In 2018, The New York Times ran a long story with the punchline that Donald J. Trump was staked to a much larger inheritance by his father, Fred Trump. In 2024, just six years later, Judge Endorgan single-handedly determined that Trump’s real estate holdings were worth far less than Mr. Trump represented to banks.
I believe the New York Times investigation and story on Trump showed that he not only overvalued his properties for beneficial loans, etc., but also undervalued his properties for other purposes like paying taxes, or such. He clearly was playing the system then, much as he is playing the voters who have yet to see through his con man schemes.
Hope you read The NY Times piece. Basically they did what Trump is accused of doing. Start with the end conclusion and then work backward to set assumptions that lead to that conclusion. In budgeting we call that “solving for X”. The NYT piece needed wild leaps of future valuations to get to their conclusion, but they did it.
The case in Judge Engoron’s court is even more capricious. In reaching his verdict the judge said he believed Michael Cohen. A man who has proven he will say anything he is told to say. Cohen’s testimony was clear in that he said Mr. Trump never told anyone to falsify anything but somehow Cohen just knew Trump wanted to commit fraud. Hope neither you nor I face a judge who relies on someone saying he sensed we wanted to commit a crime.
The really sad part is that the people driving the lawfare think it is hurting Trump politically when the opposite is happening. As one “legal analyst” on MSNBC said, it didn’t matter what Trump did, eventually he has to face a Manhattan jury.
I’m no fan of Trump, but does any of this sound like justice to you?
If my memory is correct, and yes I did read the NYT article, Trump repeatedly changed the valuation of his properties based on the reasons for that valuation. So you are saying that the NYT 'extrapolated' those numbers instead of actually digging up the documents that showed how he valued those properties? I'm not sure how you could know that. That also would put the NYT and it's reporters in a position of zero credibility. Yet we continuously see example after example of Trump lying about pretty much everything. I'm not saying the NYT is perfect in their stories. I definitely see the the liberal bias in their articles. But I've never had a reason to question the facts they report.
The NYT style is to omit facts. Sometimes they just bury the ones that don’t support the narrative by putting a single sentence 20+ paragraphs deep in their writing.
What NYT did was look at tax records, then collected favorable stats they cherry picked from decades of miscellaneous transactions, then used those to set their value on Trump’s inheritance. Because they wanted a higher number and solved for that. Just like judge did last week. He wanted a low number he got that. Including the fiction that interest rate is the sole element of a complex transaction like this and that banks would not lend to others because Trump used up all the capital.
The NYT compared sales of other properties years after the fact and declared that the comparables. Values of illiquid assets can and do change over time based on many factors, eg, use of land, what gets built nearby, interest rates. The judge in the instant case declared himself the valuator of a lawful transaction between two sophisticated parties and then made up what he thought the deal terms should be. Then called other valuations and deal terms fraud.
And then there's this jewel by a major financial institution, Wells Fargo, that had tens of thousands or more of victims and real financial damage to our financial system and many individual victims (like me).
The bank settled by paying a fraction of the damage and zero went to jail or faced any real or proportional consequences of this major federal crime.
Maybe the officers and corporation made the right campaign contributions. A large part of the penalty they paid went not to the victims but the investors (that had oversight) of this massive scam.
I agree with you that the court decision about Trump's real estate was grotesque overreach, and if the courts consistently apply their novel application of the law in the future, many who own property will be in jeopardy.
However, I can't agree that democracy is in jeopardy because of Trump. He is incorrigibly controversial, but at least his policies, chaotically implemented as they were, were much better than the damaging ones coming from Biden and his handlers. If we were to suffer under multiple terms from liberal administrations, democracy might be lost, but it will take more than a term or two.
Never been a Trump fan, but he has had some effectiveness. Having said this, I concur with the tome of your piece: this sets the foundation for the establishment to go after the everyday joe who does not have the 3 C’s to battle this tyranny:
Cash
Connections
Clout.
We as the ordinary citizen are being set up for an inquisition of historic proportions relating to civil liberties
I believe the New York Times investigation and story on Trump showed that he not only overvalued his properties for beneficial loans, etc., but also undervalued his properties for other purposes like paying taxes, or such. He clearly was playing the system then, much as he is playing the voters who have yet to see through his con man schemes.
Both bank and government jurisdictions know that people make claims that benefit them best.
That's why they don't rely on those claims but instead use their own appraisers to establish their own valuation.
They did that in this case but most important, the loan was paid in full. No bank or public funds were lost.
There was no victim. Except those that depend on courts to apply the rules or for those that will in the future.
A troubling precedent has been set.
Hope you read The NY Times piece. Basically they did what Trump is accused of doing. Start with the end conclusion and then work backward to set assumptions that lead to that conclusion. In budgeting we call that “solving for X”. The NYT piece needed wild leaps of future valuations to get to their conclusion, but they did it.
The case in Judge Engoron’s court is even more capricious. In reaching his verdict the judge said he believed Michael Cohen. A man who has proven he will say anything he is told to say. Cohen’s testimony was clear in that he said Mr. Trump never told anyone to falsify anything but somehow Cohen just knew Trump wanted to commit fraud. Hope neither you nor I face a judge who relies on someone saying he sensed we wanted to commit a crime.
The really sad part is that the people driving the lawfare think it is hurting Trump politically when the opposite is happening. As one “legal analyst” on MSNBC said, it didn’t matter what Trump did, eventually he has to face a Manhattan jury.
I’m no fan of Trump, but does any of this sound like justice to you?
If my memory is correct, and yes I did read the NYT article, Trump repeatedly changed the valuation of his properties based on the reasons for that valuation. So you are saying that the NYT 'extrapolated' those numbers instead of actually digging up the documents that showed how he valued those properties? I'm not sure how you could know that. That also would put the NYT and it's reporters in a position of zero credibility. Yet we continuously see example after example of Trump lying about pretty much everything. I'm not saying the NYT is perfect in their stories. I definitely see the the liberal bias in their articles. But I've never had a reason to question the facts they report.
The NYT style is to omit facts. Sometimes they just bury the ones that don’t support the narrative by putting a single sentence 20+ paragraphs deep in their writing.
What NYT did was look at tax records, then collected favorable stats they cherry picked from decades of miscellaneous transactions, then used those to set their value on Trump’s inheritance. Because they wanted a higher number and solved for that. Just like judge did last week. He wanted a low number he got that. Including the fiction that interest rate is the sole element of a complex transaction like this and that banks would not lend to others because Trump used up all the capital.
The NYT compared sales of other properties years after the fact and declared that the comparables. Values of illiquid assets can and do change over time based on many factors, eg, use of land, what gets built nearby, interest rates. The judge in the instant case declared himself the valuator of a lawful transaction between two sophisticated parties and then made up what he thought the deal terms should be. Then called other valuations and deal terms fraud.
Compare this to all the people getting overvalued mortgages and companies that had "liars loans" that lead up to the '08 financial meltdown.
Clearly many were lying on the loan applications and signed documents that stated they were telling the truth. But they weren't.
How many of them went to jail or were prosecuted in any way?
Zero.
And then there's this jewel by a major financial institution, Wells Fargo, that had tens of thousands or more of victims and real financial damage to our financial system and many individual victims (like me).
The bank settled by paying a fraction of the damage and zero went to jail or faced any real or proportional consequences of this major federal crime.
Maybe the officers and corporation made the right campaign contributions. A large part of the penalty they paid went not to the victims but the investors (that had oversight) of this massive scam.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/wells-fargo-agrees-pay-3-billion-resolve-criminal-and-civil-investigations-sales-practices
I agree with you that the court decision about Trump's real estate was grotesque overreach, and if the courts consistently apply their novel application of the law in the future, many who own property will be in jeopardy.
However, I can't agree that democracy is in jeopardy because of Trump. He is incorrigibly controversial, but at least his policies, chaotically implemented as they were, were much better than the damaging ones coming from Biden and his handlers. If we were to suffer under multiple terms from liberal administrations, democracy might be lost, but it will take more than a term or two.
The Democracy is in danger because of the courts. I should have written that more clearly. Weaponization of justice never ends well.
Great point Ray. Attempt to drain Trump of Cash, Connections and Clout devastates another C - Courts.
Who would want to be the accused in this scenario?
Never been a Trump fan, but he has had some effectiveness. Having said this, I concur with the tome of your piece: this sets the foundation for the establishment to go after the everyday joe who does not have the 3 C’s to battle this tyranny:
Cash
Connections
Clout.
We as the ordinary citizen are being set up for an inquisition of historic proportions relating to civil liberties
Agree!
True, careful what you wish for.
I'm not a big fan of Trump, especially the personality part.
But........... this reminds me of the "First they came for, and I said nothing" expression.