Try driving recklessly late at night. See if you can argue your way out of those charges by claiming that "there was no damage to anyone." Driving recklessly is a crime. No matter when, why, or for what reason, that is a crime.
In the case of a civil trial, the damages are the issue. There was no evidence that anyone was damaged by Trump's borrowing activities, that anyone was misled in a material way, or that lenders were lied to, or not paid back, or that the lending was less profitable than they anticipated. The lenders came into the courtroom and testified the loans were paid back in accordance with, even sooner, than the loan terms mandated. The lenders testified that not only did they make money, they considered Trump to be an excellent business partner and were willing to lend more any time. Wanted more. Because it was so profitable and above board.
Now, the bogus judge in the case, simply ignored all that. The judge lied. There was no "ill-gotten gain" by Trump; the loans were like many thousands of others made during the same period. The only difference, was this was TRUMP.
Your "driving recklessly" comment has no metaphorical relevance to the Trump trial. Perhaps you didn't read the opinion, or didn't pay attention to it at the time.
>> What Trump did was state flat out lies in violation of good faith negotiations.
That has not been shown. There are two issues I know of. One was about 30K square feet in Trump Tower, that at some long-ago date had been included in the Trump residence. There was no detail about the origin of that item, whether it was computational or what. I had read some time ago that it was some unfinished area in the building, at another time that it didn't exist, but these were not in the trial transcript as far as I can recall. At any rate, 30K square feet in one building isn't material. It is not something that matters in the lending process, was included in the presentation for years IIRC, and just would have had zero consequences to the lenders.
The other item was the valuation on Mar a Lago, which the idiot judge arbitrarily disagree with due to his obvious lack of understanding of how such valuations are made and reported. He ridiculously referenced a 28 million dollar tax "appraisal" as though it related in some way to the value of the property. I do not know if the judge was ignorant, or just lying. But he did what he did.
The valuation of MAL is, frankly, none of the judge's business. Had it been provably misstated, that would be one thing. But that was not the case.
I don't know where your claim of "lying" came from there was no evidence of Trump lying presented AFAIK. |
