In the case of Trump and the bank loan in question, it was a real estate construction loan. These are unique loans. There was no crime. A deal was made and the deal that was made was completed to the satisfaction of everyone involved. No government bail outs involved. Nor the risk of one. It was fully collateralized. Do you really believe that Mar a Lago is worth only $18 million as the judge insisted ? You've got to be kidding. That is where the real fraud is. This was another example of applying an unrelated law to go after Trump. An old Stalinist tactic of show me a man and I'll find a crime. Like Bezos and Amazon which pays no corporate taxes, last I looked.
Your suggestion of a "victimless" crime aligns with your twisted support of undermining public trust in everything. That includes elections, any government office or strategy, the courts, and now fair business practices. The notion that fraud is a victimless crime is likely founded on the idea that these are big, abstract, ambiguous entities —big banks, big society, big competitors — but they're victims nonetheless. Capitalism, which I believe Republicans still support, is founded on trust. The fraud committed by Trump are not simple errors or misjudgments, they are intentional, documented lies. The complete lack of contrition and remorse borders on the pathological. It's his way of doing business. When people suggest that Trump has screwed thousands of businesses and investors by declaring bankruptcy when things go south, you blow it off as legal protection available to everyone. As for Mar-a-Lago... given the deed restrictions, do you think it could be worth as much as the $739M the Trump Organization valued the property at? When you google that, because I'm pretty sure you have no clue what the restrictions are (who cares... it's just one minor fact in the government's attempt to destroy Trump...), you may also find that the NY AG valued Mar-a-lago at $75M... not $18M. FWIW... It does sound better the way you tell it. Not paying taxes is not a crime. Not paying taxes by filing false returns is. It's amusing to listen to you explain how great Trump's economic policy was (including the tax reductions), and then have you use Trump's lack of tax policy in an attempt to prove that everyone else is a crook.
This is getting really old. My oars are in the water. I'm not the one who has been totally snockered by the news and party that you have put your trust in. The debate revealed how well you have been gaslit and deceived. The problem is that you think you're too smart to be deceived in such a grand fashion. That is your weakness and how they play that against you. You need a twelve step program.
Back to the facts at hand.
As a CPA you know damn well what a construction loan is and how they work. Maybe you don't. If you do, you can correct what I got wrong.
A builder approaches a bank with a business plan to build a new structure on an existing land parcel, usually already owned. The plan includes complete estimates of materials, labor costs, permits and contingency provisions and a time line for completion. The loan is a very short term, the length of the project from start to finish. Once completed, the loan is paid off by securing a mortgage loan on the finished property. There is also built in equity since the structure will already be worth more than it cost to build. The builder's reputation for successfully completing major projects weighs more heavily than their net worth when granting these types of loans. The loan is always secured by the finished product, the structure.
Reputation. Known for getting the job done, on time and on budget. That would be part of what constitutes the legitimate intangible asset known as goodwill. It can carry heavy weight in the decision making process. And also directly affects the costs of performance bonds.
This is how the construction and real estate business really operates and why this case is leading to a business exodus from NY. It has already begun, btw.
This case is affecting how reputation comes into play in business dealings.
So what did I get wrong ?
I don't give a rat's ass about the deed restrictions which are explained in the article below. The bottom line is that if Trump was going to sell Mar a Lago he should be able to get at least $700 million for it. It is a unique and coveted historical property. The new owner could have these restrictions altered by the county going forward. They are not locked in stone. Kinda like the deal Disney had with the State of Florida.
Here is a very informative pre trial article about exactly what Mar a Lago is and its actual worth. It also backs up what I have stated in regard to what I said the judge said.
How much is Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago worth? That’s now a point of contention after a New York judge ruled that the former president exaggerated the Florida property’s value when he said it is worth at least $420 million
In siding with New York in the state’s lawsuit accusing Trump of grossly overvaluing his assets in business transactions, Judge Arthur Engoron found that Trump consistently exaggerated Mar-a-Lago’s worth
He compared Trump’s estimate to the Palm Beach County tax appraiser’s recent valuations of about $20 million
But Palm Beach real estate agents strongly disagree. They think Mar-a-Lago would easily fetch hundreds of millions and a bidding war could push the price over a billion
Siding with New York's attorney general in a lawsuit accusing Trump of grossly overvaluing his assets, Judge Arthur Engoron found that Trump consistently exaggerated Mar-a-Lago's worth. He noted that one Trump estimate of the club's value was 2,300% times the Palm Beach County tax appraiser's valuations, which ranged from $18 million to $37 million.
