Orange Duce

[old salt]

Be afraid, be very afraid.

https://twitter.com/VDHanson/status/1725201086313873765
Victor Davis Hanson
@VDHanson, Nov 16, 2023

Trump Revenge?

As Joe Biden’s polls plunge, his public bewilderment becomes chronic, and his exposed corruption can no longer be defended, pundits are writing furiously about the specter of “Trump revenge”. What is that, and why is it coming up now?

The Republican primary polls alarm them, but the general election polls favoring Trump over Biden utterly terrify them.

They privately concede that the crude-sounding Trump nevertheless did not weaponize the FBI, CIA, or DOJ.

The Trump-hating Pentagon, retired generals, CIA and FBI directors, the Washington FBI hierarchy—all of them knew that the fiery and bombastic Trump nevertheless did not hound out his enemies and turn these agencies and institutions into West Wing political operatives, in the way that Biden has destroyed the reputations of the DOJ and FBI.

So why the new mantra of “Trump revenge”?

Most likely, the Left is afraid because they know that if they were Trump and had suffered such weaponized lawfare from their opponents and in-house apostates, and yet had finally regained power, then they would most certainly go after their enemies with mass firings, weaponized indictments, and fake news stories.

In other words, they are scared that Trump thinks and acts like they do, and thus would do what they most certainly would do if in his place.

But for all of Trump’s loud banter, invective, and over-the-top tweets, he never sicced the bureaucracies on his political and personal enemies, and in that regard was never quite like the Left.·

https://twitter.com/VDHanson/status/1729622316945129893
Victor Davis Hanson
@VDHanson, Nov 28, 2023

Don’t Do Unto Others What We Would Have Done to Them?

Once more, it gets even creepier how the projectionist Left is daily still shrieking about impending Trump “revenge” and “rage”, or about Trump’s purported enemies lists to come, or about his planned weaponization of the bureaucracies. The fear is in direct proportion to Biden cognitive decline, sinking polls, and walls-are-closing-in family corruption.

Should we laugh or cry about the transparent hypocrisy?

After all, who tried to wreck an administration with a 22-month-long Russian “collusion” fraud, suppressed a laptop with the lie it was Russian “disinformation”, or impeached a president for a phone call correctly identifying the Biden family’s operation in Ukraine as utterly corrupt and at the expense of U.S. interests?

Do we recall that the Obama-Biden nexus—from 2009-17, and from 2021 until now—cemented the reputation of FBI as a partisan operation, rebooted the Pentagon as an agent of woke change ferreting out “white rage” and “white privilege”, reinvented the DOJ as a Biden family protection service, politicized the CIA so that it, along with the FBI, interfered in the 2016 and 2020 elections, and warped the IRS by suppressing evidence of Biden family tax fraud?

What Lois Lerner, Eric Holder (self-identified as Obama’s “wingman”), and Loretta Lynch left undone was taken up by Merrick Garland.

Does the New York Times, or Joe Scarborough or any of these strange pundits raging about Trump rage to come remember how the “Logan Act” farce was used to destroy Michael Flynn?

Or the Foreign Policy essay of Rosa Brooks, a former Obama-era Pentagon lawyer, about how to drive out Trump without waiting for the 2020 election, by either impeachment, the 25thAmendment—or a military coup?

How about the “kill Trump” porn that saw celebrities, actors, and academics envisioning decapitating, stabbing, shooting, exploding, or incinerating the orange man?

How about Anonymous’s confessions about how fellow bureaucrats were trying to undermine and sabotage the operations of the Trump administration from within? Or the Pentagon’s retired 4-stars calling for Trump to be removed the “sooner the better”, or labeling him a Mussolini or Nazi-like figure?

Who paid Twitter millions to censor the news of political opponents?

Who paid foreign national Christopher Steele to peddle a fake dossier to destroy the 2016 Republican candidate?

Do we remember Biden’s Phantom-of-the-Opera harangue about his “ultra-MAGA” and “semi-fascists” political enemies?

Were not the twin pillars of Biden’s current foreign policy team, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, and Secretary of State Antony Blinken, once respectively knee-deep in the anti-Trump Alfa Bank-ping hoax and the “51 Intelligence Authorities” laptop scam?

Again, the reason the media and politicians are terrified is that they are convinced Trump would do exactly what they would do in his place—and what they would do utterly suddenly horrifies them.

[Kismet]

Garbage in garbage out from VDH as per usual.

He should work at Faux News - oops that's part of the evil media.

AS usual, your facts are wrong McGurk has been engaged for quite some time and he has been at NSC not State for Biden.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/biden-na ... 937ff4287f

He initially left after Orang Fatso's Syria withdrawal FUBAR which you supported.

[Farfromgeneva]

ABC

Nov 01, 12:05 PM EDT
Trump's misrepresentations cost banks $168M, expert testifies

The state's expert witness, Michiel McCarty, calculated that Donald Trump's lenders lost $168 million in potential interest between 2014 and 2023, according to a report he presented in court.

McCarty's testimony appeared to reinforce a central tenet of New York Attorney General Letitia James' case: that Trump's misrepresentations in his financial statements cost banks potential earnings from interest, even if the banks made money on the loans.

