- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
- news@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
- news@lemmy.world
During his Monday testimony, Trump admitted that his real estate company, The Trump Organization, submitted financial statements “to induce lending” from companies such as Deutsche Bank—an apparent admission to a key allegation by James’ office that the financial statements which inaccurately valued his net worth were done so to receive loans from banks and insurers.
You must log in or register to comment.
Admitting to lying in a state where lying for business is explicitly a crime (even if bo one is hurt), is a bold strategy.
deleted by creator
According to some lawyers I follow, this admission is more of a “nice to have,” because everyone already knew it. It’s obvious. The paperwork in question was for a loan. Everything written in that paperwork is to induce lending.
The law does allow people room for abject stupidity, but if Trump truly believed that he was giving papers to a bank in connection with securing a loan, but the contents were not intended to induce lending, this would be so unbelievably stupid that the court simply has to assume that Trump must have believed it, no matter what he says.
It’s obvious. The paperwork in question was for a loan. Everything written in that paperwork is to induce lending.
Yeah we’re past the question of was Trump’s personal guaranty full of shit. Judge Engoron already established, yes, it was indeed full of shit. The point is to the degree which dictates the State’s remedy, and there’s like five or six other allegations, I lost count, but those are points the DA is touching on, on the way out here. But the main sticking point is done deal and now we’re just measuring how high the pile of shit is. It appears to be quite the impressive stack.
The whole testimony that Ivanka put forward in that she was looking to negotiate a reduction in the asset requirement because she had concerns about the asset requirements. Really hits home that they were all very aware of how for shit the guaranty was towards Deutsche Bank. It’s like that SNL skit Coffee Talk, “Trump’s personal guaranty was neither personal nor a guaranty! Talk amongst yourselves.”
Trump’s admission, which mind you the parts I read made me think about that part in the movie The Big Short where he asks “Why are they Confessing?” and gets the reply of “They’re not confessing, they’re bragging”, on the stand the other day just basically showed that Trump attempting to put realistic expectations on his evaluations was just never going to be a part of who Trump IS. It basically establishes Trump as this person who just does not have this “ability to self evaluate in a reasonable manner” and that his goals for inducing lending overrode everything including very clear warnings about not being that level of self destructive.
Basically, at some point, a driver drives through enough signs indicating the bridge is out that it no longer is the bridge builder’s problem. That is what all of this establishes for the Judge. The bank lending to an idiot is one thing, but the bank lending to someone who has multiple people vouching for him, but are only vouching for him because he has indicated that they must despite everything that they have told him, is completely different. It stops being the responsibility of the bank after some point.
We all have to remember that since there is no jury in this case we rely on factual findings for what will absolutely be brought up in an almost certain appeal. So the “nice to haves” do matter in that it lays pretty solid groundwork for Judge Engoron to back up what will almost assuredly be him giving the cake to the New York DA to Trump’s chagrin.
A verbal admission in court under questioning, to the crime by the defendant is always “nice to have” I think.
It proves Mens rea if nothing else but I am not sure that matters in a civil action.
Um, maybe? Florida law prevents someone’s primary home (and their pensions) from being force-sold to pay creditors - it’s one of the main reasons OJ Simpson moved there, to protect his assets from the Goldmans and the Brown-Simpsons. And there’s no cap on the amount your primary residence is worth to be protected.
That said, Mar-a-lago has some weird ownership thing going on with it, and I’m not sure whether federal disgorgement takes precedence over state protections. It’ll probably end up in court yet again.
Part of the deed that allowed Mar-a-lago to be created in the first place is that it would not be allowed for ANYONE to EVER use it as a residence, not even allowed to tear it down and build residential in it’s place.
The “deed of development rights” outlines that “the Club and Trump intend to forever extinguish their right to develop or use the Property for any purpose other than club use”Prisoner Number P01135809 is ALREADY breaking that covenant by living there.
One of his recent defenses centered around that word “intend.” He believed that by specifically stating “intend” it doesn’t mean he will/has to do it, as he merely “intends” to. He argued that he can “intend” to do something at one point, but later change his mind, and he believes this is a legal loophole. It’s not…
That defense has fallen flat… But it’s worth pointing out because in his deluded mind, he believes that allows him to violate all of his contracts/agreements.
I guarantee that’s the situation here with Maralago being his residence.
On top of all that, Trump seemed to be arguing that he could “intend” for one thing in perpetuity, even though he knew at that same moment that he would “intend” for something else one minute later. And I don’t think that would work with any definition of “intend.”
Hmmm, „up to at least“ basically means „exactly“, right?
Got any contracts that say “up to at least”?
Cause any bank with shareholders is going to throw that bullshit into the trash bin instead of making a loan on it.
In this context ‘up to at least’ means ‘definitively at least’
