What’s going to happen to Trump Mon Mar 25 2024?

[gounion]

As it appears now, Tuesday Mar 19, Trump has to put up the money or get a bond by Monday, or the courts can start proceedings to collect the money.

So does anyone have a prediction on, first, will Trump somehow come up with the money, or second, how will Trump react on Monday to the deadline?

[Glennfs]

I would love to have an actual conversation about the New York case. But, unfortunately you don't have the ability to have such a conversation.

[gounion]

I would love to have an actual conversation about the New York case. But, unfortunately you don't have the ability to have such a conversation.

Run away.

You want to say it’s all a witch hunt and Trump should be found not guilty because everyone does it.

[Glennfs]

Run away.

You want to say it’s all a witch hunt and Trump should be found not guilty because everyone does it.

No I know no matter what a person says there will be no discussion. It will be agree with you or hear dear leader bullshit.
Which is why you probably posted this anyway.

[gounion]

No I know no matter what a person says there will be no discussion. It will be agree with you or hear dear leader bullshit.
Which is why you probably posted this anyway.

Look, you’re too scared to say what you feel, so just go ahead and run away.

[gounion]

Reading up on the law, and reading between the lines, Trump could be running another con.

Glenn may not know this, but courts are all about evidence, not assertions. Trump hasn’t given ANY actual evidence that he can’t get bonded. He just names a few banks, and didn’t provide the court with actual evidence that there was no way they would loan Trump the money.

That could mean that he didn’t like the terms the banks required, so he said no, hoping the court would cut a deal on lowering or letting him out of the bond. That’s what Trump has said about debt before - that he is successful because of it, and if he can’t pay the debt, he just re-negotiates it.

So, if the court says no to his begging to lower or let him out of posting the bond, Trump may suddenly find someone that WILL cover his debt.

It sure sounds like Trump games.

[gounion]

Interesting piece on MSNBC that lays it all out - The things Trump COULD do, except that he’s so completely over-leveraged, everything he owns he doesn’t really own, he’s got mortgages against it. https://youtu.be/gfBkOW96m0w?si=NtikZBY3FffZB8HH

Or is Russia or Saudi money going to come in and save him?

Because Trump has bragged how he doesn’t pay his debts.

[Number6]

TFG is in a real bind. Most of his properties are mortgaged to the hilt and even if he could sell them part of the money would go to paying the mortgage lender first. Then, if the properties sold for more than TFG paid for them he'll be sujbect to capital gains tax. The amount remaining won't be enough to settle the fine so he'll have to sell even ore of his properties. In short, most of his "empire" will be liquidated.

[JoeMemphis]

TFG is in a real bind. Most of his properties are mortgaged to the hilt and even if he could sell them part of the money would go to paying the mortgage lender first. Then, if the properties sold for more than TFG paid for them he'll be sujbect to capital gains tax. The amount remaining won't be enough to settle the fine so he'll have to sell even ore of his properties. In short, most of his "empire" will be liquidated.

And yet there is no victim. So this is nothing but the state doing a money grab for purely political purposes. I am NOT a Trump supporter but this is an obvious abuse. All this proves is that this AG and the judge can be more abusive than the man they hate.

Some of these cases have some actual merit. The NY cases are an abuse of the law. They actually detract from some of the more legit complaints. This will come back to bite NY in the ass and it should.

Banks always do their own valuations. I have never seen a deal where a bank loans morey on real estate based on the owners valuation. That shit went away in 1984. No loan based solely on the owners valuation would get past even the dumbest bank examiner and no banker would risk having to establish a loan reserve on a deal like this.

The real estate isn’t going anywhere and the court can insure that the assets are protected while an appeal is heard. There is no victim here to protect. Allow the man to secure with his RE equity while his appeal is heard. I get you guys hate the man but does that mean you need to rob the man of his property before his appeal is heard? Again, there is no victim to protect. This is really a dick move even for someone like Trump.

Don’t tell me this isn’t lawfare. There are obvious grounds for appeal. There is no victim to protect and there is no possibility of him taking flight with his real estate assets.