State attorney Kevin Wallace directed McCarty to a footnote in Judge Engoron's earlier summary judgment order about the concept of lost interest, in which Engoron said, "The subject loans made the banks lots of money; but the fraudulent SFCs [Statements of Financial Condition] cost the banks lots of money. The less collateral for a loan, the riskier it is, and a first principle of loan accounting is that as risk rises, so do interest rates. Thus, accurate SFCs would have allowed the lenders to make even more money than they did."

McCarty, who said he agreed with this assessment, ultimately found that banks lost a total of $168,040,168 in potential interest from loans related to four of Trump's properties in Miami, New York, Chicago, and Washington, D.C.

Trump attorney Chris Kise fiercely objected, arguing that McCarty was testifying about facts not established during the trial. During questioning, state attorneys declined to ask a Deutsche Bank executive if the bank would have still done business with Trump had they known his financial statements were inflated.

"They are not ill-gotten gains if the bank does not testify it would have done it differently," Kise said.

"I decided these were ill-gotten," the Judge Engoron replied.

Following Wallace's direct examination of McCarty, defense attorney Jesus Suarez began his cross-examination.

Thanks. So maybe $100mm happens.

First off before I get into the weeds…because…I’m not advocating for leniency on this dipshit. Hammer him, he probably owes the country a heck of a lot more anyways. But where Id be hyper critical:

Of course that’s the states expert witness. I’ve done a little litigation support (not worth it usually but for people I want to work with). I also have been on the other side of accountants, they don’t often have any handle on market valution at all. Have seen some wildly incorrect confidence in accountants who think they are bankers or finance people. Hence OTTI and FMV are separated. I once had a CFO have to casters his accountants when they needed to mark some Trust Preferred Securities of an acquired bank. The accountants are sitting there is sitting it’s +700 and comparing to straight common equity (which still didn’t make sense because the client bank was trading at 3x book value and making a 18% ROE, which implies a going in 6% yield on common equity in the market) and I knew I could replace the hybrid tier 1 regulatory capital for +225-300bps. (They did it with another firm at 250 a few months later) On $100mm that accounting was off by $4mm/yr and the maturity was like 13-15yrs out on the trust preferred so do that discount math. The accountants were off by 30-40pts on par which on their issuance was tens of millions of dollars.

So that’s presumably the most aggressive, outside “wing” on the high side. The low is probably in my $10-$50mm range and then I guess it comes down to which side is more convincing to the judge. But split the two and you do get to like $75-$100mm or close to your estimate. But it could end up half that still.

I can’t stand non market experienced valuation practitioners insisting they know. Smart folks but man they get it so wrong so often I don’t know what people are paying for sometimes. There’s some good ones for sure I got a buddy with a smaller shop in Nashville but the head principal spent a lot of time in markets in a prior life with some active firms. But the 28-33yrs olds at accounting firms doing valuation and more worried about the internal utilization than getting it right. They’ll also add intangible values like “reputational cost” which lets be honest, isn’t a factor for these firms anymore. Saw one recently on Twitter where there was a Musk discount with is probably real in the market but not supportable quantitatively.

I don’t know, I just know market conditions, they really weren’t impacted in reality. This debate in court is just mark to model semantics. Of course I can’t stand the guy so hit him with $170mm and call it a day. But if we’re being fair I just don’t think they were realistically hurt by all this.

It seems Trump, in the end, employed business/econ people much like yourself, who knew the system so well, they knew where the edge of the cliff was and could flirted with it. Not implying unscrupulous on your part, just people that could work in the grey.

The changing of valuation for financial gain…. Sometimes within the same week speaks of intent to defraud. It’s the pattern. It has already been determined to be fraud. It’s how much of a penalty he will pay is what is being decided. Had he and his family not directed their employees or agents to falsify the numbers likely would result in a lesser fine. The more egregious the manipulation and the lack of contrition, the larger the fine.

That's my take as well, admittedly not a professional accountant nor litigator...but I think the pattern of deception, again and again and again, and the egregiousness of the lies, and the magnitude of the deceptions, together, take it way beyond "grey". If these were close calls on which professionals could reasonably disagree that's indeed par for the course (not that it's really ok for those rich and willing to play sharp ball to get away with such while regular folks do not), but this is an example of massive exaggeration beyond any scope of reasonable defense of the estimates, often in direct defiance of what the professionals had actually reported to their client, coupled with clear and direct lies about the assumptions an expert should work with to derive an estimate, whether square footage or deed encumbrances. Beyond the pale.

So, the question, Geneva and Youth, is really about whether deals were done that might not have been done or not done at the same terms...what's the differential in the terms worth to the borrower or insured? Apparently, all profits from such frauds are subject to recapture by civil authorities, regardless of whether the private parties wish to pursue. The state has interests in the rule of law whereas the private parties may face forces that cause them to wish to avoid litigation, regardless of the harm or benefit lost by having been fraudulently manipulated.

I tend to think the judge will come to a conclusion that the frauds benefited Trump materially, whether at the high end of the State's expert witness' argument or half that. But quite substantial. And the punitive will be multiples of such so as to clearly send the signal to others that it's not worth the risk to commit such frauds.

I'm not seeing anything in Trump's defense strategy likely to shift that outcome. Of course, they will appeal, so the judge needs to give them plenty of opportunity to make their case that the damages were insubstantial...but I doubt any appeals court will overrule the judge's ruling that the frauds actually occurred. They're too egregious and the pattern is too obvious.

