happens to him will set a precedent?"
Quite the contrary. They are concerned that unless they make it clear that resistance is futile, there will be others who resist assimilation.
And then there is THIS..from Jonathan Turley!
"As a lifelong Democrat from a politically active Chicago family, I can no longer recognize the party from my youth. We once stood for something other than the next election or hating others.
By the end of the hearing, virtually every Democratic member had attacked the witnesses and denied the obvious corruption surrounding the Biden family. They had become a party of Richard Riches. Of course, this unified effort to deny the obvious left little time to look down at what remained in their hands. They had owned the moment when the party fought to shield one of the most extensive and lucrative influence peddling operations in history.
After that ignoble effort, there was little reason to look down since they “needn’t hope to find [themselves] again.”"
https://jonathanturley.org/2024/03/22/the-dripping-away-of-the-democratic-party-sir-thomas-more-and-the-biden-corruption-scandal/
Here, by the way, is an account of a New York organization that inflated the value of some real estate, in order to secure a mortgage, which it then failed to repay. NY AG Letitia (D-Total Corruption) has blocked the lender's attempts to foreclose on the property.
"You're concerned with outward appearances. What he says."
Lifelong republican. GOPe. You know, Democrat Lite.
Intellectually, it makes no sense whatsoever. My guess is that the intensity of desire to torture Trump among a sufficient number of people in the places that make the decisions that get made to facilitate the process we are watching is at a level equal to the libido of college boys on the beach at spring break.
This is the best opportunity they will ever get, and they just can't help themselves. Will the local authorities take control or will they decide to just let it rip? "To hell with the yokels and their votes!?!"
So many questions.
Leland said...
Except the banks agreed with Trump, took the risk, and both of them were proven right when Trump repaid the loans.
3/22/24, 9:33 AM
It is worse that that. The banks did NOT agree with Trump. Banks ignored what the load submitters claims their real estate collateral is worth and specifically pay other people to apprise the property and independently assign a value to that property.
Where is the fraud IF someone hands you a gold nugget and tells you they want to borrow $100 against it and "all is good cause it is worth $100K" whereas you turn to YOUR professional goal nugget appraiser who says that in his opinion said nugget is worth $75K. You making the $100 loan? Absolutely!
Where is the fraud?!?
Watching Cenk Uygur debate is a treat. His go to is, "you can google it".
Bless his heart
'The essence of Trump’s argument on appeal is that the supposed harm he caused was minimal at best — all his lenders were repaid'
Read the applicable state statute and read the opinion and you will find that not only is harm to lenders NOT an element under the statute or otherwise relevant, but that Trump argued this so many times in the trial court and got ruled against because of the plain wording of the statute, that his lawyers were threatened with sanctions for continuing to raise it.
Trump's fraudulent misvaluations of the properties held by him and the Trump Organization (such as valuing Mar-a-Lago as if houses could be built on it when in fact the property is deed-restricted to be only a social club and hence less marketable/valuable) are themselves a harm to the public under the statute. No victims required. Just like shooting a gun at someone is a harm to the public even if the shot misses and the person is uninjured.
The Democrats behave as if they know they will never actually be out of power again- and I am no longer sure they aren't correct about this belief. Mail-in-balloting was the camel body under the tent, and I see no reason at all that, with complete control of the DoJ, that they can't simply manufacture whatever votes they need to win the Presidency, the House, and the Senate this coming November. With that trifecta, they will proceed to eliminate the filibuster and pack the court system with new judicial nominees at every level. You are literally seeing a slow motion coup to one party rule. Think California, but coast to coast.
The statute at issue is New York Executive Law § 63(12). It's been on the books for years. But like with everything else, Trump thought he could just do whatever the hell he wanted to do, including dictating to his accountants what numbers to put in the annual financial statements to the lenders.
And as the court ruled, "materiality under this statute is judged not by reference to reliance by or materiality to a particular victim, but rather on whether the financial statement 'properly reflected the financial condition' of the person to which the statement pertains. People v Essner, 124 Misc 2d 830, 835 (Sup Ct, NY County 1984) ('there need be no ‘victim,’ ergo, reliance is neither an element of the crime nor a valid yardstick with which to test the materiality of a false statement')."