SO WHAT IS MAR-A-LAGO WORTH?
That's hard to say. The biggest problem is there are no comparable properties. No one builds mansions in Palm Beach like Mar-a-Lago anymore and those that did exist were demolished long ago, broken up or turned into a museum.
Trump, in an April deposition, justified his belief that Mar-a-Lago could be worth $1 billion by comparing it to the price the Mona Lisa or a painting by Renoir would command — the ultra-wealthy will pay a premium to buy something that's one-of-a-kind.
Eli Beracha, chair of Florida International University's Hollo School of Real Estate, agreed it's difficult to assess the value of any unique property. The fact that Trump owned Mar-a-Lago would likely increase its sale price.
“Some people are going to argue that not everyone likes Trump — some people would actually pay less because of that. ... But the high bidder is probably going to be a person who buys it because it belonged to Trump,” Beracha said.
Pulitzer said the rock-bottom price for Mar-a-Lago would be $300 million. Thomson said at least $600 million. If uber-billionaires got into a bidding war, they said, a sale of a billion dollars or more would be possible.
The much smaller Palm Beach compound once owned by the Kennedy political dynasty sold for $70 million three years ago.
I'm not the one supporting a guy who pays hush money to a porn star to fool his wife and the electorate, who defrauds a bank by consciously misstating the value of his assets and who frequents a smutty sex-island offering the services of possibly demonstrably underage girls to rich clients looking for .... what exactly? some kind of affirmation to relieve the vacuity in their souls?
The whole thing is smutty. Your man. Not mine.
(oh btw... having the majority behind you doesn't make it any better - just makes me think of that line from Crowded House: ..the excess of fat on your American bones will cushion the effect as you sink like a stone")
"oh btw... having the majority behind you doesn't make it any better"
Quite true. The vast majority of Germans supported Hitler's roundup and extermination of Jews as well as his invasions of other countries.
Also—I'm skeptical that the majority of Americans approve of Trump's behavior.
In the case of Trump and the bank loan in question, it was a real estate construction loan. These are unique loans. There was no crime. A deal was made and the deal that was made was completed to the satisfaction of everyone involved. No government bail outs involved. Nor the risk of one. It was fully collateralized.
Do you really believe that Mar a Lago is worth only $18 million as the judge insisted ? You've got to be kidding. That is where the real fraud is.
This was another example of applying an unrelated law to go after Trump.
An old Stalinist tactic of show me a man and I'll find a crime.
Like Bezos and Amazon which pays no corporate taxes, last I looked.
Your suggestion of a "victimless" crime aligns with your twisted support of undermining public trust in everything. That includes elections, any government office or strategy, the courts, and now fair business practices.
The notion that fraud is a victimless crime is likely founded on the idea that these are big, abstract, ambiguous entities âbig banks, big society, big competitors â but they're victims nonetheless. Capitalism, which I believe Republicans still support, is founded on trust. The fraud committed by Trump are not simple errors or misjudgments, they are intentional, documented lies. The complete lack of contrition and remorse borders on the pathological. It's his way of doing business. When people suggest that Trump has screwed thousands of businesses and investors by declaring bankruptcy when things go south, you blow it off as legal protection available to everyone.
As for Mar-a-Lago... given the deed restrictions, do you think it could be worth as much as the $739M the Trump Organization valued the property at? When you google that, because I'm pretty sure you have no clue what the restrictions are (who cares... it's just one minor fact in the government's attempt to destroy Trump...), you may also find that the NY AG valued Mar-a-lago at $75M... not $18M. FWIW... It does sound better the way you tell it.
Not paying taxes is not a crime. Not paying taxes by filing false returns is. It's amusing to listen to you explain how great Trump's economic policy was (including the tax reductions), and then have you use Trump's lack of tax policy in an attempt to prove that everyone else is a crook.
I may stand alone here with my views, but out in the real world, I hold and stand with the majority views over these things that we are discussing.