[gounion]

And yet there is no victim. So this is nothing but the state doing a money grab for purely political purposes. I am NOT a Trump supporter but this is an obvious abuse. All this proves is that this AG and the judge can be more abusive than the man they hate.

Some of these cases have some actual merit. The NY cases are an abuse of the law. They actually detract from some of the more legit complaints. This will come back to bite NY in the ass and it should.

Banks always do their own valuations. I have never seen a deal where a bank loans morey on real estate based on the owners valuation. That shit went away in 1984. No loan based solely on the owners valuation would get past even the dumbest bank examiner and no banker would risk having to establish a loan reserve on a deal like this.

The real estate isn’t going anywhere and the court can insure that the assets are protected while an appeal is heard. There is no victim here to protect. Allow the man to secure with his RE equity while his appeal is heard. I get you guys hate the man but does that mean you need to rob the man of his property before his appeal is heard? Again, there is no victim to protect. This is really a dick move even for someone like Trump.

Don’t tell me this isn’t lawfare. There are obvious grounds for appeal. There is no victim to protect and there is no possibility of him taking flight with his real estate assets.

It’s HILARIOUS how you and Glenn always bleat you don’t support Trump, yet you ALWAYS come to his defense!

Tell me, Joe, in New York is it against the law to lie on those applications? Yes or no? If no, why has his main finance guy already been convicted and sent to prison? You’re saying companies can completely lie about their business, and nothing can happen to them. Maybe you could have worked for Bernie Madoff, eh?

Here’s the thing: All these talking points you’ve just spewed come straight from Donald Trump. They are LIES. They are NOT legally true, and you, as an accountant that probably has legal certifications, should KNOW that.

It doesn’t matter whether the money was paid back or not. Look, I just bought a house a few years ago. Even here in Tennessee, there are a LOT of things the builder was required by law to tell the truth about - and they could be held even criminally responsible if they lied about. And I recall when I was filling out my forms and signing for the house, I was informed that lying on those forms was against the law - whether or not the lender had checked me out too.

And you’re telling me that it’s perfectly acceptable for the builder to put the wrong square footage on the documents, and that if I don’t measure everything, it’s my fault, not theirs?

If you think Donald Trump did nothing wrong, I’d never hire you as an accountant. You are saying that if your client told you that they were going to lie on loan applications, you would tell them it was perfectly acceptable to do so.

And, are you licensed in New York, and do you know New York law, well enough to tell the Courts that THEY are all lying?

It’s astonishing, if you don’t like Donald Trump, that you would believe every lie that he would tell you. That says it all. Are you that gullible, or are you carrying Dear Leader’s water just like Glenn?

And Joe, you know how we all know you are lying about not supporting Trump? Because, if you REALLY believed this was the ONE case that didn’t hold water against Trump, you would have pointed out that Trump calling EVER CASE AGAINST HIM A WITCH HUNT hurts his credibility.

But hell, you think Trump IS credible because you repeat all of his lying talking points.

[gounion]

TFG is in a real bind. Most of his properties are mortgaged to the hilt and even if he could sell them part of the money would go to paying the mortgage lender first. Then, if the properties sold for more than TFG paid for them he'll be sujbect to capital gains tax. The amount remaining won't be enough to settle the fine so he'll have to sell even ore of his properties. In short, most of his "empire" will be liquidated.

If he’s so fucking rich and his properties are worth so much, I mean, he could get another mortgage on Mar-a-Lago and turn the money over to New York, and when he won the appeal (after all he wins soooo many appeals) he can just pay it off.

Which, he may do when the appeals court rules he has to put the money up. I think it all may be Trump looking for a better deal.

[Toonces]

[Glennfs]

It’s HILARIOUS how you and Glenn always bleat you don’t support Trump, yet you ALWAYS come to his defense!

Tell me, Joe, in New York is it against the law to lie on those applications? Yes or no? If no, why has his main finance guy already been convicted and sent to prison? You’re saying companies can completely lie about their business, and nothing can happen to them. Maybe you could have worked for Bernie Madoff, eh?

Here’s the thing: All these talking points you’ve just spewed come straight from Donald Trump. They are LIES. They are NOT legally true, and you, as an accountant that probably has legal certifications, should KNOW that.