New York Executive Law § 63(12):
12. Whenever any person shall engage in repeated fraudulent or illegal acts or otherwise demonstrate persistent fraud or illegality in the carrying on, conducting or transaction of business, the attorney general may apply, in the name of the people of the state of New York, to the supreme court of the state of New York, on notice of five days, for an order enjoining the continuance of such business activity or of any fraudulent or illegal acts, directing restitution and damages and, in an appropriate case, cancelling any certificate filed under and by virtue of the provisions of section four hundred forty of the former penal law or section one hundred thirty of the general business law, and the court may award the relief applied for or so much thereof as it may deem proper.
The word "fraud" or "fraudulent" as used herein shall include any device, scheme or artifice to defraud and any deception, misrepresentation, concealment, suppression, false pretense, false promise or unconscionable contractual provisions. The term "persistent fraud" or "illegality" as used herein shall include continuance or carrying on of any fraudulent or illegal act or conduct. The term "repeated" as used herein shall include repetition of any separate and distinct fraudulent or illegal act, or conduct which affects more than one person.
Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, all monies recovered or obtained under this subdivision by a state agency or state official or employee acting in their official capacity shall be subject to subdivision eleven of section four of the state finance law.
In connection with any such application, the attorney general is authorized to take proof and make a determination of the relevant facts and to issue subpoenas in accordance with the civil practice law and rules. Such authorization shall not abate or terminate by reason of any action or proceeding brought by the attorney general under this section.
The wording in bold indicates the entirety of the elements of the offense. No victim is required. No showing of loss or harm is required. The misrepresentation is itself the offense, period.
Another misrepresentation on Trump's financial statements to lenders was valuing rental properties at current market value. The problem being that Trump knew that many of those units were rent controlled, meaning that they did NOT have current market value - any purchaser could NOT get today's rental, but only the controlled amount which might be substantially less. Hence, it was a false misrepresentation.
That lenders may or may not have done their own valuations believing Trump to be a dishonest blowhard requiring due diligence on their part, that they may or may not have relied on what Trump said or did not say does not obviate the falsity of those financial statements.
"As penance for my poor math this morning, I will go shovel snow."
You were going to do that anyway. True penance would be you coming over and shoveling my snow.
"Happily (for me, at least) the heaviest snow band is south/east of Madison."
Is there a link to a snowfall map?
This is what is wrong with the "Right" in the USA. Byron York is a perfect example. Whenver the Liberal/left does something insane and outrageous, they don't get MAD and ANGRY and fight back. Instead its "Well, they'll be sorry" "well, they shot themselves in the foot on this one" "Boy, wait till the shoe's on other foot!"
I hate to tell you this, but it doesn't matter that there's now a presedent (sic). Because there's ZERO desire on the part of Conservative Judges or the DC Republican Politicans to retaliate. None. Look at how the SCOTUS judges have been treated by the Senate. Every leftwinger get numerous Republican votes and after a few mild questions gets confirmed. Every Republican judge gets put throught the wringer. Some even get turned down. No Democrat SCOTUS judge gets turned down. Garland would be on the Court right now if Hillary had won because Hatch already said he'd vote for him!
Has anyone gone after the Democrat Appeals judges in DC? No. Meanwhile the press and the Democrats in DC are attacking Alioto and Thomas non-stop. Where's the retaliation? There is none. There is NO blowback for the Democrats abusing the system.
Mark keeps using phrases like "of the statute" and "under the statute" apparently completely ignorant that it is a 1956 NY State Consumer Protection law, not one designed to "protect lenders" but to protect consumers. In the case Mark references it is Trump who is the customer, the consumer of banking services.
Try harder lefties or stop repeating your #fakenews/Threads talking points. At least point out the consumer who was harmed "under the statute" in question. Or better still, quote the relevant part where "the statute" is designed to "protect lenders" so we can gauge your honesty [LOL].
The left is making sure that they never will lose another election. Demographics are destiny, people. Just because the minor hiccough that blacks and hispanics sat home and refused to vote for Hillary the way they did for Obama is easily solved. Just open the border and import an entire new class of left votes.
Please don't insult my intelligence by pretending dozens of states aren't already planning on how to make sure the "new Americans" can vote.
