NYT issued a story about Trump dealing with Deutsche Bank in which they claim they loaned him over 2 billion $$ and he lied about his net-worth and assets.
Deutsche Bank reportedly loaned more than $2 billion to President Trump over multiple decades while he was a real estate developer.
The New York Times reported Monday, based on interviews with more than 20 bank officials, that the bank repeatedly loaned money to Trump despite multiple business-related “red flags.”
The report, which details the history between Trump and the bank, comes as congressional committees and the New York attorney general are investigating Trump’s financial ties to the bank.
In attempting to secure loans from the bank, Trump often exaggerated his wealth, according to the Times.
"Fraud is generally defined in the law as an intentional misrepresentation of material existing fact made by one person to another with knowledge of its falsity and for the purpose of inducing the other person to act, and upon which the other person relies with resulting injury or damage. "
Now, for the NYTs article:
“When Trump was trying to get a loan from the bank to build a skyscraper in Chicago, he reportedly said his net worth was $3 billion. The bank, however, reportedly concluded that he was worth about $788 million. But the bank still agreed in 2005 to lend Trump more than $500 million for the project, a decision that was made after Trump used flights on his private plane in an attempt to woo the bankers, according to the Times.”
Are you beginning to see a problem with that allegation of fraud?
and upon which the other person relies with resulting injury or damage. "
The left is having problems with the meaning of the word “and” tonight.
The referenced Hill article doesn’t have that problem. They never use the word “fraud”. They just say it is alleged he over represented the value of his assets.
Representing assets at a greater value than the bank is an entirely different thing than committing legal fraud. The thread title use of “fraud” is hardly an accident.
This does not hold an ounce of water. Was there no injury or damage. Yes, perhaps, if the only parties were DB and DJT… one defrauding the other. But in repeated instances, the two worked in concert to sell securities that performed extraordinarily poorly, and worked together when no other bank would support DJT’s efforts in the market. This conspiracy produced injury to the bondholders. Your and is satisfied as soon as you consider all the parties to the transaction.