It doesn’t matter whether the money was paid back or not. Look, I just bought a house a few years ago. Even here in Tennessee, there are a LOT of things the builder was required by law to tell the truth about - and they could be held even criminally responsible if they lied about. And I recall when I was filling out my forms and signing for the house, I was informed that lying on those forms was against the law - whether or not the lender had checked me out too.

And you’re telling me that it’s perfectly acceptable for the builder to put the wrong square footage on the documents, and that if I don’t measure everything, it’s my fault, not theirs?

If you think Donald Trump did nothing wrong, I’d never hire you as an accountant. You are saying that if your client told you that they were going to lie on loan applications, you would tell them it was perfectly acceptable to do so.

And, are you licensed in New York, and do you know New York law, well enough to tell the Courts that THEY are all lying?

It’s astonishing, if you don’t like Donald Trump, that you would believe every lie that he would tell you. That says it all. Are you that gullible, or are you carrying Dear Leader’s water just like Glenn?

And Joe, you know how we all know you are lying about not supporting Trump? Because, if you REALLY believed this was the ONE case that didn’t hold water against Trump, you would have pointed out that Trump calling EVER CASE AGAINST HIM A WITCH HUNT hurts his credibility.

But hell, you think Trump IS credible because you repeat all of his lying talking points.

And this is what I wanted to discuss and your response is why I didn't. You don't want to have a conversation. You want to have a hate on Trump circle jerk.
O have no doubt the only reason you started this thread was so you could post this response.

But, being optimistic I do have a question. Shouldn't the financial institutions which gave him a loan based upon over valued appraisals also be charged.
There is no way they accepted his appraisal without checking into the values.

Finally the loans were repaid. Nobody lost any money and nobody or financial institution involved complained. So yes this case was politically motivated and anyone with even 1 ounce of bipartisanship would see and admit that.

I guess Trump is the only person in New York who ever or recently have overvalued property.

Again you aren't looking for justice you are looking for vengeance

[gounion]

And this is what I wanted to discuss and your response is why I didn't. You don't want to have a conversation. You want to have a hate on Trump circle jerk.
O have no doubt the only reason you started this thread was so you could post this response.

But, being optimistic I do have a question. Shouldn't the financial institutions which gave him a loan based upon over valued appraisals also be charged.
There is no way they accepted his appraisal without checking into the values.

Finally the loans were repaid. Nobody lost any money and nobody or financial institution involved complained. So yes this case was politically motivated and anyone with even 1 ounce of bipartisanship would see and admit that.

I guess Trump is the only person in New York who ever or recently have overvalued property.

Again you aren't looking for justice you are looking for vengeance

You don't understand the law. Do you think you can lie on loan applications? Yes or no?

You listen to Trump - and he is lying. You think the New York judge doesn't know the law?

[Glennfs]

You don't understand the law. Do you think you can lie on loan applications? Yes or no?

You listen to Trump - and he is lying. You think the New York judge doesn't know the law?

I think that everyone in New York City doing business on that level lies on applications. I think the banks look the other way. I know had Trump never been president this case would have never been brought.

[gounion]

I think that everyone in New York City doing business on that level lies on applications. I think the banks look the other way. I know had Trump never been president this case would have never been brought.

It's illegal. End of story.

Quit pretending Trump is a victim.

[JoeMemphis]

And this is what I wanted to discuss and your response is why I didn't. You don't want to have a conversation. You want to have a hate on Trump circle jerk.
O have no doubt the only reason you started this thread was so you could post this response.

But, being optimistic I do have a question. Shouldn't the financial institutions which gave him a loan based upon over valued appraisals also be charged.
There is no way they accepted his appraisal without checking into the values.

Finally the loans were repaid. Nobody lost any money and nobody or financial institution involved complained. So yes this case was politically motivated and anyone with even 1 ounce of bipartisanship would see and admit that.

I guess Trump is the only person in New York who ever or recently have overvalued property.

Again you aren't looking for justice you are looking for vengeance

Obviously no one should lie on loan applications. Anyone who has been in or around real estate development knows full well that most property owners believe their property is worth top dollar and often tend to over value their property. Is that lying? At some point yes. But where is that point?


