Quote (thesnipa @ Jul 15 2024 02:13pm)
The loan case is still IMO the worst. if i loan you my lucky cricket and value it at 100$, then you give me 80$, and i pay you back 82$ as discussed a week later we're both now criminals.
at least the other two are just selective enforcement and legal reaching, the loans case is an absurd govt. overreach. the govts has no place telling banks what loans they can issue based on the value of collateral. the only basic legal theory basis i can even see for that is the govt backing the funds in said bank, but we've shown for a long time that the fed doesn't have much pull with banks unless they're forced to request a bailout.
you are stating it as; the agreed upon loan was a fraudulent scheme from both parties. but... for the civil fraud case, it was alleged that Trump defrauded the lender's/insurer's. so, only the orange one should be banned from business in NY as well as fined. the actual other "criminal" you allude to, isn't being accused of anything. they are stated as a "victim" although they claim the opposite. going so far as to invite Trump back for business "at" the trial.
if i thought your lucky cricket was worth $95 instead of $100, then continued to give you $80. how does that make me a criminal?
now, how does that make me a victim like the case alleges?
if we were rping this case, you would be the criminal and i would be the victim. even though i know more about crickets than you do and was able to better assess the value.
Trump claimed his net worth to be nearly 5b. Deutsche Bank estimated it to be 2.65b, and loaned to him accordingly.
the issue is that no "fraud" took place. the "crime" alleged is over-estimation, separately prior to an agreed contract.
this case is an attempt to make this about the estimation of 1 property out of a web of net worth. it wasn't "just" 1 property included in the assessment on DJT's networth by DB.