Having experienced three frauds in my career…. I have little sympathy. We were fine. A whistleblower alerted us to one. We wouldn’t have known otherwise….or would not have found out until much later as the hole got larger. Don’t recall anyone saying “we good”….let’s move on because we didn’t know we were being cheated.. and these circumstances were not as bad as Trump’s lies and deception.

I think there are situations in which a bank may prefer to not litigate a fraud. Could be lots of quite different reasons.

They may not want the attention for having been so stupid...or so complicit.
They may not want the circumstances investigated deeper, finding the explanation (we got out whole) to be more palatable than the reasons why they were involved in the first place. Were they taken in or did they decide to do a deal for reasons that went beyond the economics of the specific deal, reasons that could be quite unsavory?

This particular bank has a truly miserable history of egregiously unethical and illegal activities itself. Fact. And current leadership may prefer to put this sorry episode behind them.

In other words, cover-up.

My own speculation about DB relates to some of the most unsavory sources of their funds, depositors with whom they should have never touched and yet were enormously profitable to them to wash those depositor's monies. Was doing business with Trump, at a time when other banks wouldn't touch him, part and parcel with how monies were washed? Or was the oversight and control of all the parts of the bank so poor that individual bankers were taking kickbacks to do deals, as they were with oligarchs? Or were they getting paid on volume and any deal done was a 'good' deal for them personally?

I can see how DB would want to avoid those questions versus just saying "we good"...

Yes…. And let us not forget that Donald basically got his early deals done on the strength of his father’s personal guarantee. A personal guarantee can be a meaningful credit enhancement and can get deals across the finish line that wouldn’t otherwise make it. Passing off cooked financials as legitimate doesn’t go very far with me. Aside from a cheaper borrowing cost, Donald’s deals may not have gotten done without his PG which is always haircut anyway. It’s Donald’s pattern and the degree of the fraud that’s the problem. If the PG is meaningless, why bother taking it. I know these weren’t maintenance guarantees but nevertheless the PG is an enhancement. Lending to company backed by a rich guy is easier than lending to a company backed by a guy just getting by. It’s really that simple.

You take the PG to attempt to align incentives and risk but often don’t expect to cash in on those if you need to go there on institutional deals - very different than retail and lower middle market where some credit fund (i probably have crossed paths with) will own, work and trade your charge off debt for eternity). Half the time they don’t both even taking the PG and certainly not for similar sized REOCs where they rely on the Corp gty solely.

To continue to feel the need to point out, he’s an jerk who definitely committed statutory fraud and does harm to society. But “natural consequence” as I reach my kids would lean hard on hitting him on the punitive side because they were all aware of the situation with him and in general in the space. They don’t deserve to get portrayed as victims.

Don Jr. and Eric pitched a deal to our real estate folks….came up to our offices to be turned away empty handed. A couple of years before daddy ran for office. Supposedly Don and Eric were role playing Michael Corleone with a mouthpiece playing Tom Hagen. Jokes.

Surprised they went north instead of south or East. Wouldn’t have targeted you or the former drill seagants now with the Buffalo NY owner near you if I’m that fired when you’ve got signature, dime, bridgehampton, valley, investors, etc. plus those maniacs are Berkshire.

Kevin Cummings who ran Investors Bank which is now part of Citizens Bank but was a +/- $20Bn converted thrift in N NJ then did handshake deals financing Jared for his dad who was a convicted felons. He bragged about it as an anecdote of his connectivity for his small cap bank playing in the Tri State CRE market which is hyper competitive. “How do you get spread or any value on transactional
CRE lending without any cross sell?” (At the time banks were so awash with liquidity nobody paid attention to deposit relationships and let their Net Interest Margins erode for years)

[old salt]

AS usual, your facts are wrong McGurk has been engaged for quite some time and he has been at NSC not State for Biden.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/biden-na ... 937ff4287f

He initially left after Orang Fatso's Syria withdrawal FUBAR which you supported.

...except we never withdrew from Syria, just pulled back from the Turkish border.
Tempest in a teapot. The Kurds are doing fine.

Nice hit piece on McGurk He can always go work for Kushner.
“Brett’s theory of the region is that it’s a source of instability but also resources,” the former official said. “It’s a very old-school, colonialist mentality...

[Kismet]

AS usual, your facts are wrong McGurk has been engaged for quite some time and he has been at NSC not State for Biden.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/biden-na ... 937ff4287f

He initially left after Orang Fatso's Syria withdrawal FUBAR which you supported.

...except we never withdrew from Syria, just pulled back from the Turkish border.
Tempest in a teapot. The Kurds are doing fine.

Nice hit piece on McGurk He can always go work for Kushner.
“Brett’s theory of the region is that it’s a source of instability but also resources,” the former official said. “It’s a very old-school, colonialist mentality...

McGurk quit because he did not support the policy you advocated (along with Mattis BTW). So your admiration only goes so far

He certainly has more stones and principle than you


Funny how we abruptly abandoned bases and equipment to the enemy and you supported it unlike all the bellyaching you do about Afghanistan.

[cradleandshoot]

Garbage in garbage out from VDH as per usual.

He should work at Faux News - oops that's part of the evil media.

AS usual, your facts are wrong McGurk has been engaged for quite some time and he has been at NSC not State for Biden.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/biden-na ... 937ff4287f

He initially left after Orang Fatso's Syria withdrawal FUBAR which you supported.

And yet you will sniff HCR rear end all day long.

[Kismet]

Garbage in garbage out from VDH as per usual.

He should work at Faux News - oops that's part of the evil media.

AS usual, your facts are wrong McGurk has been engaged for quite some time and he has been at NSC not State for Biden.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/biden-na ... 937ff4287f

He initially left after Orang Fatso's Syria withdrawal FUBAR which you supported.

And yet you will sniff HCR rear end all day long.

She was not involved in any of this. I'm not a fan of her either

[cradleandshoot]

Garbage in garbage out from VDH as per usual.

He should work at Faux News - oops that's part of the evil media.

AS usual, your facts are wrong McGurk has been engaged for quite some time and he has been at NSC not State for Biden.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/biden-na ... 937ff4287f

He initially left after Orang Fatso's Syria withdrawal FUBAR which you supported.

And yet you will sniff HCR rear end all day long.

She was not involved in any of this. I'm not a fan of her either

My point was one of these historians is idolized and worshipped on this forum like a goddess. The other is a radical ideologe whose experience as a historian with his own doctorate in American History is incompetent and inept. Go figure. So you can take 2 people who earned their doctorates in American history yet have 2 diametrically opposed points of view when it comes to their interpretation of American history. So which PhD historian is more correct than the other??

[MDlaxfan76]

ABC

Nov 01, 12:05 PM EDT
Trump's misrepresentations cost banks $168M, expert testifies

The state's expert witness, Michiel McCarty, calculated that Donald Trump's lenders lost $168 million in potential interest between 2014 and 2023, according to a report he presented in court.

McCarty's testimony appeared to reinforce a central tenet of New York Attorney General Letitia James' case: that Trump's misrepresentations in his financial statements cost banks potential earnings from interest, even if the banks made money on the loans.

State attorney Kevin Wallace directed McCarty to a footnote in Judge Engoron's earlier summary judgment order about the concept of lost interest, in which Engoron said, "The subject loans made the banks lots of money; but the fraudulent SFCs [Statements of Financial Condition] cost the banks lots of money. The less collateral for a loan, the riskier it is, and a first principle of loan accounting is that as risk rises, so do interest rates. Thus, accurate SFCs would have allowed the lenders to make even more money than they did."

McCarty, who said he agreed with this assessment, ultimately found that banks lost a total of $168,040,168 in potential interest from loans related to four of Trump's properties in Miami, New York, Chicago, and Washington, D.C.

Trump attorney Chris Kise fiercely objected, arguing that McCarty was testifying about facts not established during the trial. During questioning, state attorneys declined to ask a Deutsche Bank executive if the bank would have still done business with Trump had they known his financial statements were inflated.

"They are not ill-gotten gains if the bank does not testify it would have done it differently," Kise said.

"I decided these were ill-gotten," the Judge Engoron replied.

Following Wallace's direct examination of McCarty, defense attorney Jesus Suarez began his cross-examination.

Thanks. So maybe $100mm happens.

First off before I get into the weeds…because…I’m not advocating for leniency on this dipshit. Hammer him, he probably owes the country a heck of a lot more anyways. But where Id be hyper critical:

Of course that’s the states expert witness. I’ve done a little litigation support (not worth it usually but for people I want to work with). I also have been on the other side of accountants, they don’t often have any handle on market valution at all. Have seen some wildly incorrect confidence in accountants who think they are bankers or finance people. Hence OTTI and FMV are separated. I once had a CFO have to casters his accountants when they needed to mark some Trust Preferred Securities of an acquired bank. The accountants are sitting there is sitting it’s +700 and comparing to straight common equity (which still didn’t make sense because the client bank was trading at 3x book value and making a 18% ROE, which implies a going in 6% yield on common equity in the market) and I knew I could replace the hybrid tier 1 regulatory capital for +225-300bps. (They did it with another firm at 250 a few months later) On $100mm that accounting was off by $4mm/yr and the maturity was like 13-15yrs out on the trust preferred so do that discount math. The accountants were off by 30-40pts on par which on their issuance was tens of millions of dollars.

So that’s presumably the most aggressive, outside “wing” on the high side. The low is probably in my $10-$50mm range and then I guess it comes down to which side is more convincing to the judge. But split the two and you do get to like $75-$100mm or close to your estimate. But it could end up half that still.

I can’t stand non market experienced valuation practitioners insisting they know. Smart folks but man they get it so wrong so often I don’t know what people are paying for sometimes. There’s some good ones for sure I got a buddy with a smaller shop in Nashville but the head principal spent a lot of time in markets in a prior life with some active firms. But the 28-33yrs olds at accounting firms doing valuation and more worried about the internal utilization than getting it right. They’ll also add intangible values like “reputational cost” which lets be honest, isn’t a factor for these firms anymore. Saw one recently on Twitter where there was a Musk discount with is probably real in the market but not supportable quantitatively.

I don’t know, I just know market conditions, they really weren’t impacted in reality. This debate in court is just mark to model semantics. Of course I can’t stand the guy so hit him with $170mm and call it a day. But if we’re being fair I just don’t think they were realistically hurt by all this.

It seems Trump, in the end, employed business/econ people much like yourself, who knew the system so well, they knew where the edge of the cliff was and could flirted with it. Not implying unscrupulous on your part, just people that could work in the grey.

The changing of valuation for financial gain…. Sometimes within the same week speaks of intent to defraud. It’s the pattern. It has already been determined to be fraud. It’s how much of a penalty he will pay is what is being decided. Had he and his family not directed their employees or agents to falsify the numbers likely would result in a lesser fine. The more egregious the manipulation and the lack of contrition, the larger the fine.

That's my take as well, admittedly not a professional accountant nor litigator...but I think the pattern of deception, again and again and again, and the egregiousness of the lies, and the magnitude of the deceptions, together, take it way beyond "grey". If these were close calls on which professionals could reasonably disagree that's indeed par for the course (not that it's really ok for those rich and willing to play sharp ball to get away with such while regular folks do not), but this is an example of massive exaggeration beyond any scope of reasonable defense of the estimates, often in direct defiance of what the professionals had actually reported to their client, coupled with clear and direct lies about the assumptions an expert should work with to derive an estimate, whether square footage or deed encumbrances. Beyond the pale.

So, the question, Geneva and Youth, is really about whether deals were done that might not have been done or not done at the same terms...what's the differential in the terms worth to the borrower or insured? Apparently, all profits from such frauds are subject to recapture by civil authorities, regardless of whether the private parties wish to pursue. The state has interests in the rule of law whereas the private parties may face forces that cause them to wish to avoid litigation, regardless of the harm or benefit lost by having been fraudulently manipulated.

I tend to think the judge will come to a conclusion that the frauds benefited Trump materially, whether at the high end of the State's expert witness' argument or half that. But quite substantial. And the punitive will be multiples of such so as to clearly send the signal to others that it's not worth the risk to commit such frauds.

I'm not seeing anything in Trump's defense strategy likely to shift that outcome. Of course, they will appeal, so the judge needs to give them plenty of opportunity to make their case that the damages were insubstantial...but I doubt any appeals court will overrule the judge's ruling that the frauds actually occurred. They're too egregious and the pattern is too obvious.

Yeah I don’t think you caught at the very beginning I clearly said “go the punitive route” before getting into concerns about the reality of economic damages (which I also realize in court it’s about warring mark to models with tons of embedded assumptions and which one is presented in a more compelling manner).

I absolutely Believe (know in fact from former colleagues) he’s been fraudulent for decades and you never trusted anything that he says or gives you. You do the business because it’s “money good collateral” and high end class A/B+ assets in 24hr markers are always dogfights where all the lenders have pulled their pants down once through the door. CRE lenders, especially w respect to NYC larger owners, our up with ungodly amounts of turd from their borrowers and happily ask for more because it’s just a volume game and they know if they aren’t lending to one dishonest, criminal jerk they’re just lending to another in that universe.

They all should be held accountable as this Fat Wanna Be Thug should. But the banks are all in on this game which is why I was concerned about pricing damages but just hammer his a** on punitive

I'd be surprised to see major punitive damages without a determination of substantial benefits achieved by the fraud. The punitive can be many multiples of the benefits, but if no benefit, I doubt the punitive would hold up beyond a slap on the wrist (which would bankrupt the common person but be gnat to guys like Trump). But there'll very likely be a determination that he benefited substantially and the judge will land on a defensible number based on testimony and common sense. But yes, the punitive will be where it stings.

[Farfromgeneva]

Garbage in garbage out from VDH as per usual.

He should work at Faux News - oops that's part of the evil media.

AS usual, your facts are wrong McGurk has been engaged for quite some time and he has been at NSC not State for Biden.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/biden-na ... 937ff4287f

He initially left after Orang Fatso's Syria withdrawal FUBAR which you supported.

And yet you will sniff HCR rear end all day long.

She was not involved in any of this. I'm not a fan of her either

My point was one of these historians is idolized and worshipped on this forum like a goddess. The other is a radical ideologe whose experience as a historian with his own doctorate in American History is incompetent and inept. Go figure. So you can take 2 people who earned their doctorates in American history yet have 2 diametrically opposed points of view when it comes to their interpretation of American history. So which PhD historian is more correct than the other??

Nothing about a specific allegation based on entirely nothing and you were completely wrong? Just keep the plates spinning I guess..

[Farfromgeneva]

ABC

Nov 01, 12:05 PM EDT
Trump's misrepresentations cost banks $168M, expert testifies

The state's expert witness, Michiel McCarty, calculated that Donald Trump's lenders lost $168 million in potential interest between 2014 and 2023, according to a report he presented in court.

McCarty's testimony appeared to reinforce a central tenet of New York Attorney General Letitia James' case: that Trump's misrepresentations in his financial statements cost banks potential earnings from interest, even if the banks made money on the loans.

State attorney Kevin Wallace directed McCarty to a footnote in Judge Engoron's earlier summary judgment order about the concept of lost interest, in which Engoron said, "The subject loans made the banks lots of money; but the fraudulent SFCs [Statements of Financial Condition] cost the banks lots of money. The less collateral for a loan, the riskier it is, and a first principle of loan accounting is that as risk rises, so do interest rates. Thus, accurate SFCs would have allowed the lenders to make even more money than they did."

McCarty, who said he agreed with this assessment, ultimately found that banks lost a total of $168,040,168 in potential interest from loans related to four of Trump's properties in Miami, New York, Chicago, and Washington, D.C.