The crux of this case however isn’t valuation as a basis for the loans as financial institutions don’t loan money on the owners valuations. They loan money on the liquidation value of the underlying real estate and the institutions do their own due diligence in making a value determination. In this case, there are no victims. There are no damages. Not a single financial institution was damaged. So if Trump “lied”, then this is a “fine” or “penalty” for that misrepresentation. So what is a fair penalty? Well if there were actual damages, you can argue that those damages should play a part in the determination of the penalty. But we have no damages. No injured party. So the penalty can’t be based on damages that do not exist. The penalty in this case is clearly excessive. I haven’t heard a single lender or real estate professional that disagrees. There is ample evidence to appeal this decision on the grounds that it is politically motivated. Since there is no victim, the defendant should be allowed to pledge his NY property as security and allowed to appeal as is his right. It is excessive to force sale of assets in a fire sale purely to be politically vindictive. I wouldn’t advocate that for anyone. There is no victim to protect. There is no reason to seize properties pending appeal. They aren’t going anywhere. There is no reason to irreversibly damage valuation of these properties by forcing a fire sale of the assets. If the prosecution is confident in their case and the legal grounds for their decision to prosecute and for the basis of the half billion dollar judgement, they have nothing to lose allowing the defendant to use property as security and allow the appeal to proceed. If however, they want to use the courts as a political weapon, they can proceed as the AG proposes. Clearly she is politically motivated.

[gounion]

Obviously no one should lie on loan applications. Anyone who has been in or around real estate development knows full well that most property owners believe their property is worth top dollar and often tend to over value their property. Is that lying? At some point yes. But where is that point?


The crux of this case however isn’t valuation as a basis for the loans as financial institutions don’t loan money on the owners valuations. They loan money on the liquidation value of the underlying real estate and the institutions do their own due diligence in making a value determination. In this case, there are no victims. There are no damages. Not a single financial institution was damaged. So if Trump “lied”, then this is a “fine” or “penalty” for that misrepresentation. So what is a fair penalty? Well if there were actual damages, you can argue that those damages should play a part in the determination of the penalty. But we have no damages. No injured party. So the penalty can’t be based on damages that do not exist. The penalty in this case is clearly excessive. I haven’t heard a single lender or real estate professional that disagrees. There is ample evidence to appeal this decision on the grounds that it is politically motivated. Since there is no victim, the defendant should be allowed to pledge his NY property as security and allowed to appeal as is his right. It is excessive to force sale of assets in a fire sale purely to be politically vindictive. I wouldn’t advocate that for anyone. There is no victim to protect. There is no reason to seize properties pending appeal. They aren’t going anywhere. There is no reason to irreversibly damage valuation of these properties by forcing a fire sale of the assets. If the prosecution is confident in their case and the legal grounds for their decision to prosecute and for the basis of the half billion dollar judgement, they have nothing to lose allowing the defendant to use property as security and allow the appeal to proceed. If however, they want to use the courts as a political weapon, they can proceed as the AG proposes. Clearly she is politically motivated.

Good job of using all of Trump’s lying talking points. That’s all you’re doing. To say you don’t support Trump is laughable.

Let’s be clear: his chief financial officer is in prison. But hey, everyone’s just out to get poor old Donald, right?

You obviously don’t know the law. Here is an analysis of the case from people far more educated and knowledgeable than you are. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=4690963

Go ahead, rebut this.

It’s funny how you and Glenn pretend you don’t support Donald yet you always repeat his nonsense.

[gounion]

So to recap - after the decision, Trump’s lawyer, Alina Habba, said on the news that OF COURSE Trump could post the bond, that he was really rich and had plenty of cash. Now he’s so damned poor that he can’t do it. Glenn comes running to Trump’s defense.

Was she lying then, or now?

Both.

I think Trump CAN make the bond, but he doesn’t like the terms. He could put another mortgage on Mar-a-Lago easily. But he hopes to scam the court to have them reduce or dismiss the bond. I don’t think they will, because he didn’t offer actual proof that he couldn’t get it in any way.

