End of Trump Era?

The End of Trump Inc.

In a business sense?

I was actually surprised at his defense. I thought this was just a "witch hunt", and still think it could be political.

But apparently it is also legitimate. Trump defended himself by saying the financial statements he used in business had a disclaimer that they shouldn't be relied upon.

Imaging you getting a better interest rate by turning in fraudulent financial information with a disclaimer the information you provided shouldn't be relied upon for a financial decision.

 

Oh ...the priorities are strictly political.

I'm just not sure that Trump's defense will stand on this one. It could be a costly business decision.

 

I agree in terms of this being political.

I am not sure that it will have no affect to Trump's business interests (which is why I was asking).

Yes, I agree it's a civil case.

I was thinking strictly of the "Trump brand".

 

The issue I can see with Trump's disclaimer and the judge canceling Trump's business certificates is that this was a civil case.

I can see his disclaimer protecting him from criminal fraud. I can also see a civil case determining Trump owes damages (at least charged with an amount approximating what he would have had to have paid if the financial statements were correct).

For example, if I guessed that my home was 3,300 ft2, noted that this has not been truly evaluated to standard, and received a loan and interest rate for the value of that sized home....but in fact my home is 2,914 ft2, then I could see having to pay an amount to compensate for the difference. But I can't see it being criminal fraud.

The difference is that with Trump it would be more like me saying I had a 5,000 ft2 home when in fact it was 1200 ft2. And on multiple high value properties.

So I'm not sure that it isn't criminal fraud as well. Not saying either way ...simply not sure (I will say I'd expect a real estate business man to know when a property was overly exaggerated).

 

Yes, both sides here have legal counsel. I realize that. I would expect his legal counselors to encounter some problems with this one as well. I mean, adding 10 stories to a NYC high rise, almost doubling land in Virginia....if it were you or me it'd be fraud.

 

I'm saying that if you and ai were to do it on a simple credit application it is fraud.

I get that there are different rules for different settings and classes of people.

 

That was the purpose of the disclaimer - that the financial disclosure did not meet the level of an audit.

That is Trump's defense. The financial disclosures did not meet the criteria to be a basis for a financial decision and this was disclosed.

I would expect this to mean that Trump cannot be criminally prosecuted.

I think they (the Dems) pushed the civil judgment too far.

 

I think it is very obvious that the Democrats are doing all they can to keep Trump from getting the GOP nomination include criminal and civil charges.

I do not think that Trump deviated from common accepted business practices.

I was simply asking what this would mean for the Trump brand.

@canadyjd answered that Trump would challenge the verdict. I agree.

I was primarily asking about his NYC business. Can he move them to another state? Can he pay the costs levied against him?

Those are things I don't know. So I ask here (where all the experts reside ).

 

The reason they go after Trump is that he leads the poll for the GOP nomination.

Right now too many candidates for the nomination hold identical or very similar platforms.


That said, from a logical standpoint, if a crime was committed then it would be wrong to ignore the crime.

I do not believe a crime was committed, and I don't believe most people regardless of political camp believe a crime was committed.

The DNC could have maintained an illusion of integrity if it had been more conservative with its accusations. But as it stands it is obvious they were using the government as a political club in hopes of bettering their chances in the next election.

 

Technically they are not "false charges" in the civil suit. Trump did inflate his worth by quite a bit

Trump did report Mar-a-Lago as being valued between $426.5 million and $613.2 million (it was really between $18 million and $27.6 million).

Trump did report the NYC building as 200% larger than it really is (between $114-$201.7 million more than it would actually be worth).

Trump did inflate the value of Trump Park Avenue (by 700% in 2014 and $60% in 2021).

Trump listed 40 Wall Street as valued at $735.4 million when it was actually valued at $540 million.

Trump did list Seven Springs Estate as valued at $261 million when it was valued at $30 million.


Those are facts. His defense is a disclaimer that his financial statements should not be used for financial decisions.


Now, I agree with you about Biden. But it seems like two camps got their hands caught in the cookie jar and are merely pointing at one another.

 

Trump is not the godless left. He isn't even on the left.

Facts are facts. It does not matter that Trump and the Dems agree on those facts. (Trump acknowledged those facts, but held that the disclaimer covered the issue....and I believe, legally, he may be right). I doubt such inflation is really abnormal.

I believe Trump's (and most of the GOP nominees) platform is better than the DNC platform. That is why I voted for him.


But that is not the topic of this thread.

I have noticed that every time something questionable comes up about Trump there is a group that screams "but his platform!".

His platform isn't the topic of this thread.