(10-28-2025 12:55 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 12:37 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Tanq's an idiot.

Banks and lenders have their own underwriting department to determine valuation. And they arent just determining real valuation, but how much danger there is in that valuation. (ie liklihood it could drop in the future.)

When I sold my first house, I got a contract for $99,900. The along comes an appraiser who says its only worth $95K. THe financial institution's underwriting department overrode the appraiser and allowed the sale at $99,900.

Why?

Because valuations are subjective.

But in Tanq's world, I should be fined $400million dollars because I said my property was worth $99,900 when the appraiser said it was only worth $95K.


How is the above different from Letit James? LeTit got a favorable rate because she took advantage of a financing plan where the house had to be either primary or secondary, and was not going to be used as a rental/investment property, which would require LeTit to go through a different process. LeTit then signs her name, and proceeds to convert it to a rental/investment property. Thats not subjective. LeTit did something with the property that was not allowed for the financing she was approved for.

which is what some of us stated from the git-go...

why he states they're in the same vein is befuddling ... I can only surmise it's his TDS that is off the chain gang...

at DJT's scale, they all 'pencil whip' to the best advantage of both parties ... her INTENT WAS TO KNOWINGLY DEFRAUD ... they're two completely different animals...

oh, wellzy...

There isnt an issue of 'subjective valuation' when you magically increase the size of a Manhattan apartement to an additional full floor.

Nor for any of the other items I listed.

Those that I mentioned are simply bald lies and fraud.

That is the mainstay of the fraud suit. As opposed to the mantra and chant of 'valuations are subjective'. If I list a block of land as collateral and misstate its physical square footage by double, that is just basic stupid ass fraud.

(10-28-2025 12:37 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Tanq's an idiot.

Banks and lenders have their own underwriting department to determine valuation. And they arent just determining real valuation, but how much danger there is in that valuation. (ie liklihood it could drop in the future.)

When I sold my first house, I got a contract for $99,900. The along comes an appraiser who says its only worth $95K. THe financial institution's underwriting department overrode the appraiser and allowed the sale at $99,900.

Why?

Because valuations are subjective.

Stating a Manhattan apartment contained an entire extra floor and having 78% more sf than it has isnt 'subjective'.

Representing apartments in buildings as non rent-controlled when they arent isnt 'subjective'.

Representing land as having a far greater density than allowed by law isnt 'subjective'.

Representing land for development purposes as clear for development when there are specific easements that do not allow development is not 'subjective'

Representing an equity interest in a company having no legal right to access the funds as 'cash access of' anything is not 'subjective'.

Representing the books of a golf club having liabilities that attach (deposit refunds, in the tens of millions) as having no such liability is not 'subjective'.

Each is simply outright fraud.

Quote:But in Tanq's world, I should be fined $400million dollars because I said my property was worth $99,900 when the appraiser said it was only worth $95K.

Too bad you miss the real issues and focus on something that isnt germane.

Quote:How is the above different from Letit James? LeTit got a favorable rate because she took advantage of a financing plan where the house had to be either primary or secondary, and was not going to be used as a rental/investment property, which would require LeTit to go through a different process. LeTit then signs her name, and proceeds to convert it to a rental/investment property. Thats not subjective. LeTit did something with the property that was not allowed for the financing she was approved for.

If that is what she did, yes you are correct.

The facts in the agreement arent so clear. One copy of the agreement I saw allows rental, but we shall see what copy the government offers up.

It appears she didnt rent it out, she let a relative use it rent free.

If the government can show otherwise, you might be correct. Let the facts fall where the facts fall.

It appears you arent wholly aware of some of the issues that have cropped up in the interim.

(10-28-2025 04:12 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 12:55 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 12:37 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Tanq's an idiot.

Banks and lenders have their own underwriting department to determine valuation. And they arent just determining real valuation, but how much danger there is in that valuation. (ie liklihood it could drop in the future.)

When I sold my first house, I got a contract for $99,900. The along comes an appraiser who says its only worth $95K. THe financial institution's underwriting department overrode the appraiser and allowed the sale at $99,900.

Why?

Because valuations are subjective.