If Trump TRULY can’t make the bond, that means that he’s so over-leveraged that he’s steps from bankruptcy at all times, if he doesn’t have the ability, between all of his properties, to even come up with a $500 mill mortgage.

I think he’s lying. Of course, he’s ALWAYS lying. He’ll either miraculously come up with the bond, or he’ll get money from Russia or Saudi Arabia, And that’ll be just fine with Joe and Glenn too.

[Toonces]

Engoron, who ruled before the trial that Trump and his co-defendants committed fraud with his financial statements, found Trump liable on five of the six remaining claims in James’ lawsuit: falsifying business records, issuing false financial statements, conspiracy to commit insurance fraud and conspiracy to falsify business records.

Are those violations of the law? Yes or no

If no, why not.

If yes, why should they be ignored because there was "no victim"

If you have something stolen from you, but you get it back, is it still a crime? You've lost nothing, are you a victim or not?

Hunter lied on the form when he got that gun. No one was harmed. Are some of you now saying that he shouldn't have been charged with anything? Granted, It's not as significant are committing fraud to receive a favorable loan. If everything had been legitimate, the banks could have potentially made more money. But as it stands, Donald benefited from the fraud.

[gounion]

Are those violations of the law? Yes or no

If no, why not.

If yes, why should they be ignored because there was "no victim"

If you have something stolen from you, but you get it back, is it still a crime? You've lost nothing, are you a victim or not?

Hunter lied on the form when he got that gun. No one was harmed. Are some of you now saying that he shouldn't have been charged with anything? Granted, It's not as significant are committing fraud to receive a favorable loan. If everything had been legitimate, the banks could have potentially made more money. But as it stands, Donald benefited from the fraud.

Good point. Neither Glenn nor Joe have any problem with flip-flopping their arguments, which all contradict each other. Their bottom line is that liberals are always guilty and Trump never is.

[JoeMemphis]

Are those violations of the law? Yes or no

If no, why not.

If yes, why should they be ignored because there was "no victim"

If you have something stolen from you, but you get it back, is it still a crime? You've lost nothing, are you a victim or not?

Hunter lied on the form when he got that gun. No one was harmed. Are some of you now saying that he shouldn't have been charged with anything? Granted, It's not as significant are committing fraud to receive a favorable loan. If everything had been legitimate, the banks could have potentially made more money. But as it stands, Donald benefited from the fraud.

The question on whether he lied has been adjudicated and most certainly will be appealed. The question of whether the “fine” or “penalty” is reasonable and whether he should have to post a bond is the current question. I am comfortable with allowing the defendant exercise his right to appeal the decision of the court. I am also comfortable that he can secure the court’s decision pending appeal by pledging his NY real estate assets. They aren’t going anywhere and forcing him to liquidate those assets prior to appeal can and will cause irreversible damage to the asset valuation. It’s unnecessary. There are no victims awaiting indemnification in this case. So forcing a liquidation in this matter is purely punitive and is being done for purely political reasons.

If you guys are so sure you are in the right, then allow the man to
exercise his right to appeal without forcing him to sell assets in a fire sale. There are no victims waiting on a check. There is no risk that the assets will be moved.

[gounion]

The question on whether he lied has been adjudicated and most certainly will be appealed. The question of whether the “fine” or “penalty” is reasonable and whether he should have to post a bond is the current question. I am comfortable with allowing the defendant exercise his right to appeal the decision of the court. I am also comfortable that he can secure the court’s decision pending appeal by pledging his NY real estate assets. They aren’t going anywhere and forcing him to liquidate those assets prior to appeal can and will cause irreversible damage to the asset valuation. It’s unnecessary. There are no victims awaiting indemnification in this case. So forcing a liquidation in this matter is purely punitive and is being done for purely political reasons.

If you guys are so sure you are in the right, then allow the man to
exercise his right to appeal without forcing him to sell assets in a fire sale. There are no victims waiting on a check. There is no risk that the assets will be moved.

The law is that to appeal, you have to put up a bond so that, if you lose, the decision will be immediately enforced. If you don’t like it, I’d suggest you move to New York and try to change the law.

You will defend Trump to your last breath, won’t you?

Who was the victim in the Hunter Biden gun charge?

