Longwood50

This is nothing but history repeating itself.  Using the governent to soley go after a poltiical adversary in a show trial.  There was no complaint by the bank and the AG of New York did not seek any information on any other business or person who similarly may have suspect asset values.  The bank was being paid and asset values have if anything skyrocketed.  


Stalin
In three widely publicized show trials (1936–38), The trials eliminated such potential rivals and critics of Stalin as Nikolay Bukharin, Lev Kamenev, Aleksey Rykov, Mikhayl Tukhachevsky, Genrikh Yagoda, and Grigory Zinovyev but earned worldwide condemnation.

This trial and the January 6 one have only one purpose.  To eliminate a political adversary. 

2 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

You seem to love asset valuation fraud.

No what I have said which you seem incapable of grasping is that the bank lost no money and that NO OTHER, I REPEAT NO OTHER person was similarly targeted. 

That is weaponizing government for political not criminal behavior.  I can only explain it to you.  Obviously you are incapable of seeing the difference. 

Maybe this will be something you can comprehend.  This sailor took photos of inside a sub he worked at a "classified area"  He never showed them to the public.  He was sentenced to a year in prison. 

Hillarly Clinton violated numerous times having exposed classified material including top secret.  She got nothing.  Sandy Berger stuffed classified documents in his pants and carried them out.  He was charged with a misdemeanor. 

This is political in reverse.  Ignoring the law for some "privileged people'  

I

 

A US Navy sailor was sentenced on Friday to a year in prison for taking photos of classified areas inside a nuclear attack submarine while it was in port in Connecticut.

Kristian Saucier, of Arlington, Vermont, appeared in federal court in Bridgeport, where a judge also ordered him to serve six months of home confinement with electronic monitoring during a three-year period of supervised release after the prison time. He pleaded guilty in May to unauthorized detention of defense information and had faced five to six years in prison under federal sentencing guidelines.

Saucier admitted to taking six photos of classified areas inside the USS Alexandria in 2009 when it was in Groton and he was a 22-year-old machinist mate on the submarine. The photos showed the nuclear reactor compartment, the auxiliary steam propulsion panel and the maneuvering compartment, prosecutors said.

Saucier took the photos knowing they were classified, but did so only to be able to show his family and future children what he did while he was in the Navy, his lawyers said. He denied sharing the photos with any unauthorized recipient.

I can ou if this was not Trump how it would have played out if someone discovered that financial records at a bank used to support a loan was brought to the attention of an attorney general. I have challenged you.  Name 1 other case just 1 that the AG's office has even gone to discover what documents they submitted to the bank.  Since the bank did not complain it is clear the AG's office took it upon themselves to singularly look at the records of Trump and no other. 

If this was any other person The person at the attorney generals office, would walk into the AG's office say he wanted to bring criminal charges.  The AG would say, how much money did the bank lose.  The person would say none.  The AG would say if they lost no money why are they wanting us to file charges.  The person would say, oh the bank did not complain. The AG would say then why would we be charging them with a crime.  The person would say oh out of principle.  The AG would then reply, I think we are done here and if you bring me any more BS cases like this you can find another job. 

On 10/28/2023 at 10:41 AM, pomchop said:

A 5 second google blows your entire "whys everybody picking on trump" argument.

You obviously can't read.  Did you notice the actions in your article were taken because there were losses. 

 

• The People of the State of New York v. Josue Aguilar Dubon, AKA Saady Dubon, AKA Alejandro Ortiz (October 2022) — Bronx business owner indicted for failing to report over $1 million in income, avoiding paying $60,000 in taxes.

allegedly defrauding over $35,000 in workers’ compensation benefits

 Married couple convicted of house fire insurance claim, attempting to recover the cash value of various items of property that were ostensibly lost in the fire.

Convicted for falsely claiming on a food stamps application that a young adult lived with her.

THE BANKS LOST NO MONEY AND DIDN'T FILE FOR ANY DAMAGE

On 10/28/2023 at 10:45 AM, Danderman123 said:

Once again, the banks lost money because Trump secured loans with a low interest rate, due to misrepresenting the value of his assets.

Now just where did you get the fraudulent statements that Trump got a low interest rate.  How the H would you know what he did or did not receive. 

Again, point being WHY WAS HE TARGETED.

The bank did not complain.  Name 1 just 1 example where the attorney general of New York combed the records of banks seeking out a person who falsified documents given to the bank to secure a loan. 

There are none, zero, naughta.  

Black people often say the police unfairly target them for extra scrutiny.
Here in Thailand foreigners get tickets when Thai's doing the exact same thing dont.

In Trumps case he will be the only person the State of New York ever brings charges against for making false statements to a bank where the bank did not file a complaint. 

That sir is the very definition of Weaponizing Government due to politics and for no other reason. 

Just now, Yellowtail said:

Wow, the bank takes your word in regard to the value of your loan collateral?

Exactly.  I bought a business some years ago.  I had to get an independent certified appraisal done to establish the asset value and cash flow value of the business.

On real estate, take yourself as an example.  Do you get an appraisal on your home as a condition of obtaining a mortgage. 

One way or another 'THE BANKS FOUND THE VALUEATIONS ACCEPTABLE'  It is only a biased politically driven prosecutor is somehow saying oh despite the fact the banks suffered no loss I view the asset values inflated and you committed a crime. 

 

On 10/26/2023 at 5:41 PM, Danderman123 said:

As mentioned before, Trump's reason for inflating the value of his assets was to secure lower interest rates.

 

If you can't understand this, everyone will know why.

 

More to the point, it is good public policy to deter what is now widespread asset valuation fraud. Don't you agree?

 

I hope you are finished spewing FOX News talking points. These are aimed at low information viewers, you can't sell them here.

As I have said, irrespective of whether Trump did inflate assets to secure loans THERE IS NO VICTIM.  The asset values only become relative in the event they are repossessed and are worth less than the amount of the loan. 

Now the government is misdirecting you to look at the asset value at the time of the loan.  WHAT ARE THOSE ASSETS WORTH TODAY. 

You keep focusing on if there is " a crime"  I have said that the government is being weaponized against a political opponent. 

Did the attorney general of New York similarly dig into the records of the banks of OTHER INDIVIDUALS OR COMPANIES to see if they similarly filed false financial information without the bank filing a complaint. 

If they didn't IT IS PATENTLY CLEAR THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERALS OFFICE "TARGETED" TRUMP"

The attorney generals office could have scoured the records of all the banks and ask to review all the financial records of all the loans to see who else might have inflated values.  THEY DIDN'T they went solely after Trump singling him out for prosecution. 

In the end irrespective of whether the asset values were inflated or not, the banks were not harmed, and they did not file the complaint.  THAT SIR IS MALICIOUS POLITICAL PROSECUTION.  

Also the banks are typically Federally Chartered that is governed by the Federal Government.  They are insured by the FDIC again a federal organization.  Yet it is a states action not the federal government happening only in a Liberal State by and Extremely Liberal Attorney General  

POLITICAL PROSECUTION.  PROSECUTING A VICTIMLESS CRIME. 

18 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

 

Asset valuation fraud is common, and commonly prosecuted

Asset valuation fraud is common but where there is an injured party.  

I CHALLENGE YOU 

Name once time, just one time where Letticia James or the Attorney Generals of NY office  has ever gone after a company for filing inacurate financial statements where the financial institution was being paid as agreed and there was no complaint filed by the financial institution. 

IF YOU CAN'T I REST MY CASE THIS IS PURELY POLITICALLY DRIVEN. 



 

3 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

The question in this fraud trial isn't guilt, its the penalty. But you do know Trump committed fraud, right?

Yes and Hillary Clinton destroyed emails under subpoena
Sandy Berger stole classified documents in his pants

Bill Clinton lied under oath

Hunter Biden lied on a federal form.

It is selective prosecution purely politically driven. 

1 hour ago, Danderman123 said:

Please do not response with a list of Biden's lies, most of those are petty or screw-ups, and not germane.

That is "your opinion"  The fact is that Trump may not be a perfect man.  However as I have repeatedly said, if it were not political, there would be no trial.  The banks did not bring forth any charges and to the best of my knowledge his obligations to the banks have been repaid as agreed. 

Using James Comey former head of the FBI when he let Hillary off the hook, he said NO REASONABLE PROSECUTOR WOULD BRING THE CASE. 

The crimes against Hillary were far more severe and far less subjective.  There is not once chance in a billion that Trump would be prosecuted if he was just an ordinary citizen.  

19 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Since you mention the law, here it is, Section 12 applies and has been applied

Since you mention the law,  tell me how the law applied to these. 

 

The FBI says it found 113 classified emails that were mishandled

 "Contrary to her sworn testimony, Secretary Clinton sent and received emails that were marked classified at the time." – James Comey FBI

Clinton's use of a private email system and a private server violated federal law, specifically 18 U.S. Code § 1924, regarding the unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or materials, as well as State Department protocols and procedures ...

The Clinton campaign previously had indicated that her personal emails were deleted before Clinton received a congressional subpoena on March 4, 2015. But the FBI said her emails were deleted “between March 25-31, 2015” — three weeks after the subpoena

Now who did the government choose to prosecute for a what they perceive as a boastful representation of asset value versus actions that clearly were willful violations of the law.

President Clinton admits he lied under oath about his affair with Monica Lewinsky in 2001

IRS criminal supervisory special agent Gary Shapley, told lawmakers that the Justice Department's tax division and the prosecutors handling the Biden probe viewed the deductions as "a slam dunk case" of tax fraud.

Biden also made $18,000 in wire payments to another woman, using coded language to conceal the purpose of the transaction. Another payment of $10,000, labeled as a "golf club member deposit," was actually for a sex club membership.

In April 2005, Berger pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material from the National Archives in Washington, D.C.

8 minutes ago, Cory1848 said:

If I have any technical questions about banking, I’ll come to you for sure. If I want a clear-eyed evaluation of political candidates, I’ll turn elsewhere.

The FBI says it found 113 classified emails that were mishandled

 "Contrary to her sworn testimony, Secretary Clinton sent and received emails that were marked classified at the time." – James Comey FBI

Clinton's use of a private email system and a private server violated federal law, specifically 18 U.S. Code § 1924, regarding the unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or materials, as well as State Department protocols and procedures ...

The Clinton campaign previously had indicated that her personal emails were deleted before Clinton received a congressional subpoena on March 4, 2015. But the FBI said her emails were deleted “between March 25-31, 2015” — three weeks after the subpoena

Now who did the government choose to prosecute for a what they perceive as a boastful representation of asset value versus actions that clearly were willful violations of the law.

President Clinton admits he lied under oath about his affair with Monica Lewinsky in 2001

IRS criminal supervisory special agent Gary Shapley, told lawmakers that the Justice Department's tax division and the prosecutors handling the Biden probe viewed the deductions as "a slam dunk case" of tax fraud.

Biden also made $18,000 in wire payments to another woman, using coded language to conceal the purpose of the transaction. Another payment of $10,000, labeled as a "golf club member deposit," was actually for a sex club membership.

In April 2005, Berger pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material from the National Archives in Washington, D.C.

Now tell me how the banks were so hurt by any falsification of Trumps net worth versus outright lying under oath, falsifying tax returns, and stuffing classified documents in your pants and how those were treated. 

If Trump was not in politics using Comey's words, no reasonable prosecutor would ever bring the case. 

Using Comey as an example, there was a woman who lied under oath and was sent to jail her name was Martha Stewart.  Guess who prosecuted her for lying.  None other than James Comey.  

This is all political.  You bring charges, no matter how far fetched or trivial and you keep your opponent bottled up in litigation. 

47 minutes ago, pomchop said:

You best stick to banking as you clearly do not understand the law. 

As I have previously stated.  This is a political witch hunt.  The "injured" party would be the bank.  They were not injured.  They also should be the one to bring the lawsuit claiming fraud.  They did not. 

Who did.  His political opponents. 

This is like the IRS finding a taxpayer paid all of his taxes but had innacurate information on the returns that didn't impact the taxes due, then claiming a false tax return. 

The underlying premise of a fraud is that it causes people to lose money.  A fraud with no victim not a crime.  The valuations are subjective and they were accepted by the bank.  

The government now coming in after the fact and second guessing the bank is purely weaponizing government. 

If the bank was injured due to any fabrication in my opinion that would be different. 

This really is no different than when Hunter Biden was charged with making false statements on a gun purchase.  Few if any are ever prosecuted.  Biden was targeted strictly because he was Biden.  Trump targeted strictly because he is Trump and he has political enemies.  

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Valuations are black and white records.

Yes they are.  And who made the valuations?  People don't appraise their own properties.  If Trump pledged assets 1. They had to be supported by outside valuations. 2. They had to be reviewed and approved by the banks lending officer.

Still bottom line. The valuations are irrelevant if the debt was repaid.  

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The financial system is the injured party, fraud undermines trust in and the credibility of the how finance functions and is governed.

 

There is a difference between subjective error and criminally fraudulent valuation.

 

The court has already determined criminal fraud.

 

Sure this ought to be basic knowledge for a bank executive.

I suggest my 34 years as an executive officer for major banks including Bank of America is a bit broader than yours. 

Basic Law  an "injured party" brings action.  If anyone was injured it was the banks.  That would be who the "false statements" were make to.  Did the banks bring the action or did Trumps' political enemies. 

Now if I say I own a piece of property and I did not own it.  That is fraud.  If I place a value of $10 million on it and years later you claim it was only worth $5 million and I committed fraud that is purely subjective. 

This is purely a case of poltiical vindictiveness.  No bank brought any claims of not being paid by Trump and being injured by his financial statements. 

This is Stalinist. 

12 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

Boy, talk about false equivalence.  The OJ trial was decided by a jury, much more fallible and/or biased.  This is a bench trial and the judge is by-the-book.

No my statement was that "courts" are not infallible. 

Take the most recent case with Roe V Wade.  The Supreme Court ruled that the prior Supreme Court was wrong.  

Judges are human and have biases.  Go to a different judge and you would get a different opinion. 

1 minute ago, Berkshire said:

As for your last sentence, let's say you embezzled money from your bank.  And you took that money to go play the ponies and your horse actually won.  Even if you put that money back, you're still guilty of embezzlement. 

That is a false equivalent.  A loan obligation is a promise to pay back period.  So long as the debtor pays back to the lender, the underlying collateral is not an issue. 

As to the Judge.  Yes and you could just as easily gone to another judge who would rule that it was not fraud.  One only has to look at the OJ Simpson trial to know that the courts are hardly infallible or biased.