What the judge should have done, if he had truly been interested in the actual value of the properties at the time that the values were documented, was allow expert testimony, where comparables and the like are evaluated
See pages 46 to 60 of the opinion for the judge's summary of the testimony of the experts that the judge DID allow at trial.
You folks really need to stop being ignorant. Expert Fredrick Chin, offered by defendants, was particularly devastating to Trump saying that many of the valuations that appeared in Donald Trump’s SFCs contained “as if” valuations without taking into consideration "as is" land use restrictions that encumbered the properties or sort of restrictions that limited
possible uses, which would negatively affect the value of the properties.
But why have experts when you have the greatest expert of all, Trump himself?
Here's the part of the opinion about Trump's testimony:
When examined about the valuation of Mar-a-Lago, Donald Trump did not recall having any specific conversations with Weisselberg or McConney about valuing it as a private residence, although he conceded that it was valued on the SFCs as if it could be sold as a private residence TT 3527-3530. When confronted with the 2002 deed18 in which he signed away, in perpetuity, the right to use or develop Mar-a-Lago as anything other than as a social club, in exchange for a conservation easement tax benefit, he offered that “when you say, ‘intend,’ intend doesn’t mean we will do it.” PX 1730; TT 3533-3535.
Nonetheless, Donald Trump insisted that he believed Mar-a-Lago is worth “between a billion and a billion five” today, which would require not only valuing it as a private residence, which the deed prohibits,19 but as more than the most expensive private residence listed in the country by approximately 400%.20 TT 3530.
When questioned about Aberdeen, and whether he was aware that the SFCs for 2014-2018 valued the property as if the Trump Organization could build 2500 year-round private residences (when in fact, they had received permission to build only 500), Donald Trump testified: “I don’t
know, but it could very well be. It’s sort of like a painting. You could do pretty much what you want to do. The land is there. You could do what you want to do. So you could do either one of them, actually.” TT 3539-3547.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the 2014-2018 SFCs valued Aberdeen not only as if Donald Trump had permission to develop 2500 private year-round residences, which he did not, but also as if those residences had already been built, and the SFCs and supporting data failed to account for any development costs associated with making the hypothetical residences a reality. PX 719, 731, 742, 758, 774.
Mark said...
That lenders may or may not have done their own valuations believing Trump to be a dishonest blowhard requiring due diligence on their part, that they may or may not have relied on what Trump said or did not say does not obviate the falsity of those financial statements.
3/22/24, 10:51 AM
What Trump did or did not say has squat to do with bank/lender actions. The lender has a fiduciary duty to do their own due diligence and assess the soundness of the loan as well as the viability/applicability of the collateral. They are required to ensure the value of the collateral covers the lender's exposure/liability. How can you not get that?
Mark,
The only valuations that ever mattered legally in the loans were those that were contained in the final signed contract- the ones the lenders literally agreed to themselves. Everything before that was part of a negotiation between Trump Inc. and the lenders, and you know this, don't you? If a New Yorker sells his house, must his written asking price reflect its "true value"? Must the purchaser offer a price that reflects this "true value". At the bottom of all of this is the logically impossible task of knowing what the value of an asset really is absent the actual auctioning and selling of the asset to establish this value. The judge in the case was simply doing the exact same thing Trump and the lenders were doing- taking a self-serving guess at this "true" value.
You disappoint me- I thought better of you for a long time. I certainly wouldn't hire you as a lawyer.
Of course, it's not just Don Sr., it's Eric too.
Here's the summary of the testimony Sheri Dillon, tax lawyer for the Trump Organization:
In April 2014, Cushman & Wakefield submitted a written appraisal to Dillon, valuing the hypothetical 71-unit development at Briarcliff at $43.3 million. PX 3194; TT 2687. Dillon confirmed that it would have been her practice to share the values with her client along the way. TT 2687. Notwithstanding, beginning in November 2015, Eric Trump instructed McConney to leave the value of the 71 units at just over $101 million. PX 742, 758, 843. TT 3378-3379. He continued to do this for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 SFCs.
