• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New York Attorney General takes initial step to prepare to seize Trump assets

Hypothetical said:

"New York Attorney General takes initial step to prepare to seize Trump assets"​


Nahp! not yet.
Click to expand...
THE TRUMP METHOD™ = LIE, DENY, DELAY, DELAY, DELAY, REPEAT
 
ClaraD said:
That didn't work so well in criminal court today..
Click to expand...
Not today. Eventually all these things will catch up to trump. A lifetime of criminality, grifting, not paying his bills, and cheating at, well, everything is bound to, sooner or later. That's why he's so desperate to get back into the White House - he knows he can abuse the power of the office again. But he will not win.

Americans are not dumb enough to put him back in office, ever again.
 
BabaVoss said:
Not today. Eventually all these things will catch up to trump. A lifetime of criminality, grifting, not paying his bills, and cheating at, well, everything is bound to, sooner or later. That's why he's so desperate to get back into the White House - he knows he can abuse the power of the office again. But he will not win.

Americans are not dumb enough to put him back in office, ever again.
Click to expand...
yes, the clock is ticking...he now is minus 175 million and will be soon minus the rest of that 454 million judgement or some of his property....he has a pending court date in mid April, so roughly 3 weeks....it turns out his defense team was at fault for not receiving the documents in a timely manner...one of his defense attorneys was a prior prosecutor and just got spanked in court by the judge for his malfeasance
 
BabaVoss said:
How have you determined the fines are excessive? As I understand it, they are well documented,.
Click to expand...

Nobody suffered any actual losses.

BabaVoss said:
Fraud is falsifying financial documentation.
Financial institutions are defrauded when they take on more risk than their analysis (based on a fraudulent information) supports.
Click to expand...

BabaVoss said:
Taxpayers are defrauded when property values are falsified lower than realistic.
Click to expand...

There was no claim of this.
BabaVoss said:
Did she?
Click to expand...

Yes-' she produced nobody who actually lost money.
 
Athanasius68 said:
It's hypothetical because it assumes no changes in actions when the numbers change.
Click to expand...

From the judgment. Be sure to read the highlighted part at the end where it says Trump's team didn't accept his methodology, but didn't challenge his calculations. The experts brought in by Trump's legal team was not able to dispute McCarty's work. Maybe you can point out where any of Trump's witnesses were able to dispute the calculations? I'm thinking you'll choose the guy Trump paid $900,000 and had been deemed unpersuasive during a previous trial. But you're choice.

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 therecourse 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.

(4) In 2018 the Trump Chicago loan was $45,000,000. Applying the nonrecourse 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 deminimis, 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 casede 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.
Click to expand...

 
Uriah said:
Neither did Trump's.
Click to expand...
Riiiight, He took it to satisfy democrats, you said. Sure he did.

My bet is that someone was worried about trump’s brain going bye bye. Likely his doctor.
 
BabaVoss said:
Riiiight, He took it to satisfy democrats, you said. Sure he did.

My bet is that someone was worried about trump’s brain going bye bye. Likely his doctor.
Click to expand...
The point is President Trump took the test and passed. President Biden refused. That's it. It's very simple.
 
Uriah said:
The point is President Trump took the test and passed. President Biden refused. That's it. It's very simple.
Click to expand...
The point is bullshit. Trump SAID he took it and passed.
He also SAID parts of it included things that screen does not contain.
Trump also SAID he got ‘extra points’ which is not a thing.
Trump is well known to be a pathological liar.

Listening to Trump today makes me think he really does need to get that screening.

Biden didn’t rise to the bait from a journalist.
It’s that simple.
 
SkyFox76 said:
From the judgment. Be sure to read the highlighted part at the end where it says Trump's team didn't accept his methodology, but didn't challenge his calculations. The experts brought in by Trump's legal team was not able to dispute McCarty's work. Maybe you can point out where any of Trump's witnesses were able to dispute the calculations? I'm thinking you'll choose the guy Trump paid $900,000 and had been deemed unpersuasive during a previous trial. But you're choice.



Click to expand...

The old saying ' Figures don't lie, but liars figure' isn't entirely accurate here as there is no reason to say McCarty is a liar.

But his calculations are based upon the hypothetical that Trump takes the loans at the higher rate.
 
Athanasius68 said:
Given there was no testimony from anyone stating they had suffered a loss, it is not at all obvious that this was not true.
Click to expand...
It’s only obvious if you actually think about it.
Financial institutions charge interest on loans based on risk. If they provided someone (trump) with a lower rate than the risk should have required, they lost revenue. This happened because trump properties were overvalued, and in some cases oversized.
If properties are undervalued, the state of NY and its taxpayers lose tax revenue.
Worse, but far tricker to quantify, is the cost of such corrupt practices to become accepted as a ‘normal’ way of doing business.
 
BabaVoss said:
It’s only obvious if you actually think about it.
Financial institutions charge interest on loans based on risk. If they provided someone (trump) with a lower rate than the risk should have required, they lost revenue. This happened because trump properties were overvalued, and in some cases oversized.
If properties are undervalued, the state of NY and its taxpayers lose tax revenue.
Worse, but far tricker to quantify, is the cost of such corrupt practices to become accepted as a ‘normal’ way of doing business.
Click to expand...

It's hypothetical that the bank would have changed its rate had Trump been scrupulously accurate.
Maybe they want the busines..
 
Athanasius68 said:
It's hypothetical that the bank would have changed its rate had Trump been scrupulously accurate.
Click to expand...
??? Trump wildly inflated values.

You think they are looking for ways to make less money?
 
The Hairy Fiddler said:
Not hypothetical at all. Knowing how banks operate is clearly not your strong suit.
Click to expand...


Also, there is real time, real world data demonstrating that Deutsche Bank, specifically, would have given Trump worse terms. It's like people don't even read any of the details about this case before they come in here screaming about how Cheeto Jesus is innocent.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom