Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Saturday, March 02, 2019

There are a series of other Trump-related scandals that appear to put the president in legal jeopardy. For example, there's the counter-intelligence investigation into whether Trump's political operation cooperated with Russia during its attack on our elections. There are also questions about possible obstruction of justice. And the campaign-finance scandal in which the president has already been named as an unindicted co-conspirator. And the investigation into the Trump Foundation's alleged crimes. And the criminal probe into the president's inaugural committee.

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Donald Trump's mansion in Bedford, New York, which he purchased in 1995 for $7.5 million, proved to be a good investment: by 2013, the home was assessed at $18.9 million. Four years later, its value was pegged at $19.6 million. As part of his presidential financial disclosure forms, Trump recently valued the home inside the range of $25 million and $50 million.

But this week, Michael Cohen shed new light on the president's finances – specifically Trump's financial statements from earlier this decade, when the future president's assets were allegedly exaggerated for a variety of specific purposes.

For example, Trump inflated his wealth to Deutsche Bank when seeking a loan. According to Cohen, he also exaggerated his assets to mislead insurance companies. And in the case of his mansion in Westchester County, according to documents produced by Cohen, Trump briefly valued the property at $291 million in 2012.

That's not a typo. In 1995, he bought the home for $7.5 million, and in 2013, it assessed at $18.9 million, but in between, Trump said it was worth $291 million. He soon after changed his mind and put its value at a less ridiculous figure.

So what explains that radical, one-year exaggeration? Trump, according to Cohen's materials and testimony, used inflated figures like these to deceive financial institutions for his benefit.

And if the evidence is correct, and the president tried to perpetrate a fraud against financial institutions, that could be a felony – for which the statute of limitations has not expired.

This is the type of thing even the most simple of citizens can understand: common fraud. The truly uber-wealthy have no need to fraudulently exaggerate their net worths when applying for loans or seeking insurance policies. Only those who are actually unable to service their debt obligations tend to try such illicit subterfuge when trying to gaslight lenders and insurers and it's almost a 100% certainty that this example is not the only one and scores are likely to be found once investigators start taking a closer look.

I said it years ago and many more are each and every day because it's patently obvious that the Trump Organization will be hit with RICO charges for the volume and breadth of their criminal activities that lie at the base of their normal business practices. Now that the threads have been revealed and confirmed by the documents Cohen shared in public it's just a matter of time before the SDNY lowers the boom on Trump and his family business and strips whatever meager assets they actually have remaining compared to their likely mounting debt service obligations.

#1 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-03-02 09:00 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

But Cohen is a disloyal liar! Trump couldn't have done this!

-DR rightiots

#2 | Posted by jpw at 2019-03-02 04:40 PM | Reply

you know this is why they're having cohen testify some more, this week. he's telling what trump did, and when, and where, and how. and under oath. i wanta' know about that 100+ million for the inaugural and if that payed off the trump univ. judgement.

#3 | Posted by 1947steamer at 2019-03-02 08:03 PM | Reply

you know this is why they're having cohen testify some more, this week. he's telling what trump did, and when, and where, and how. and under oath. i wanta' know about that 100+ million for the inaugural and if that payed off the trump univ. judgement.

#3 | POSTED BY 1947STEAMER

I think you may be on to something there. I wouldn't be surprised in the least.

#4 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2019-03-02 09:21 PM | Reply

you know this is why they're having cohen testify some more, this week. he's telling what trump did, and when, and where, and how. and under oath. i wanta' know about that 100+ million for the inaugural and if that payed off the trump univ. judgement.

#3 | POSTED BY 1947STEAMER

I think you may be on to something there. I wouldn't be surprised in the least.

#5 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2019-03-02 09:22 PM | Reply

Why shouldn't "billionaires" be President? For one, their lotalty to the American citizens might be secondary to loyalty to their own business intrrests.

Second, who know's who's influencing them?

www.newyorker.com

In this 2018 deal, Trump is out begging for $200 million to grow his Scottish golf empire into a 500 mansion village. Would people "buy" into this? Sure if they want to buy access and unfluence. So how many Saudi princes, Quatari financiers and Russian and Chinese oligarchs would love to buy into Tchump's POS real estate scheme? Probably more than we imagine. How many see-through properties are there in the Trump real-estate orbit?

We've heard about the Trump Hotel in DC being booked in advance with no-show guests who still pay exorbitant $ for rikms that aren't used. How much more $ could Trump earn from a Scottish golf course scam?