[Toonces]

I guess the question is. Does Donald Trump deserve preferential treatment?

He is not required to put up a bond to appeal. However, the seizure of assets can still occur, in that instance. So, yes he can appeal without bond but the fine will still be levied. If he wins on appeal, he can get it all back, unless the assets have been sold in which case he'd get that value.

It's how it works for anyone in this position. They can lower the bond but are not required to do so. Considering how is has reacted during and post-trial, he may not be granted any leniency.

To be clear, this is 100% his own doing. He put himself in this position, he was not forced to do what he did and say what he did. He's an adult and, like anyone else, should be responsible for his actions. It would have been a lot better for him if he didn't commit fraud AND just stopped talking. The amount is neither unprecedented nor is it unreasonable. He overstated his net worth repeatedly. He has only himself to blame. Though, we should have seen that coming since he misrepresents his worth. Habba repeatedly stated that he had the money. Habba does seem to have a knack for things costing more than they could have, for Donald. Only the best people! So, I'm not going to be surprised if Donald's inability to just shut up has cost him. We know it did with EJC. Seriously, lock the man in a room with a Nintendo and he'd be doing better.

Like Hunter. Hunter put himself into the position he is in and is responsible for his actions. If Hunter has big fines and/or jail time then Hunter should pay the big fines and/or jail time.

Just as an aside. I don't hate Donald. If he needed a transplant and I was the only donor, I would do it (although, his age and overall health make me wonder if it would be worth it). If he needed money for a meal, I would give it to him. Obviously, I wouldn't expect it to be repaid, but that's just common sense.

[JoeMemphis]

I guess the question is. Does Donald Trump deserve preferential treatment?

He is not required to put up a bond to appeal. However, the seizure of assets can still occur, in that instance. So, yes he can appeal without bond but the fine will still be levied. If he wins on appeal, he can get it all back, unless the assets have been sold in which case he'd get that value.

It's how it works for anyone in this position. They can lower the bond but are not required to do so. Considering how is has reacted during and post-trial, he may not be granted any leniency.

To be clear, this is 100% his own doing. He put himself in this position, he was not forced to do what he did and say what he did. He's an adult and, like anyone else, should be responsible for his actions. It would have been a lot better for him if he didn't commit fraud AND just stopped talking. The amount is neither unprecedented nor is it unreasonable. He overstated his net worth repeatedly. He has only himself to blame. Though, we should have seen that coming since he misrepresents his worth. Habba repeatedly stated that he had the money. Habba does seem to have a knack for things costing more than they could have, for Donald. Only the best people! So, I'm not going to be surprised if Donald's inability to just shut up has cost him. We know it did with EJC. Seriously, lock the man in a room with a Nintendo and he'd be doing better.

Like Hunter. Hunter put himself into the position he is in and is responsible for his actions. If Hunter has big fines and/or jail time then Hunter should pay the big fines and/or jail time.

Just as an aside. I don't hate Donald. If he needed a transplant and I was the only donor, I would do it (although, his age and overall health make me wonder if it would be worth it). If he needed money for a meal, I would give it to him. Obviously, I wouldn't expect it to be repaid, but that's just common sense.

I guess we disagree as to unprecedented and unreasonable. As a financial person, when fraud in the inducement is alleged, we have to prove both a material misstatement and reliance on that misstatement. In this case, there may well have been misstatements but no lender relied on those statements to make lending decisions. Real estate lenders do their own due diligence to arrive at real estate valuations. They never rely on the borrowers statements of value. I’ve been doing this over 35 years and I have never seen a loan on real estate that didn’t involve the lender doing their own due diligence. In this case there are no victims. None. No lender is a victim. If you want to fine the man for making false statements then those fines can’t be based on actual damages unless you can produce actual victims. This looks a lot like a money grab by the state and politically motivated. Show me a case where NY hauled in a borrower on a charge like this when there was zero loss to the lender and the loan never went into default. Also show me where such fines were imposed for false statements when there were no victims and no damages. I haven’t heard of such a case. Maybe you have. You claim it isn’t unprecedented or unreasonable so there must be case history or you wouldn’t make such claims.