But in Tanq's world, I should be fined $400million dollars because I said my property was worth $99,900 when the appraiser said it was only worth $95K.


How is the above different from Letit James? LeTit got a favorable rate because she took advantage of a financing plan where the house had to be either primary or secondary, and was not going to be used as a rental/investment property, which would require LeTit to go through a different process. LeTit then signs her name, and proceeds to convert it to a rental/investment property. Thats not subjective. LeTit did something with the property that was not allowed for the financing she was approved for.

which is what some of us stated from the git-go...

why he states they're in the same vein is befuddling ... I can only surmise it's his TDS that is off the chain gang...

at DJT's scale, they all 'pencil whip' to the best advantage of both parties ... her INTENT WAS TO KNOWINGLY DEFRAUD ... they're two completely different animals...

oh, wellzy...

There isnt an issue of 'subjective valuation' when you magically increase the size of a Manhattan apartement to an additional full floor.

Nor for any of the other items I listed.

Those that I mentioned are simply bald lies and fraud.

That is the mainstay of the fraud suit. As opposed to the mantra and chant of 'valuations are subjective'. If I list a block of land as collateral and misstate its physical square footage by double, that is just basic stupid ass fraud.

which was defined in the suit as a “mistake” … does he have a track record of such??? … if = 1, you’d have a case, Ja?!

this will be my final response on your TDS BS…

pine away, chief…

(10-30-2025 11:46 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 04:12 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 12:55 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 12:37 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Tanq's an idiot.

Banks and lenders have their own underwriting department to determine valuation. And they arent just determining real valuation, but how much danger there is in that valuation. (ie liklihood it could drop in the future.)

When I sold my first house, I got a contract for $99,900. The along comes an appraiser who says its only worth $95K. THe financial institution's underwriting department overrode the appraiser and allowed the sale at $99,900.

Why?

Because valuations are subjective.

But in Tanq's world, I should be fined $400million dollars because I said my property was worth $99,900 when the appraiser said it was only worth $95K.


How is the above different from Letit James? LeTit got a favorable rate because she took advantage of a financing plan where the house had to be either primary or secondary, and was not going to be used as a rental/investment property, which would require LeTit to go through a different process. LeTit then signs her name, and proceeds to convert it to a rental/investment property. Thats not subjective. LeTit did something with the property that was not allowed for the financing she was approved for.

which is what some of us stated from the git-go...

why he states they're in the same vein is befuddling ... I can only surmise it's his TDS that is off the chain gang...

at DJT's scale, they all 'pencil whip' to the best advantage of both parties ... her INTENT WAS TO KNOWINGLY DEFRAUD ... they're two completely different animals...

oh, wellzy...

There isnt an issue of 'subjective valuation' when you magically increase the size of a Manhattan apartement to an additional full floor.

Nor for any of the other items I listed.

Those that I mentioned are simply bald lies and fraud.

That is the mainstay of the fraud suit. As opposed to the mantra and chant of 'valuations are subjective'. If I list a block of land as collateral and misstate its physical square footage by double, that is just basic stupid ass fraud.

which was defined in the suit as a “mistake” … does he have a track record of such??? … if = 1, you’d have a case, Ja?!

this will be my final response on your TDS BS…

pine away, chief…

Dude, there are scores just like the above in the facts presented. Ive listed about 8. The trial brought scores of stuff like the aboge.

And seriously dude, how do you fing forget how many floors there are in a Manhattan apartment. Mistake my ass. I mean, maybe I should start marveling at 200 acres if I only have 100. Lolz. 'Mistake'. Right.

Piss off on your shallow 'TDS BS.' So fing sorry that you feel the absolute need to write literally *everything* negative about Trump to that -- maybe change cults?

So bothered you have to literally say that about anything negative? Good grief, dude.

(10-28-2025 10:45 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(10-27-2025 04:14 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-27-2025 12:42 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(10-27-2025 11:50 AM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(10-27-2025 11:36 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  tanq, you're simply pissed he rec'd the loan when, IN YOUR OPINION BASED ON CHERRY PICKIN' THRU THE DATA AS YOU INTERPRET, shouldn't have happened...

well, chief, it did happen ... and it was paid back in full ... spin it however you want ... nobody gives two fks about a loan that was legally secured and paid back in full based on YOUR standards required upon signing...

and you'll come with they're not your standards ... I'll save you the time and call that BS up front...

@KMA #2badSoSad #youlArguedIncorrectlyAgain

Not to mention the bank could have said no. It’s really as simple as that.

Which they would have done had they thought they would be damaged. Imagine if the NY AG went after anyone who's information on their loan app was questionable.

Ill take it you support and defend 20 years of supplying massively fraudulent information to banks and such. Cool cool.

And at some point, a state has the power, and maybe the obligation, to take a part in policing persistent fraudulent activity within its borders. Simply to keep it own markets clean. Ill take it you are not for any AG ever taking *any* action for persistent fraudulent activity. Again, cool cool.

I take it you don't think anyone ever fudges numbers on a loan application. Cool cool. I take it you feel any and everyone who does should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law even when the bank claimed no harm was done. Cool cool. I take it you live somewhere outside the real world. Cool cool.

What Ofer is referring to is that Trump’s penthouse had two levels and he claimed that as two floors. Not at all like Ofer ‘wishes’ it was. Besides it’s the bank’s responsibility to inspect the property.

(10-28-2025 11:40 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 10:12 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 06:43 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

Id suggest yall at least get the underlying facts straight instead of repeating rhetorical claptrap. Or not. You be you.

Ill take it that you think that simply adding another floor to a penthouse magically is the mark of non-fraudulent activity. Cool cool. Or simply wish it away with memes and 'witchhunt' that seem to be the favored means to do so here.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-fraud-l...2c791d29ab

Quote:NEW YORK (AP) — When Deutsche Bank loaned Donald Trump’s company hundreds of millions lawyers of dollars, the bank always followed its own guidelines that include checking out information that would-be borrowers provide, an executive testified Tuesday at the former president’s civil fraud trial.

The loans — for projects in Florida, Chicago and Washington, D.C. — are a focus of New York Attorney General Letitia James’ lawsuit contending that Trump and his company deceived lenders and insurers by giving them financial statements that baldly overstated his asset values and overall net worth. The defendants deny the allegations.

Deutsche Bank reviewed the financial statements before making the loans through its department that works with rich individuals — a pathway that allowed for more favorable interest rates than likely available from the commercial real estate division, according to the lawsuit. The deals came with conditions about Trump’s net worth and, sometimes, liquidity, and they often required annual submissions of his financial statements.

But, testifying for the defense, managing director David Williams said the bankers viewed clients’ reports of their net worth as “subjective or subject to estimates” and took its own view of such financial statements.

“I think we expect clients-provided information to be accurate. At the same time, it’s not an industry standard that these statements be audited. They’re largely reliant on the use of estimates,” Williams said, so bankers routinely “make some adjustments.”


At times, the bank pegged Trump’s wealth at several billion dollars lower than he did, according to documents and testimony. In 2019, for example, Trump’s financial statement listed his net worth at $5.8 billion, which the bank adjusted down to $2.5 billion.

But Williams said such differences weren’t necessarily unusual or alarming.


“It’s a conservative measure to make these adjustments,” he testified, characterizing them as “standard” and a “stress test” of financial strength.

The attorney general’s office, however, has maintained that such adjustments were never intended to account for the alleged fraud. A now-retired Deutsche Bank executive, Nicholas Haigh, testified earlier in the trial that he assumed the figures “were broadly accurate,” though the bank subjected them to ”sanity checks” and sometimes made sizable “haircuts.”

Trump acted as the guarantor for the loans and was quick to act when the bank raised concerns that the properties weren’t generating enough cash to make payments, Williams said. At one point, Trump moved $8.6 million into the Washington hotel’s coffers after its cash flow fell short of a requirement. No payments were missed, and the loans were never found to be in default, Williams said.

After Williams finished testifying, Trump’s lawyers sought — as they repeatedly had before — to have the case thrown out. They argued the bank executive had neutralized any allegations that the defendants deceived the lender about Trump’s wealth.


“The bank conducted its own due diligence. The bank had no problem with a $2 billion or a $3 billion difference,” defense lawyer Christopher Kise said. He argued the lender wasn’t harmed because it “didn’t change what it did based on what President Trump submitted.”

