Well, folks, it seems like New York Attorney General Letitia James may have bitten off more than she can chew in her lawsuit against former President Donald Trump. Remember when she confidently accused Trump of inflating his asset values to secure better terms from banks and insurers? Turns out, the alleged ‘victim’ of this scheme, Deutsche Bank, didn’t quite see things her way.
In a twist that could only happen in the wild world of politics, David Williams, a Deutsche Bank executive who worked directly on at least one of Trump’s loans, testified that it’s “atypical, but not entirely unusual” for a bank to slash a client’s stated asset values by 50% and still approve a loan. And guess what? That’s exactly what they did with Trump.
So, what does this mean for Letitia James and her lawsuit? Well, it certainly doesn’t look good. In fact, Williams’ testimony pretty much demolishes her assumption that Trump misled the German bank. As it turns out, adjusting a client’s asset value is part of their due diligence. It’s part of their underwriting process applied to every client, regardless of what’s reported.
When asked if a difference of opinion in asset values between the client and the bank was a disqualifying factor to extend credit, Williams simply replied, “No.” Why not, you ask? “It’s just a difference of opinion,” Williams explained.
Now, the question we’re all asking ourselves is this: Is the Attorney General really prosecuting a former president based on a “difference of opinion”? It appears so. The irony is thick enough to cut with a knife, don’t you think?
Earlier in the trial, Trump and his sons, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, testified that no banks had been harmed by the alleged inflated valuation, and that multiple lenders had profited millions of dollars in interest on the loans. Trump also claimed that the earlier assessments took into account his name and the potential for future development.
So, it seems that these are nothing more than partisan show trials being prosecuted for election interference and overseen by partisan operatives. These cases have little to do with “justice” and everything to do with a political vendetta to “get Trump” — even at the expense of our judicial system.
Now, isn’t that something?
Leave a Comment