By at least June 2014, Dillon became aware that the Trump Organization’s rights to build units at Briarcliff had been reduced from 71 units to 31 units. PX 3261; TT 2701-2702. Notwithstanding, the supporting data for every SFC from 2015-2021 values Briarcliff as if it had the right to build 71 units, and, indeed, explicitly states: “Sale of 71 Mid-Rise units approved.”
In October 2012, Dillon, on behalf of the Trump Organization, engaged appraiser Robert Heffernan “to provide a written appraisal… estimating the fair market value of a conservation easement placed on the Client’s property located in the town of New Castle, New York (the ‘Seven Springs Estate’) for federal income tax purposes.” PX 908; TT 2703-2704. Email correspondence from Heffernan to Dillon demonstrates that as of December 18, 2012, Dillon was aware that Heffernan valued the potential Seven Springs conservation easement over seven mansion lots at $775,000 per raw lot, an estimate that would have valued the entire seven mansion development at approximately $5.5 million. PX 3296; TT 2707-2708.
Notwithstanding, the SFC backup data for 2013 demonstrates that on August 20, 2013, Eric Trump advised McConney to value the seven-mansion undeveloped plots on the SFC at a staggering $161 million. PX 708.
By September 8, 2014, McArdle completed another verbal estimate of the value of the seven mansion development at Seven Springs, this time valuing it at $14 million. PX 169, 181. Notwithstanding, the SFC backup data for 2014 demonstrates that on September 12, 2014, Eric Trump again advised McConney to value the seven-mansion undeveloped plots on the SFC at $161 million. PX 719.
Good point Todd.
"Mark keeps using phrases like "of the statute" and "under the statute" apparently completely ignorant that it is a 1956 NY State Consumer Protection law, not one designed to "protect lenders" but to protect consumers. In the case Mark references it is Trump who is the customer, the consumer of banking services."
Indeed, Mike; and you have to know the banks realize exactly what you are writing. The question is how long before the AG decides to go after their deeper pockets with the same winning arguments used against Trump. After all, if there was a fraud, then it was a mutual action between Trump and the banks to defraud under potential borrowers in NY from affordable loans.
Do they think Trump is uniquely evil
Yes. Of course. That’s what the New York Times, Washington Post. CNN, MSNBC, regular NBC, NPR, CBS, ABC, and damned near every other news organization is trying to tell them.
and nothing that happens to him will set a precedent?
Nope. They can easily do judge-shopping and get any corruption case against Democrats tossed.
I'm a life-long conservative but have never voted for Trump. He is a vulgar buffoon unfit to be President. He can be boorish and stupidly self-destructive.
May God spare us all from “life long” Republicans who vote for Democrat extremists or conservatives who do not vote for the more conservative candidate. Since liberals, as a rule, vote for the more liberal candidate while people like you, rrsafety, stick your nose up in the air and choose not to vote at all. In the end, it’s why liberals Eat. Your. Lunch. By only every single time. I know whereof I speak — forty years ago I was a minor cog (county vice chairman) in the Reagan re-election campaign and I had to deal with conservatives who didn’t think Ronald Reagan was conservative enough for them.
Anyway, I think you’ve fallen into the Democrats’ trap because you are looking only at Donald Trump. Now look at the boorish and stupid behavior of his opponent Joe Biden. You know, the guy who was looking out over the devastation of the Maui fires and telling the assembled crowd that he understood their grief because he once had to deal with a minor kitchen fire. Same guy who claimed he once received a standing ovation for his answer to a professor’s question. (Fun fact: he graduated near the bottom of his class.). Joe Biden claimed he drove a truck. (No he didn’t.). The guy who fell over from a bike that was stopped. And you think Trump is the buffoon?
As for reliance by the lender(s):
David Williams has worked at Deutsche Bank for the past 17 years. TT 5324. He is currently a senior lender and team leader in the Private Wealth Management Division. TT 5324....
In summer 2019, Deutsche Bank sent three different letters to Donald Trump, indicating that he was not in compliance with his Debt Service Coverage Ratio covenants under the Trump Chicago, Doral, and Old Post Office loans. PX 520, 521, 522. Williams confirmed that these notices were sent to Donald Trump because the covenant breaches could implicate the personal guarantee. TT 5410-5415. Williams testified that there were two more breaches of the Old Post Office and Trump Chicago loans in 2020. TT 5419-5420. Williams went on to detail that all three loans breached their debt service coverage requirements in 2021, resulting in Deutsche Bank commissioning appraisals on all three properties. TT 5424-5425; PX 561.