State lawyer Kevin Wallace retorted, “I think the idea that you can’t lie to a bank is pretty well established.”

Judge Arthur Engoron said he was taking the request for dismissal under advisement, but he noted “that the mere fact that lenders were happy doesn’t mean that the statute wasn’t violated.”

Engoron already has ruled that Trump and other defendants engaged in fraud. The trial is to decide remaining claims of conspiracy, insurance fraud and falsifying business records. There’s no jury, so Engoron will decide the verdict.

Trump, the current Republican 2024 presidential front-runner, casts the entire case as a political low blow from James, a Democrat.

Trump maintains that his financial statements actually lowballed his wealth and that any overstatements — such as listing his Trump Tower penthouse for years at nearly three times its actual size — were mistakes.


He asserted in his own testimony this month that his lenders cared more about property locations and the parameters of the deals than they did about the financial statements. And he argued that lenders were essentially told to do their own homework, pointing to disclaimers that said the statements weren’t audited, among other caveats.

Deutsche Bank guidelines told lending officers to “independently verify all material facts,” and Williams said the bankers followed those and other instructions when dealing with Trump.

“Are you aware of any time Deutsche Bank didn’t adhere to its own guidelines in making loans to President Trump?” defense attorney Jesus M. Suarez asked.


“No,” Williams replied.

we hashed this shite out in real-time ... blame the banks if'n ya want, but wtfe, bruv...

#muhDisgorgementLanced

That’s like showing Dracula a cross.

Ofer can’t credibly explain how this investigation was started. No one harmed. No one complained of fraud. All loans paid on time. The beginning of this was the criminal act and our local ambulance chaser thinks this is justice.

(10-30-2025 01:49 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 11:40 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 10:12 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-28-2025 06:43 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

Id suggest yall at least get the underlying facts straight instead of repeating rhetorical claptrap. Or not. You be you.

Ill take it that you think that simply adding another floor to a penthouse magically is the mark of non-fraudulent activity. Cool cool. Or simply wish it away with memes and 'witchhunt' that seem to be the favored means to do so here.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-fraud-l...2c791d29ab

Quote:NEW YORK (AP) — When Deutsche Bank loaned Donald Trump’s company hundreds of millions lawyers of dollars, the bank always followed its own guidelines that include checking out information that would-be borrowers provide, an executive testified Tuesday at the former president’s civil fraud trial.

The loans — for projects in Florida, Chicago and Washington, D.C. — are a focus of New York Attorney General Letitia James’ lawsuit contending that Trump and his company deceived lenders and insurers by giving them financial statements that baldly overstated his asset values and overall net worth. The defendants deny the allegations.

Deutsche Bank reviewed the financial statements before making the loans through its department that works with rich individuals — a pathway that allowed for more favorable interest rates than likely available from the commercial real estate division, according to the lawsuit. The deals came with conditions about Trump’s net worth and, sometimes, liquidity, and they often required annual submissions of his financial statements.

But, testifying for the defense, managing director David Williams said the bankers viewed clients’ reports of their net worth as “subjective or subject to estimates” and took its own view of such financial statements.

“I think we expect clients-provided information to be accurate. At the same time, it’s not an industry standard that these statements be audited. They’re largely reliant on the use of estimates,” Williams said, so bankers routinely “make some adjustments.”


At times, the bank pegged Trump’s wealth at several billion dollars lower than he did, according to documents and testimony. In 2019, for example, Trump’s financial statement listed his net worth at $5.8 billion, which the bank adjusted down to $2.5 billion.

But Williams said such differences weren’t necessarily unusual or alarming.


“It’s a conservative measure to make these adjustments,” he testified, characterizing them as “standard” and a “stress test” of financial strength.

The attorney general’s office, however, has maintained that such adjustments were never intended to account for the alleged fraud. A now-retired Deutsche Bank executive, Nicholas Haigh, testified earlier in the trial that he assumed the figures “were broadly accurate,” though the bank subjected them to ”sanity checks” and sometimes made sizable “haircuts.”