#6 | Posted by Augustine at 2019-03-02 11:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Another scandal to ponder: Clown Prince Jared: Exposing the billion dollar scheme to push Trump to punish Qatar for the Saudis - www.haaretz.com

How much $ can Jared garner from his access to TS info? Can he be trusted to not try to "monetize" access to sensitive info he probably has no "need to know"? Seems like he's not one who should be entrusted in the first place.

#7 | Posted by Augustine at 2019-03-02 11:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

How much more $ could Trump earn from a Scottish golf course scam?...#6 | POSTED BY AUGUSTINE

trump just lost a lawsuit against the scottish golf course vs the government and he has to pay the government legal fees

#8 | Posted by 1947steamer at 2019-03-02 11:51 PM | Reply

#8 - good news. Any links? Haha.

#9 | Posted by Augustine at 2019-03-03 07:44 AM | Reply

Check this recent article:

The 6 essential cons that define Trump's "success"
www.washingtonpost.com

#10 | Posted by Augustine at 2019-03-03 07:45 AM | Reply

#8 - good news. Any links? Haha. .................#9 | POSTED BY AUGUSTINE

www.bbc.com

#11 | Posted by 1947steamer at 2019-03-03 09:15 AM | Reply

I predict the Trump defenders will avoid this thread like a plague.

#12 | Posted by danni at 2019-03-03 09:28 AM | Reply

#12 | POSTED BY DANNI

it get's even better...wait'll you read the infomercial thread

#13 | Posted by 1947steamer at 2019-03-03 09:32 AM | Reply


Also keep in mind, that these alleged crimes were committed in New York state.

If the NY Attorney General decides to prosecute (which she has indicated shoe would), then NY State is not subject to the Justice Department's "you can't indict a sitting President" guideline.

#14 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-03-03 11:16 AM | Reply

Are you sure about that? How does the New York State army stack up to the Federal one?

#15 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-03-03 12:09 PM | Reply

How does the New York State army stack up to the Federal one?

It's disturbing someone would even think of that question.

#16 | Posted by REDIAL at 2019-03-03 12:27 PM | Reply

Are you sure about that? How does the New York State army stack up to the Federal one?

#15 | POSTED BY VISITOR

Wow. You would support deploying active duty troops to protect a criminal POTUS from prosecution?

#17 | Posted by jpw at 2019-03-03 01:15 PM | Reply

Wow. You would support deploying active duty troops to protect a criminal POTUS from prosecution?

#17 | POSTED BY JPW

Sadly, Visitor (and a lot of Trumpers) actually would.

#18 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2019-03-03 03:39 PM | Reply

Not sure, though, how they reconcile that position with their "states rights" philosophy.

#19 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2019-03-03 03:41 PM | Reply

"How does the New York State army stack up to the Federal one?"

Visitor is predicting that our military would side with Trump instead of our Constitution. He's wrong, stupidly so.

#20 | Posted by danni at 2019-03-03 03:58 PM | Reply

Sadly, Visitor (and a lot of Trumpers) actually would.

#18 | POSTED BY WHODAMAN

Yup. Because they're devoid of integrity, morals, values, character, principles ect ect.

All that matters is forcing their world view on the rest of us no matter the means.

#21 | Posted by jpw at 2019-03-03 04:17 PM | Reply

No. You're wrong, as usual. I'm just pointing out that the Federal supersedes the state and If NY state has a problem with Trump they will have to wait until his presidency is over. Sorry losers.

#22 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-03-03 08:27 PM | Reply

I'm just pointing out that the Federal supersedes the state and If NY state has a problem with Trump they will have to wait until his presidency is over. Sorry losers.

And as usual you're a complete moron that fails to note a few actually important facts. 1) There is ZERO language in the Constitution that says a sitting President cannot be indicted nor tried for crimes; 2) There is no federal law on the books stating that a sitting President cannot be indicted nor tried for crimes; and 3) Said DOJ memo has never been adjudicated in federal court nor does anyone claim that it exists as a rule of actual law. It is a guidance memo for DOJ personnel and not state law enforcement entities.

The DOJ memo states in the opinion of its authors that they do not believe that a sitting President can be indicted nor tried while in office. That memo did not take into consideration that a sitting President might use the memo's dictates as precedence to commit further crimes in order to cover up those he's already suspected of, hence creating a condition where unless there is a political consensus to impeach and convict said President, he indeed would be above all laws of this nation as long as he retained the office of POTUS.

No one in the history of the United States has ever articulated the argument that a duly elected President could operate wholly outside of US law and the jurisdiction of state and federal justice officials and to repeat, certainly not in the commission of further criminal acts in order to keep suspected earlier acts from resulting in impeachment and conviction.

#23 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-03-03 10:45 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort