Crime is prosecuted by district attorneys in NY, not the AG.
Also who is Travis and how does he know her net worth?
This seems to be a reference to the fact Donald and I believe Eric Trump took the 5th in their depositions. The first time they were deposed.
But the 5th can't save you in a civil trial, in fact it hurts your case.
Only in a criminal trial, doea the 5th save you.
Trump knew Epstein since 1987 according to Trump himself.
Why. What would different about that from federal prison
The flight logs were confirmed. They came up as evidence in a lawsuit against Epstein.
Outsider
The Trump family was involved in politics since before Donald was born.
Trump's family was more involved in politics than I would say 90% of Americans. Fred Trump was connected the Madison political club in Brooklyn since he was in his 20s. These connections served him very well as he became one of the richest men in America. When Fred was just 28, Fred was able to get control of the assets of a big mortgage company through these political connections. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Lehrenkrauss_Corporation#cite_note-4
40 years later the [Madison club ](Madison Democratic Club Brings Influence to Brooklyn https://www.nytimes.com/1974/11/08/archives/madison-democratic-club-brings-influence-to-brooklyn.html?unlocked_article_code=1.9Ew.FnXD.lRicVRpJ5orH&smid=nytcore-android-share)was still a political force in the state. So much so that friends of the Fred Trump were mayor of New York and governor of New York. Both were Madison club members.
Yes, this happens quite often.
Furthermore, this is a an example of a logical fallacy called argument from personal incredulity.
Which is a fancy way of saying just cuz you're don't understand something or can't believe it happened doesn't mean it didn't happen. You need more evidence
Split ticket voting is a thing.
My mother used to do it ever since I was a kid used to piss my father off
Good luck
Mar A Lago itself is owned by a NYC company.
Do you think that argument will work on appeal?
Also did you see the witness who testified about how much Trump's loan would have cost? That seems like thing Trump's lawyers are going to have to refuse.
Say what now?
This disclaimer is discussed in detail in the Judge's Summary Judgment ruling.
A NY State judge has jurisdiction because Mar-A-Lago the hotel in DC, the Scottish golf courses, the hotel in Chicago are all ultimately owned by New York state LLCs.
The Trump organization is a collection of LLCs that ultimate roll up to like one or two main companies.
At the very top of the pyramid if I remember correctly, are two companies DJT revocable trust rl and DJT Holdings?
Trump was a witness for the STATE's case. The AG called him. His lawyers could have cross-examined him.
They chose not too.
The defense will begin Monday I think
By not cross-examining Trump, I believe they can call him back to the stand.
It's also already in evidence. It's part of financial statements at the heart of this case.
It's already in evidence as part of this case.
It's on every financial statement that is part of this case.
But you can't just whip an document out of your pocket. But you're right. Trump's lawyers can call him back to the stand as part of the defense and introduce the document as an exhibit.
He said he did. He has people who worked for him who said he did.
There is evidence he declassified Crossfire Hurricane material
But he has not been charged with any of this material.
They are saying that after Biden took office he reclassified the documents.
Where does the government say this? How would Biden know what documents Trump had a Mar a Lago? How would this reclassification take place?
By the government's argument they could say anyone is in possession of something Biden says is now classified and arrest you for it. It doesn't work that way.
It doesn't work that way and they are not making argument.
Trump is not charged with mere possession. He is charged with willfully retaining these documents. That means the government asked for them back....in fact, they subpoenaed these documents. The government is saying Trump hid these documents from his lawyers to avoid turning them over.
It's the difference between capability and action. My car has enough gas to get me to Virginia. But did I actually drive to Virginia?
The president has the power to declassify.
But did that mean he took the action to declassify these documents. So far no evidence has been presented for this.
Remember the judge in this case are treating these documents as currently classified. Trump's lawyers have to get a security clearance and the classified evidence can only be view at a secure part of the courthouse.
Former U.S. President Donald Trump and his lawyers may only review classified evidence in a secure place as he prepares for a criminal trial over his handling of secret documents after he left office in 2021, a judge ruled on Wednesday. .... The order requires Trump and his lawyers to review and discuss all classified evidence in what is known as a sensitive compartmented information facility, or SCIF.
Biden said he would remove this courtesy for Trump.
I have not Trump or his lawyers claim he was still getting briefings.
That does not change the nature of the criminal charges.
For example, if Trump did get a Intel briefing, it would mean he would not get to keep the documents.
All of these documents were legally declassified.
So far no evidence has been presented for this.
I see no links from Travis.
Basically the AG is claiming, banks/other lenders, insurance companies, and people who invested in securities based on Trump's loans.
The claim is that by inflating his net worth on his statements of financial condition, Trump was able to get lower interest rates and bigger loans. If he was indeed worth less, the loans would have been riskier and the banks would have charged more or not made them at all. Trump's biggest lender Deutsche Bank was giving him 2% percent based on personal guarantees that his worth would always be above $2.5 billion and he would always keep at least $50 cash on hand. (These loans were not just based on the property itself, but Trump himself.)
Trump's second biggest lender was Ladder Capital a real estate investment trust. They packed up trump loans in mortgage back securities, CMBS. If you remember the financial crisis, riskier securities get a lower investment grade and are harder to sell.....you usually have to offer higher return to offset the risk.
This is the crux of the AG's claim and what Trump will have to attack once the defense presents their case.
The Trump Organization’s skewed financial statements may have cost banks more than $168 million in interest, according to an expert witness hired by the New York attorney general’s office.
Michiel McCarty, chairman and CEO at the investment bank M.M. Dillon & Co., testified Wednesday to his “lost interest calculations” for banks that handed out loans to the Trump Organization. His calculations determined that across four Trump Organization assets, banks lost out on just over $168 million in interest.
The assets — 40 Wall Street, Trump’s Chicago hotel, the Old Post Office-turned-hotel and Trump’s golf course in Doral, Fla. — each lost banks tens of millions of dollars in interest across nearly a decade, according to McCarty’s assessment.
Unfortunately for Trump, in his summary judgement, the judge ruled this is not a legal defense
The judge gave three reasons for this.
-
The disclaimer doesn't say what the defendants claim it does
-
It's not an enforceable disclaimer and
-
You still have to reveal facts that are known to you, even if you add a disclaimer.
https://x.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1721547621632745814?s=20
However, defendants' reliance on these "worthless" disclaimers is worthless. The clause does not use the words "worthless" or " useless" or "ignore" or "disregard" or any similar words. It does not say, "the values herein are what I think the properties will be worth in ten or more years." Indeed, the quoted language uses the word "current" no less than five times, and the word "future" zero times.
Additionally, as discussed supra, a defendant may not rely on a disclaimer for misrepresentation of facts peculiarly within the defendant's knowledge. Basis Yield Alpha Fund at 136. Here, as the valuations of the subject properties are, obviously, peculiarly within defendants' knowledge, their reliance on them is to no avail.
Furthermore, "[t]his ' special facts doctrine' applies regardless of the level of sophistication of the parties." TIAA Glob. Invs. LLC v One Astoria Square LLC, 127 AD3d 75, 87 (1st Dept 2015) (emphasis added) (holding disclaimer does not bar liability for fraud where facts were peculiarly within disclaiming party's knowledge). Thus, the "worthless clause" does not say what defendants say it says, does not rise to the level of an enforceable disclaimer, and cannot be used to insulate fraud as to facts peculiarly within defendants' knowledge, even vis-a-vis sophisticated recipients.
https://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/other-courts/2023/2023-ny-slip-op-33314-u.html
Here's the ruling. Starting on page 12 of the ruling you can read the full section discussing this including the language of the disclaimer.
"Clearance" is different for presidents than other folks
Folks who are given clearance need to get "read in." They had learn the requirements and sign legal documents. If they leave that job they need to be "read out." When you are "read out." you sign more legal documents including saying you have no classified documents in your possession.
This doesn't happen for the president. Presidents, while they are president, just get automatic access and classification authority. They don't sign formal clearance papers, they just have it.
One former intel officer who was involved in briefing the Presidential Daily Brief to the Attorney General put it this way.
There’s a myth out there that presidents have a formal security clearance. They don’t.
What President's do get and it's a courtesy, not a legal requirement, is intelligence briefings
Biden was asked if Trump should get these briefings and Biden said I think not.
I would characterize this differently. Imagine an actual real club.
Given that unless you're a Bush or Kennedy or someone like that, Trump has always been very his very childhood way more involved in politics than virtually anyone else....which means he's inside the Club. He might sit at a different table, but you or I are not in the club at all. We can't even visit the club.
The only way we could get onto the property that the club is on is like get a job as a parking valet or a waiter. So the outsider thing has also been a pose. LIke the idea that Trump built his business himself. Wealth and his father's political connections have always been behind Trump.
Also far from being an outsider Trump has access to the media like few people ever. He's sought it out for over 40 years. I'm from NYC. Guy was always in columns and often on the front page.
Trump was friends with Cohn, Rubinstein and Moses. You can't get more inside than that. Let me explain.
Robert Moses was the master builder of New York. His biography, The Power Broker is 1,200 pages. That's how influential this guy was. The book about how politics and power really works. Moses was more powerful than mayors and the governor. He was a personal friend of Fred Trump,
Both Moses and Fred Trump wanted to and partially succeeded in changing Coney Island to get rid of amusements.
Roy Cohn who goes back the McCarthy hearings in 1950s, was by the 1970's the biggest fixer in NY politics/society He was Donald Trump's mentor and friend. Cohn literally was the lawyer for the head of the Gambino AND the Genovese families who are the two most power Mafia families in American history AND was the lawyer for the archbishop of NY. Cohn and Trump were super tight. Cohn introduced Trump to Roger Stone.
Howard Rubinstein was public relations guy. He was the "godfather of NYC PR." He might have been biggest PR man in America. He was known as a master of damage control. Rupert Murdoch's PR guy. The New York Yankees too. Donald Trump has been working with him since 1973.
And if you search on these names, you find, like I just did, a 1985 NY Times article on WHO RUNS NY NOW. Trump, Rubinstein and Cohn are all listed among the power brokers of the day. It mentions that Donald's first big deals, as opposed to Fred's, came about because the Trump political connections got him tax abatements. Donald's first deal had a tax abatement that was still going on all through his presidency. It was a 40 year abatement.