Actually, I don't think your specific views are necessarily shared by the majority of MAGA land. I don't think a good majority of MAGA really stops to consider these things as I believe they are "blinded by the cult of personality" surrounding TRUMP. In the end ignorance does equal acceptance, but that acceptance may not be driven by a true understanding of the many issues and problematic behaviors and actions engaged in by Trump. A lot of that support could simply begin & end with the oft repeated spoon-fed line that "Trump has been treated unfairly and what can happen to him can happen to me" without digging much below the surface and applying any critical thinking.
On the one hand, I commend you for not being ignorant to all of the problems as I can see you are not... but on the other... I abhor the fact that you willfully obfuscate, dismiss or rationalize away those problems to the extent that: Nothing Trump has (ever/will ever) (said/say) or (done/do) will stop you from supporting him. You are so vested in his support that to "not support him" isn't even conceivable. Regardless that a host of people in his former administration have said that they will not support him including Pence. You remember Pence right? His former VP?
Trump is not a victim and every problem he is dealing with... is a problem of his own making. Wanna know why I'm not sitting in a court right now and why what is happening to Trump will never happen to me? Newsflash: I don't run around breaking laws and conduct myself accordingly. Trump would do well to do the same.
There is no dispute that Trump made a payment to a porn star via a non disclosure agreement. It is over how it was done. There is definitely a dispute over him ripping off a bank as there were no losses incurred by any parties involved and there is definitely a dispute over him sleeping with an underage girl. I did offer a link that pretty well discusses that case and there is no there, there.
This is about how low we can go in political disputes.
I may stand alone here with my views, but out in the real world, I hold and stand with the majority views over these things that we are discussing.
"There is definitely a dispute over him ripping off a bank as there were no losses incurred by any parties involved"
There should be no dispute of him ripping off a bank... even if the bank was made whole... as the bank (if it knew the true extent/value of his holdings), may not have taken the risk to lend him the money. But (even if they did), it's very likely they would not have lended to him at the rate at which at which they did.
Heck, why not just pass some laws to waive requiring disclosing any financial information (or waive requiring that supplied financial information be correct) when applying for personal/business loans? I would to have loved to overstate my worth to the bank that I had my first mortgage with as I probably could have shaved a point or two from the interest rate.
He is also a master at dragging out the clock, along with his sycophants. If at some point in the future the judge throws out the jury conviction, then he will no longer be a convicted felon. If at some point in the future, if a court overturns the conviction, then he will not be considered a felon legally. Personally, I think the judge should have sentenced him and let them sort it out on appeal since the trial is over.
But, yeah, the supreme court ruling against using anything he said in an official capacity, and his lack of putting a firewall between trump the president and trump the candidate, has effectively crowned him king of your failed democracy.
Round the decay Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
There is no such thing as victimless financial crimes. Somewhere, someone down the line pays the price, even if it is when the government has to bail out the bank. The idea that no one gets hurt is exactly the same inane logic as Trump boasting of not paying tax... that is not actually anything to be proud of. All it means is you are a lousy (corporate) citizen.
In the case of Trump and the bank loan in question, it was a real estate construction loan. These are unique loans. There was no crime. A deal was made and the deal that was made was completed to the satisfaction of everyone involved. No government bail outs involved. Nor the risk of one. It was fully collateralized.
Can you or anyone else explain what a construction loan is and how it works without looking it up ? I bet islander can. He knows everything.
Do you really believe that Mar a Lago is worth only $18 million as the judge insisted ? You've got to be kidding. That is where the real fraud is.
This was another example of applying an unrelated law to go after Trump.
An old Stalinist tactic of show me a man and I'll find a crime.
Like Bezos and Amazon which pays no corporate taxes, last I looked.
Eck-tually, itâs about him committing fraud. Breaking the law.
If we are going to say that victimless crimes are not crimes, then we need a major rethinking of our justice system, and thatâs not whatâs happening here.
There is no such thing as victimless financial crimes. Somewhere, someone down the line pays the price, even if it is when the government has to bail out the bank.
The idea that no one gets hurt is exactly the same inane logic as Trump boasting of not paying tax... that is not actually anything to be proud of. All it means is you are a lousy (corporate) citizen.
There is no dispute that Trump made a payment to a porn star via a non disclosure agreement. It is over how it was done. There is definitely a dispute over him ripping off a bank as there were no losses incurred by any parties involved and there is definitely a dispute over him sleeping with an underage girl. I did offer a link that pretty well discusses that case and there is no there, there.