Trump attorney Chris Kise fiercely objected, arguing that McCarty was testifying about facts not established during the trial. During questioning, state attorneys declined to ask a Deutsche Bank executive if the bank would have still done business with Trump had they known his financial statements were inflated.

"They are not ill-gotten gains if the bank does not testify it would have done it differently," Kise said.

"I decided these were ill-gotten," the Judge Engoron replied.

Following Wallace's direct examination of McCarty, defense attorney Jesus Suarez began his cross-examination.

Thanks. So maybe $100mm happens.

First off before I get into the weeds…because…I’m not advocating for leniency on this dipshit. Hammer him, he probably owes the country a heck of a lot more anyways. But where Id be hyper critical:

Of course that’s the states expert witness. I’ve done a little litigation support (not worth it usually but for people I want to work with). I also have been on the other side of accountants, they don’t often have any handle on market valution at all. Have seen some wildly incorrect confidence in accountants who think they are bankers or finance people. Hence OTTI and FMV are separated. I once had a CFO have to casters his accountants when they needed to mark some Trust Preferred Securities of an acquired bank. The accountants are sitting there is sitting it’s +700 and comparing to straight common equity (which still didn’t make sense because the client bank was trading at 3x book value and making a 18% ROE, which implies a going in 6% yield on common equity in the market) and I knew I could replace the hybrid tier 1 regulatory capital for +225-300bps. (They did it with another firm at 250 a few months later) On $100mm that accounting was off by $4mm/yr and the maturity was like 13-15yrs out on the trust preferred so do that discount math. The accountants were off by 30-40pts on par which on their issuance was tens of millions of dollars.

So that’s presumably the most aggressive, outside “wing” on the high side. The low is probably in my $10-$50mm range and then I guess it comes down to which side is more convincing to the judge. But split the two and you do get to like $75-$100mm or close to your estimate. But it could end up half that still.

I can’t stand non market experienced valuation practitioners insisting they know. Smart folks but man they get it so wrong so often I don’t know what people are paying for sometimes. There’s some good ones for sure I got a buddy with a smaller shop in Nashville but the head principal spent a lot of time in markets in a prior life with some active firms. But the 28-33yrs olds at accounting firms doing valuation and more worried about the internal utilization than getting it right. They’ll also add intangible values like “reputational cost” which lets be honest, isn’t a factor for these firms anymore. Saw one recently on Twitter where there was a Musk discount with is probably real in the market but not supportable quantitatively.

I don’t know, I just know market conditions, they really weren’t impacted in reality. This debate in court is just mark to model semantics. Of course I can’t stand the guy so hit him with $170mm and call it a day. But if we’re being fair I just don’t think they were realistically hurt by all this.

It seems Trump, in the end, employed business/econ people much like yourself, who knew the system so well, they knew where the edge of the cliff was and could flirted with it. Not implying unscrupulous on your part, just people that could work in the grey.

The changing of valuation for financial gain…. Sometimes within the same week speaks of intent to defraud. It’s the pattern. It has already been determined to be fraud. It’s how much of a penalty he will pay is what is being decided. Had he and his family not directed their employees or agents to falsify the numbers likely would result in a lesser fine. The more egregious the manipulation and the lack of contrition, the larger the fine.

That's my take as well, admittedly not a professional accountant nor litigator...but I think the pattern of deception, again and again and again, and the egregiousness of the lies, and the magnitude of the deceptions, together, take it way beyond "grey". If these were close calls on which professionals could reasonably disagree that's indeed par for the course (not that it's really ok for those rich and willing to play sharp ball to get away with such while regular folks do not), but this is an example of massive exaggeration beyond any scope of reasonable defense of the estimates, often in direct defiance of what the professionals had actually reported to their client, coupled with clear and direct lies about the assumptions an expert should work with to derive an estimate, whether square footage or deed encumbrances. Beyond the pale.

So, the question, Geneva and Youth, is really about whether deals were done that might not have been done or not done at the same terms...what's the differential in the terms worth to the borrower or insured? Apparently, all profits from such frauds are subject to recapture by civil authorities, regardless of whether the private parties wish to pursue. The state has interests in the rule of law whereas the private parties may face forces that cause them to wish to avoid litigation, regardless of the harm or benefit lost by having been fraudulently manipulated.

I tend to think the judge will come to a conclusion that the frauds benefited Trump materially, whether at the high end of the State's expert witness' argument or half that. But quite substantial. And the punitive will be multiples of such so as to clearly send the signal to others that it's not worth the risk to commit such frauds.

I'm not seeing anything in Trump's defense strategy likely to shift that outcome. Of course, they will appeal, so the judge needs to give them plenty of opportunity to make their case that the damages were insubstantial...but I doubt any appeals court will overrule the judge's ruling that the frauds actually occurred. They're too egregious and the pattern is too obvious.

Yeah I don’t think you caught at the very beginning I clearly said “go the punitive route” before getting into concerns about the reality of economic damages (which I also realize in court it’s about warring mark to models with tons of embedded assumptions and which one is presented in a more compelling manner).

I absolutely Believe (know in fact from former colleagues) he’s been fraudulent for decades and you never trusted anything that he says or gives you. You do the business because it’s “money good collateral” and high end class A/B+ assets in 24hr markers are always dogfights where all the lenders have pulled their pants down once through the door. CRE lenders, especially w respect to NYC larger owners, our up with ungodly amounts of turd from their borrowers and happily ask for more because it’s just a volume game and they know if they aren’t lending to one dishonest, criminal jerk they’re just lending to another in that universe.

They all should be held accountable as this Fat Wanna Be Thug should. But the banks are all in on this game which is why I was concerned about pricing damages but just hammer his a** on punitive

I'd be surprised to see major punitive damages without a determination of substantial benefits achieved by the fraud. The punitive can be many multiples of the benefits, but if no benefit, I doubt the punitive would hold up beyond a slap on the wrist (which would bankrupt the common person but be gnat to guys like Trump). But there'll very likely be a determination that he benefited substantially and the judge will land on a defensible number based on testimony and common sense. But yes, the punitive will be where it stings.

Well as long as there’s no confided multiple cap all you technically need is One Dollar of damage right? No need to stretch and exercise that side too much and leave an opening for this dbag to cut a better payout deal down the road.

[MDlaxfan76]

ABC

Nov 01, 12:05 PM EDT
Trump's misrepresentations cost banks $168M, expert testifies

The state's expert witness, Michiel McCarty, calculated that Donald Trump's lenders lost $168 million in potential interest between 2014 and 2023, according to a report he presented in court.

McCarty's testimony appeared to reinforce a central tenet of New York Attorney General Letitia James' case: that Trump's misrepresentations in his financial statements cost banks potential earnings from interest, even if the banks made money on the loans.

State attorney Kevin Wallace directed McCarty to a footnote in Judge Engoron's earlier summary judgment order about the concept of lost interest, in which Engoron said, "The subject loans made the banks lots of money; but the fraudulent SFCs [Statements of Financial Condition] cost the banks lots of money. The less collateral for a loan, the riskier it is, and a first principle of loan accounting is that as risk rises, so do interest rates. Thus, accurate SFCs would have allowed the lenders to make even more money than they did."

McCarty, who said he agreed with this assessment, ultimately found that banks lost a total of $168,040,168 in potential interest from loans related to four of Trump's properties in Miami, New York, Chicago, and Washington, D.C.

Trump attorney Chris Kise fiercely objected, arguing that McCarty was testifying about facts not established during the trial. During questioning, state attorneys declined to ask a Deutsche Bank executive if the bank would have still done business with Trump had they known his financial statements were inflated.

"They are not ill-gotten gains if the bank does not testify it would have done it differently," Kise said.

"I decided these were ill-gotten," the Judge Engoron replied.

Following Wallace's direct examination of McCarty, defense attorney Jesus Suarez began his cross-examination.

Thanks. So maybe $100mm happens.

First off before I get into the weeds…because…I’m not advocating for leniency on this dipshit. Hammer him, he probably owes the country a heck of a lot more anyways. But where Id be hyper critical:

Of course that’s the states expert witness. I’ve done a little litigation support (not worth it usually but for people I want to work with). I also have been on the other side of accountants, they don’t often have any handle on market valution at all. Have seen some wildly incorrect confidence in accountants who think they are bankers or finance people. Hence OTTI and FMV are separated. I once had a CFO have to casters his accountants when they needed to mark some Trust Preferred Securities of an acquired bank. The accountants are sitting there is sitting it’s +700 and comparing to straight common equity (which still didn’t make sense because the client bank was trading at 3x book value and making a 18% ROE, which implies a going in 6% yield on common equity in the market) and I knew I could replace the hybrid tier 1 regulatory capital for +225-300bps. (They did it with another firm at 250 a few months later) On $100mm that accounting was off by $4mm/yr and the maturity was like 13-15yrs out on the trust preferred so do that discount math. The accountants were off by 30-40pts on par which on their issuance was tens of millions of dollars.

So that’s presumably the most aggressive, outside “wing” on the high side. The low is probably in my $10-$50mm range and then I guess it comes down to which side is more convincing to the judge. But split the two and you do get to like $75-$100mm or close to your estimate. But it could end up half that still.

I can’t stand non market experienced valuation practitioners insisting they know. Smart folks but man they get it so wrong so often I don’t know what people are paying for sometimes. There’s some good ones for sure I got a buddy with a smaller shop in Nashville but the head principal spent a lot of time in markets in a prior life with some active firms. But the 28-33yrs olds at accounting firms doing valuation and more worried about the internal utilization than getting it right. They’ll also add intangible values like “reputational cost” which lets be honest, isn’t a factor for these firms anymore. Saw one recently on Twitter where there was a Musk discount with is probably real in the market but not supportable quantitatively.

I don’t know, I just know market conditions, they really weren’t impacted in reality. This debate in court is just mark to model semantics. Of course I can’t stand the guy so hit him with $170mm and call it a day. But if we’re being fair I just don’t think they were realistically hurt by all this.

It seems Trump, in the end, employed business/econ people much like yourself, who knew the system so well, they knew where the edge of the cliff was and could flirted with it. Not implying unscrupulous on your part, just people that could work in the grey.

The changing of valuation for financial gain…. Sometimes within the same week speaks of intent to defraud. It’s the pattern. It has already been determined to be fraud. It’s how much of a penalty he will pay is what is being decided. Had he and his family not directed their employees or agents to falsify the numbers likely would result in a lesser fine. The more egregious the manipulation and the lack of contrition, the larger the fine.