Williams confirmed that in July 2021, Deutsche Bank determined to “exit” the client relationship with Donald Trump, stating “we would be opting not to renew or extend that credit facility, and we would advise the client with some advance notice of that.” TT 5425-5427; PX 561.
Williams further corroborated that as a lending officer, he would expect a client to provide truthful and accurate information to the bank, and that Donald Trump’s net worth and personal guarantee were significant factors in Deutsche Bank’s determining whether to underwrite a loan. TT 5427-5428.
The defense witnesses themselves undermined Trump:
Jeffrey McConney was Controller of the Trump Organization from the early 2000s until February 25, 2023... He confirmed that Donald Trump would get final review for each financial statement after McConney and his team prepared it and Weisselberg approved it. TT 596-597, 5047....
McConney was aware that Donald Trump had no right to withdraw funds from his interest in Vornado Partnerships, and yet he listed the interest on the SFCs from 2013 to 2021 as if it were cash immediately available to Donald Trump. TT 617-626, 5019....
When valuing Trump Park Avenue on the SFCs, McConney knowingly valued rent-regulated apartments using an anticipated selling price that assumed not only that the apartments were unrestricted, but that they had already been renovated, thus failing to discount future value to present value. TT 4946-4953, 5097-5099....
McConney testified that for every SFC, Donald Trump valued Mar-a-Lago as if it were a private residence and not a social club, despite knowing that “Mar-a-Lago is a social club.” When asked the reason for his doing so, he testified: “I don’t remember off the top of my head.” TT 5018- 5022.
@OMike, I've not seen a map of the totals yet. The NWS office in Milwaukee (here) will put one together sometime today though.
Mark said...
'The essence of Trump’s argument on appeal is that the supposed harm he caused was minimal at best — all his lenders were repaid'
Read the applicable state statute and read the opinion and you will find that not only is harm to lenders NOT an element under the statute or otherwise relevant, but that Trump argued this so many times in the trial court and got ruled against because of the plain wording of the statute, that his lawyers were threatened with sanctions for continuing to raise it.
Trump's fraudulent misvaluations of the properties held by him and the Trump Organization (such as valuing Mar-a-Lago as if houses could be built on it when in fact the property is deed-restricted to be only a social club and hence less marketable/valuable) are themselves a harm to the public under the statute. No victims required. Just like shooting a gun at someone is a harm to the public even if the shot misses and the person is uninjured.
----
It's interesting then that on either MSNBC or CNN this morning (I forget which one) the newsreaders were discussing Mar a Lago and how much Trump could expect to receive if selling it. They were giddy at the thought of a fire sale of his Florida estate, but were sure it would bring a minimum of 250 million based upon surrounding property values. So apparently, the property is worth slightly more than the $18 million value assigned it by Letitia James.
Another witness, wherein we learn that the Trump Organization argued not too long ago that Mar-a-Lago has a value under $26.6 million:
Raymond Flores joined the Trump Organization in 2012 as an analyst on the acquisitions and development team....Flores was also a conduit with a firm, Marvin F. Poer & Company (“Poer”), that handled property tax assessment appeals in Florida for the Trump Organization. TT 2762; PX 3211. In 2020, the property appraiser determined the market value of Doral to be $78 million, a fact of which, emails reveal, Flores was acutely aware. PX 3209, PX 3211. Notwithstanding, the supporting data for the 2020 and 2021 SFCs value Doral at $345 million and $297 million, respectively. PX 857, 1501. Flores denied any recollection of this, despite the emails that demonstrate his active participation. TT 2772-2773.
In 2020, the Trump Organization hired Poer to file an appeal of the 2020 tax assessment of Mar-a-Lago, claiming that the assessed, taxed value of $26.6 million was too high. PX 3170, 3214, 3041 at ¶ 199. As part of the appeal, the Trump Organization explicitly stated that the property was commercial, and not residential. PX 3170. Two months after filing the appeal, the Trump Organization withdrew it, stating that it agreed with the $26.6 million determination of value. PX 3170. 3214; TT 2774- 2777. Flores conceded that that “determination was based on Mar-a-Lago being categorized as a commercial property.” TT 2776-2777.