This is about how low we can go in political disputes.
I may stand alone here with my views, but out in the real world, I hold and stand with the majority views over these things that we are discussing.
ewww.. leave me out of this.
I'm not the one supporting a guy who pays hush money to a porn star to fool his wife and the electorate, who defrauds a bank by consciously misstating the value of his assets and who frequents a smutty sex-island offering the services of possibly demonstrably underage girls to rich clients looking for .... what exactly? some kind of affirmation to relieve the vacuity in their souls?
The whole thing is smutty. Your man. Not mine.
(oh btw... having the majority behind you doesn't make it any better - just makes me think of that line from Crowded House: ..the excess of fat on your American bones will cushion the effect as you sink like a stone")
Eck-tually, itâs about him committing fraud. Breaking the law.
If we are going to say that âvictimlessâ crimes are not crimes, then we need a major rethinking of our justice system, and thatâs not whatâs happening here.
Have I got this right? No one is disputing whether Trump actually did these things, like pay-off a porn-star, rip-off the banks and sleep with an underage girl, they are just disputing how we call them? ffs. How low can you go. This is no longer about party politics. It's about self-respect.
There is no dispute that Trump made a payment to a porn star via a non disclosure agreement. It is over how it was done. There is definitely a dispute over him ripping off a bank as there were no losses incurred by any parties involved and there is definitely a dispute over him sleeping with an underage girl. I did offer a link that pretty well discusses that case and there is no there, there.
This is about how low we can go in political disputes.
I may stand alone here with my views, but out in the real world, I hold and stand with the majority views over these things that we are discussing.
Now tell me again that Trump is a convicted felon.
Trump is a convicted felon.
He is also a master at dragging out the clock, along with his sycophants. If at some point in the future the judge throws out the jury conviction, then he will no longer be a convicted felon. If at some point in the future, if a court overturns the conviction, then he will not be considered a felon legally. Personally, I think the judge should have sentenced him and let them sort it out on appeal since the trial is over.
But, yeah, the supreme court ruling against using anything he said in an official capacity, and his lack of putting a firewall between trump the president and trump the candidate, has effectively crowned him king of your failed democracy.
Have I got this right?
No one is disputing whether Trump actually did these things, like pay-off a porn-star, rip-off the banks and sleep with an underage girl, they are just disputing how we call them?
ffs. How low can you go. This is no longer about party politics. It's about self-respect.
"Lawyer" happens to be Will Scharf who's working for Trump. His claim is that we shouldn't call Trump a convicted felon until Judge Merchan sentences him. I haven't seen or heard of other lawyers without skin in the game agree with Scharf.
I don't give a f%#k about Will Scharf's opinion. Trump's a convicted felon and an adjudicated rapist. Deal with it.
Well when you look at the post below and watch the associated video you will find out that Trump is not a convicted felon.
Nor is he a convicted rapist as you allkeep insisting. Words do matter. To continue calling Trump a convicted felon would make you or anyone else who does the same, a liar. I will also no longer refer to Hunter as a convicted felon in light of this information as he has yet to be sentenced. Back to you and anyone else to whom this may apply.
Yes words matter and trump is a convicted felon. And I have never said he is a convicted rapist. He was found guilty in a civil case, which is pretty damning and he has been accused of rape by multiple women including his ex wife. No, that is not the same as a criminal conviction. But we all know that criminal convictions, particularly with older cases are hard to prosecute. He admitted to groping women against their will.
Well when you look at the post below and watch the associated video you will find out that Trump is not a convicted felon. Nor is he a convicted rapist as you all keep insisting.
Words do matter.
To continue calling Trump a convicted felon would make you or anyone else who does the same, a liar.
I will also no longer refer to Hunter as a convicted felon in light of this information as he has yet to be sentenced.
Back to you and anyone else to whom this may apply.
Trump was convicted on 34 felony counts by a jury of his peers in a criminal court. He is a convicted felon appealing his sentence.
If he were not a convicted felon, he would not be facing a sentencing hearing in September. He also would not have to report to a parole officer.
If a person is convicted of a felony—say, raping your cousin—he can be sentenced while he's appealing the decision. He's still regarded as a convicted felon—or perhaps you think that's still innocent and should be allowed to do whatever he likes during the appeal. So, theoretically, he could try to rape your cousin again or your wife while he's out on appeal.