Trump acted as the guarantor for the loans and was quick to act when the bank raised concerns that the properties weren’t generating enough cash to make payments, Williams said. At one point, Trump moved $8.6 million into the Washington hotel’s coffers after its cash flow fell short of a requirement. No payments were missed, and the loans were never found to be in default, Williams said.

After Williams finished testifying, Trump’s lawyers sought — as they repeatedly had before — to have the case thrown out. They argued the bank executive had neutralized any allegations that the defendants deceived the lender about Trump’s wealth.


“The bank conducted its own due diligence. The bank had no problem with a $2 billion or a $3 billion difference,” defense lawyer Christopher Kise said. He argued the lender wasn’t harmed because it “didn’t change what it did based on what President Trump submitted.”

State lawyer Kevin Wallace retorted, “I think the idea that you can’t lie to a bank is pretty well established.”

Judge Arthur Engoron said he was taking the request for dismissal under advisement, but he noted “that the mere fact that lenders were happy doesn’t mean that the statute wasn’t violated.”

Engoron already has ruled that Trump and other defendants engaged in fraud. The trial is to decide remaining claims of conspiracy, insurance fraud and falsifying business records. There’s no jury, so Engoron will decide the verdict.

Trump, the current Republican 2024 presidential front-runner, casts the entire case as a political low blow from James, a Democrat.

Trump maintains that his financial statements actually lowballed his wealth and that any overstatements — such as listing his Trump Tower penthouse for years at nearly three times its actual size — were mistakes.


He asserted in his own testimony this month that his lenders cared more about property locations and the parameters of the deals than they did about the financial statements. And he argued that lenders were essentially told to do their own homework, pointing to disclaimers that said the statements weren’t audited, among other caveats.

Deutsche Bank guidelines told lending officers to “independently verify all material facts,” and Williams said the bankers followed those and other instructions when dealing with Trump.

“Are you aware of any time Deutsche Bank didn’t adhere to its own guidelines in making loans to President Trump?” defense attorney Jesus M. Suarez asked.


“No,” Williams replied.

we hashed this shite out in real-time ... blame the banks if'n ya want, but wtfe, bruv...

#muhDisgorgementLanced

That’s like showing Dracula a cross.

Ofer can’t credibly explain how this investigation was started. No one harmed. No one complained of fraud. All loans paid on time. The beginning of this was the criminal act and our local ambulance chaser thinks this is justice.

Look up 'state enforcement action', punkin....

https://thefederalist.com/2025/11/03/pre...biden-doj/
Pardon the electors!!!

Article argues all the state prosecutions were actually on federal charges.

"...How did the federal violations outlined in the Wray memo become state indictments of President Trump and his electors and other loyalists? Willis charged not only the president and his electors, but Trump attorneys, supporters, and other random people. Only in Michigan and Nevada were just the electors charged, and the Michigan judge dismissed the charges against the electors in September, ruling that the electors had been exercising their First Amendment rights and civic duty, and no crimes had been committed.

In Arizona, Attorney General Mayes charged the Trump electors, plus Trump attorneys and Christina Bobb, who had nothing to do with Arizona but was charged anyway. In Wisconsin, Democrat Attorney General Kaul filed criminal charges against two Trump attorneys and one long-time Republican political operative — but not the electors. In Nevada, Democrat Attorney General Ford filed criminal charges against the six 2020 Republican electors in December 2023, after having twice announced earlier that year that there was no state authority to bring such charges. There are going to be records in the White House and DOJ archives of that change of heart....


Clearly, the electors were — as described by the Arctic Frost documents — acting under federal, not state law. The U.S. Constitution created the presidential electors and the federal Electoral Count Act controls the proceedings by which the electors conduct their federal responsibilities. Nevada Attorney General Ford’s initial public statements in May and September of 2023 were spot on: there is no state authority to criminally charge the Trump presidential electors.

We can reach only one conclusion: These are not true state charges, these are not state actors, and the entire scheme to concoct some odd collection of purported violations of state law are a nullity. President Trump can and should pardon every person charged in each of the “state” proceedings. The state law violations are wholly fabricated by the Biden administration to punish and prosecute President Trump and his electors, lawyers, and supporters...."

^^ Good find, bullet.