When presented with additional emails and documents found in Flores’ possession that unquestionably reveal that he absolutely understood that Mar-a-Lago was exclusively a commercial, not residential, property, Flores continued to deny any recollection, stating “[t]hat’s what the email says. I don’t recall.” TT 2777-2781; PX 1382. Notwithstanding, every SFC from 2011-2021 valued Mar-a-Lago not only as if it could be sold as a private residence, but also as if there were no deed restrictions burdening it; the SFCs’ values for that decade range from $405 million to $739 million. PX 788, 793, 708, 719, 731, 742, 758, 774, 843, 857, 1501.
More about Mar-a-Lago:
In 1995, Donald Trump signed a “Deed of Conservation and Preservation” in which he gave up the right to use Mar-a-Lago for any purpose other than as a social club (the “1995 Deed”).
In 2002, Donald Trump granted a conservation easement to the National Trust for Historic Preservation and signed a deed in which, in addition to conveying the rights to develop or use Mar-a-Lago for any purpose other than a social club, the Deed further “limits changes to the Property including, without limitation, the division or subdivision of the Property for any purpose, including use as single family homes, the interior renovation of the mansion, which may be necessary and desirable for the sale of the property as a single family residential estate, the construction of new buildings and the obstruction of open vistas.” NYSCEF Doc. No. 1531 at 25-26 (emphasis added).
In exchange for executing the 2002 Deed, in which he gave away, in perpetuity, the right to develop or use the property as a single-family residence, Donald Trump paid significantly lower property taxes on Mar-a-Lago. PX 1730; TT 3533-3535....
There is no legal gray area surrounding the permanent nature of the deed restrictions. PX 1013.
Accordingly, there can be no mistake that Donald Trump’s valuation of Mar-a-Lago from 2011-2021 was fraudulent.
Trump antagonists is about 0.002% of the population,
Goodness, I think I know all of them personally.
And the signature golf course too:
McConney was aware that Cushman and Wakefield had appraised the property known as Trump National Golf Club LA (“TNGCLA”) and valued the golf club portion at $16 million and the entire property at just over $82 million as of March 2015. Notwithstanding, in the 2015 SFC, McConney valued the golf club at $56.6 million and the entire property at just over $140 million. PX 1464, 731.
Based on the evidence provided during the partial summary judgment stage and the later trial, the court's conclusions of law were clear. It is also clear that at the center of all this is Trump's total arrogance that got him in trouble:
As detailed in the Findings of Fact, there is overwhelming evidence that each of these defendants made or participated in making a false statement in the business records of an enterprise, the Trump Organization, with the intent to defraud.
Donald Trump was aware of many of the key facts underpinning various material fraudulent misstatements in the SFCs:
* he was aware of having deeded away the right to use Mar-a-Lago as anything other than a social club, and notwithstanding, continued to value it as if it could be used as a single family residence;
* he was aware that the Triplex apartment in which he, a real estate mogul and self-identified expert, resided for decades was not 30,000 square feet, but actually 10,996 square feet;
* he was aware that he did not control the Vornado partnership interest even though he represented it as “cash”;
* he was aware that he had permission to build only 500 private residences in Aberdeen, notwithstanding that he represented that he had permission for 2500; and
* he was aware that 40 Wall Street was operating at a deficit despite proclaiming that it was running a net operating income of $64 million.
As Eric Trump testified, Donald Trump sat at the top of the pyramid of the Trump Organization until 2017. Donald Trump professed to “know more about real estate than other people” and to be “more expert than anybody else.” TT 3487.
He repeatedly falsified business records with the intent to defraud. See People v Gordon, 23 NY3d 643, 650 (2014) (“Intent may be established by the defendant’s conduct and the circumstances”); People v Rodriguez, 17 NY3d 486, 489 (“Because intent is an ‘invisible operation of the mind’ direct evidence is rarely available (in the absence of an admission) and it is unnecessary when there is legally sufficient circumstantial evidence of intent,” “noting that ‘intent can also be ‘inferred from the defendant’s conduct and the surrounding circumstances’”) (internal citations omitted).
If you believe the media accounts and Trump's spin, you might think that he has been wronged. But the evidence is clear that he did, in fact, engage in multiple knowing misrepresentations of his financial statements. That is, he lied, although with his extreme narcissism believing he is the greatest and smartest and most knowledgable person ever to exist, in his pathological delusional state he thinks he is right.
The whole thing was a LawFare scam
=================================
is there any explanation about DA James lucking out the draw with Judge Engoron?
William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”
Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”
William Roper: “Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!”
Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons: A Play in Two Acts
——————
I wish our betters would take heed.
Mark keeps using phrases like "of the statute" and "under the statute" apparently completely ignorant that it is a 1956 NY State Consumer Protection law, not one designed to "protect lenders" but to protect consumers.
Please save us all from the ignorant who refuse to learn the truth. Again from the opinion:
Along came Executive Law § 63(12), which began life as Laws of 1956, Chapter 592, “An act to amend the executive law, in relation to cancellation of registration of doing business under an assumed name or as partners for repeated fraudulent or illegal acts.” Jacob Javits, then the Attorney General of the State of New York (the position that Attorney General James now occupies), pushed for the bill, as did the Better Business Bureau of New York City. See Senate Bill Jacket, February 21, 1956. State Comptroller Arthur Levitt asked, “Why not grant the Attorney General authority to enjoin anyone from continuing in a business activity if such person has been guilty of frequent fraudulent dealings.” The preponderance of the evidence standard, the one used in almost all civil cases would apply. Comptroller Levitt noted: “In a suit for an injunction, there is no need to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, as in a criminal case—a mere preponderance of evidence would be sufficient.” Id.
In the subsequent six decades, the State has toughened the statute. In Laws of 1965, Chapter 666, the definitions of the words “fraud” and “fraudulent” were expanded to include “any device, scheme or artifice to defraud and any deception, misrepresentation, concealment, false pretence [sic], false promise or unconscionable contractual provisions.” The statute casts a wide net.
Note that neither the statute nor the history have any reference to consumer protection law. And the defense didn't argue that either. It applies to business, period, specifically, "carrying on, conducting or transaction of business".
Mark, so what? The value of collateral is always in flux. Again, you and Trump's detractors pretend there is a true value that can be determined, but that is logically impossible without an actual auction and sale, and even that value is snapshot in time. Yes, the agreements do allow the lender to ask for more collateral if the guessed values fall a certain amount, but that still doesn't make Trump. Inc.'s claims about the values a lie- it is always a disagreement about an unknown quantity. Yes, a third party can try to evaluate the disagreement and pick one, but then that is again a guess about an unknown value. This entire trial was truly Kafkaesque. A law like this makes bluffing at poker a crime in addition to making all financial negotiations open to prosecution if any prosecutor decides he disagrees with one side's offers.
Do they think Trump is uniquely evil and nothing that happens to him will set a precedent?
Yes. Word for word.
That said, the two NY cases that seek to destroy him financially will force me to vote for him for the first time as a protest. I think others will do the same.
Me, too. But I'm in New York, so...
Williams further corroborated that as a lending officer, he would expect a client to provide truthful and accurate information to the bank, and that Donald Trump’s net worth and personal guarantee were significant factors in Deutsche Bank’s determining whether to underwrite a loan.
So says every fine print by every loan officer on every loan. As noted, NY has made criminal every loan. In the past, "breaches" were civil matters. Quit telling all of us that could afford a home loan what we know about taking out a loan. Show us evidence that backs up the Trump conviction and penalty. Show us the evidence submitted in court that Deutsche Bank proved $50 million to $500 million in harm from Trump's breach of contract. Then we can get back to why that should be a criminal rather than civil matter. This is NY, were they claim stealing $1,000 from a retailer is now a civil matter.
Thank you, MadisonMan. I've never been able to find maps of poststorm totals. I'll bookmark this.
Mark is in favor of a law that makes applying for a loan, even if the loan is repaid and no one loses any money, illegal. At least if your name is Trump.
"Me, too. But I'm in New York, so..."
All votes are going to matter, given the dems have already stated they intend to not certify a Trump victory.