The opinion of lawyers experienced in such matters is that Trump's chances of a successful appeal are slim, btw.
Yes, you can call Hunter Biden a convicted felon by following my logic.
Trump has also been judged a rapist by a jury of his peers. The statute of limitations for filing criminal charges against Trump had expired, so the matter was addressed in civil court through codified legal standards, protocols and practices.
Trump is an adjudicated rapist appealing that judgment.
Words do matter. So does facing facts even when you don't like them. You can't wish an alternate reality into existence, Kurt.
Well when you look at the post below and watch the associated video you will find out that Trump is not a convicted felon. Nor is he a convicted rapist as you all keep insisting.
Words do matter.
To continue calling Trump a convicted felon would make you or anyone else who does the same, a liar.
I will also no longer refer to Hunter as a convicted felon in light of this information as he has yet to be sentenced.
Back to you and anyone else to whom this may apply.
Yes words matter and trump is a convicted felon. And I have never said he is a convicted rapist. He was found guilty in a civil case, which is pretty damning and he has been accused of rape by multiple women including his ex wife. No, that is not the same as a criminal conviction. But we all know that criminal convictions, particularly with older cases are hard to prosecute. He admitted to groping women against their will.
Kurt, Let's get back to the supreme court issues and your continued support for trump even though he is a convicted felon. You use every slippery move possible to avoid saying that, or any of the other crimes he is accused of disqualify him as president. Oh, his appeal hasn't gone through to get a ruling from the Supreme Court? Most other felons are sentenced and serve time and maybe, eventually their appeals wind through the process and maybe are taken up by the Supreme Court years later. Usually that won't happen. Sure, due process and all before they are convicted. But once someone is convicted of a crime, they are considered a criminal. You are willing to vote for a felon for president. No way around that. You will continue to turn a blind eye to his being a felon and all indications he is a creep, including his own wife saying he raped her. Your bar for his behaviour is set at it is ok until the Supreme Court rules against him. Oh, and the places like all his attempts to tamper with the election where the Supreme Court ruled against him don't count. And the many legal cases that he and his organisation have lost don't count if they were not criminal cases. So if you wonder why several people here treat your opinions with contempt, that's probably a lot of it.
Well when you look at the post below and watch the associated video you will find out that Trump is not a convicted felon. Nor is he a convicted rapist as you all keep insisting.
Words do matter.
To continue calling Trump a convicted felon would make you or anyone else who does the same, a liar.
I will also no longer refer to Hunter as a convicted felon in light of this information as he has yet to be sentenced.
Back to you and anyone else to whom this may apply.
WTF are you talking about ? What does this have to do with the topic which was the SCOTUS ? I don't recall making any such statements. Show me the quotes. You're channeling someone else, maybe veev ? Sounds like something he would say.
You're fascination with rape is beyond comprehension. Rape this, rape that, here a rape there a rape, everywhere a rape, rape ... old Mac kcar had a dream e, i, e, i, oh ....
.
Do you fantasize about it ? Did your mommy cut you off too soon ?
You have seriously gone off the reservation. You're too far gone to talk to at all anymore.
Geezus, you really need to get laid, stat !!
Or maybe canoeing ...
.
Kurt,
Let's get back to the supreme court issues and your continued support for trump even though he is a convicted felon.
You use every slippery move possible to avoid saying that, or any of the other crimes he is accused of disqualify him as president. Oh, his appeal hasn't gone through to get a ruling from the Supreme Court? Most other felons are sentenced and serve time and maybe, eventually their appeals wind through the process and maybe are taken up by the Supreme Court years later. Usually that won't happen. Sure, due process and all before they are convicted. But once someone is convicted of a crime, they are considered a criminal. You are willing to vote for a felon for president. No way around that.
You will continue to turn a blind eye to his being a felon and all indications he is a creep, including his own wife saying he raped her. Your bar for his behaviour is set at it is ok until the Supreme Court rules against him. Oh, and the places like all his attempts to tamper with the election where the Supreme Court ruled against him don't count. And the many legal cases that he and his organisation have lost don't count if they were not criminal cases.
So if you wonder why several people here treat your opinions with contempt, that's probably a lot of it.