Mark through the magic of Google does asset valuations that eluded the vast due diligence apparatuses of DB, JPM, BofA, the lot. To think he does it for fun and for free while these banks pay millions to do real estate underwritings. LOL.
RCOCEAN II said...
“This is what is wrong with the ‘Right’ in the USA. Byron York is a perfect example. Whenever the Liberal/left does something insane and outrageous, they don't get MAD and ANGRY and fight back.”
Inside the Republican headquarters: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JN99jshaQbY
"Someday, of course, what goes around will come around for Democrats"
I hope some Republican state AG is, even as we speak, deciding whether to investigate George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, or the Pritzkers. (They can go after Bill Gates in the second round.)
Democrats are anti-Constitutional pond scum. They are like the Islamists who don't support terrorism, they just cheer it on.
Both impeachments were nonsense. All the cases against Trump are at worst unethical selective prosecution and at best nonsense. Meanwhile, Democrats cheer and offer up delusional stuff in support.
That is, he lied, although with his extreme narcissism believing he is the greatest and smartest and most knowledgeable person ever to exist, in his pathological delusional state he thinks he is right.
Does that mean he can use the government's own "Biden can't be tried for stealing classified documents" defense?
Do they think Trump is uniquely evil and nothing that happens to him will set a precedent?
If they were capable of thinking, they wouldn't be on the Left.
Because the Left is entirely about taking down all barriers to "getting what they want", with never a thought as to what the other side will do once those barriers are down
I got a friendly email from Ruth Marcus saying she was not the logician that I sought. The latter was a professor somewhere in the northeast.
Well. You can tell Mark doesn't practice real estate law. No wonder you don't want to give out the link to the filing.
We've been through valuation ad nauseum in another thread. You're a dumbass. In states where real estaste is assessed for property tax purposes the results by the county/ township/village assessor can be challenged. In my state it can be challenged in court. There are law firms that specialize in just challenging real estate assessments.
Mark thinks spewing 6,000 words will finally enable him to pound that round peg into a square hole.
Scroll, scroll and scroll some more.
One thing that hasn’t been discussed is Trump going to federal court to ask for an injunction on the state of New York enforcing the terms of the bond as it violates due process.
This week's NYer published Adam Gopnik's comparison of Donald Trump to Adolph Hitler.
Adolph I-Want-To-Start-World-War-II-and-Kill-6-Million-Jews Hitler. It's madness.
"Do they think Trump is uniquely evil and nothing that happens to him will set a precedent?"
There are no Republican equivalents to NYC and DC. So no, there will be no consequences.
When I was young dems could reasonably claim moral high ground.
That was long ago.
Again I ask as a non-lawyer, oh Mark spewer of verbiage, who is the consumer in the transactions in question? Keep it simple…
This is for you, Mark.
Let us say that you, Mark, Howard, Rich and Vicky decide you wanmt to purchase the property at1234 Park Avenue. 30 stories of mixed use property. Retail, condos and residential rental units. The price the current owners want os 500 million dollars. Between the four of you you own three buildings worth 600 million and one of you has personal cash assets of 150 million
You've all decided to put 100 million down.
Before the bank will go into specifics thay want to know what collateral you have and how much cash you want put down. 20% cash makes things easier for you.
The bank is going to want to see the assessment that you've had done plus a current assessment by the owner. The Bank will do it's own assessment and get the property tax assessment from the city.
Each of you are going to have to provide your personal tax returns for the last three years. They are going to want to see your corporate tax returns for the last three years.They are going to want to see current assessments on all your properties and P&L for each. They are going to want to see all the leases for each property and how many vacancies for each property. They will investigate to see if there are any liens on any of the properties. They will want an assignment of rents for each property. Proof of insurance and any claims against the policies. If you are running a business out of your property they'll want an assignment of profits.
Each of had better have answers to any of their questions. If any part of the above is sketchy in any way you don't get the loan. Banks don't take risks.
You see why it is next to impossible for the borrower to commit fraud unless there is collusion by another party. And by another party I mean the bank.
You might ask youself, "How does Rusty, that dumbfuck, know all this?" For every machine shop I owned I bought the building it was in. I went through this.
Post a Comment