That's my take as well, admittedly not a professional accountant nor litigator...but I think the pattern of deception, again and again and again, and the egregiousness of the lies, and the magnitude of the deceptions, together, take it way beyond "grey". If these were close calls on which professionals could reasonably disagree that's indeed par for the course (not that it's really ok for those rich and willing to play sharp ball to get away with such while regular folks do not), but this is an example of massive exaggeration beyond any scope of reasonable defense of the estimates, often in direct defiance of what the professionals had actually reported to their client, coupled with clear and direct lies about the assumptions an expert should work with to derive an estimate, whether square footage or deed encumbrances. Beyond the pale.

So, the question, Geneva and Youth, is really about whether deals were done that might not have been done or not done at the same terms...what's the differential in the terms worth to the borrower or insured? Apparently, all profits from such frauds are subject to recapture by civil authorities, regardless of whether the private parties wish to pursue. The state has interests in the rule of law whereas the private parties may face forces that cause them to wish to avoid litigation, regardless of the harm or benefit lost by having been fraudulently manipulated.

I tend to think the judge will come to a conclusion that the frauds benefited Trump materially, whether at the high end of the State's expert witness' argument or half that. But quite substantial. And the punitive will be multiples of such so as to clearly send the signal to others that it's not worth the risk to commit such frauds.

I'm not seeing anything in Trump's defense strategy likely to shift that outcome. Of course, they will appeal, so the judge needs to give them plenty of opportunity to make their case that the damages were insubstantial...but I doubt any appeals court will overrule the judge's ruling that the frauds actually occurred. They're too egregious and the pattern is too obvious.

Yeah I don’t think you caught at the very beginning I clearly said “go the punitive route” before getting into concerns about the reality of economic damages (which I also realize in court it’s about warring mark to models with tons of embedded assumptions and which one is presented in a more compelling manner).

I absolutely Believe (know in fact from former colleagues) he’s been fraudulent for decades and you never trusted anything that he says or gives you. You do the business because it’s “money good collateral” and high end class A/B+ assets in 24hr markers are always dogfights where all the lenders have pulled their pants down once through the door. CRE lenders, especially w respect to NYC larger owners, our up with ungodly amounts of turd from their borrowers and happily ask for more because it’s just a volume game and they know if they aren’t lending to one dishonest, criminal jerk they’re just lending to another in that universe.

They all should be held accountable as this Fat Wanna Be Thug should. But the banks are all in on this game which is why I was concerned about pricing damages but just hammer his a** on punitive

I'd be surprised to see major punitive damages without a determination of substantial benefits achieved by the fraud. The punitive can be many multiples of the benefits, but if no benefit, I doubt the punitive would hold up beyond a slap on the wrist (which would bankrupt the common person but be gnat to guys like Trump). But there'll very likely be a determination that he benefited substantially and the judge will land on a defensible number based on testimony and common sense. But yes, the punitive will be where it stings.

Well as long as there’s no confided multiple cap all you technically need is One Dollar of damage right? No need to stretch and exercise that side too much and leave an opening for this dbag to cut a better payout deal down the road.

I'm far from an expert, just a casual observer (and thankfully not on the sharp end of such) but what I've read is that judges tend to see the world as I described. I'd speculate that they see the temptation to benefit substantially from a fraud needs to be balanced by the fear of large punishment. If the fraud was relatively immaterial, a 5-10X of the fraud benefit may be sufficient relative to the temptation for most people. A big benefit can only be achieved by big players and it takes a heck of a lot more punitive to get their attention...but 5-10X of a big benefit is a huge number.

But even a number like that isn't going scare the truly big fellas, the "Elon" scale billionaires, sovereign wealth funds, etc. But there are quite a few folks in the Trump scale.

New York State has requested $250 million be considered. Judge could say $40 million in benefit $200 million in punitive.
State says $168 million in ill-gotten benefit. Judge could do $500 million or a billion in punitive.
If so, that could lead to a settlement discussion landing at lesser number that Trump can actually raise.

My hunch is the judge lands near where the State originally asked. Plus the loss of business lines already determined but stayed.
Seizure of assets and sale.

Smart play would be a settlement and the ability to control the disposition of assets.

But Trump likely fights and, if so, appeals may push this even beyond Trump's personal lifetime.

[Typical Lax Dad]

ABC

Nov 01, 12:05 PM EDT
Trump's misrepresentations cost banks $168M, expert testifies

The state's expert witness, Michiel McCarty, calculated that Donald Trump's lenders lost $168 million in potential interest between 2014 and 2023, according to a report he presented in court.

McCarty's testimony appeared to reinforce a central tenet of New York Attorney General Letitia James' case: that Trump's misrepresentations in his financial statements cost banks potential earnings from interest, even if the banks made money on the loans.

State attorney Kevin Wallace directed McCarty to a footnote in Judge Engoron's earlier summary judgment order about the concept of lost interest, in which Engoron said, "The subject loans made the banks lots of money; but the fraudulent SFCs [Statements of Financial Condition] cost the banks lots of money. The less collateral for a loan, the riskier it is, and a first principle of loan accounting is that as risk rises, so do interest rates. Thus, accurate SFCs would have allowed the lenders to make even more money than they did."

McCarty, who said he agreed with this assessment, ultimately found that banks lost a total of $168,040,168 in potential interest from loans related to four of Trump's properties in Miami, New York, Chicago, and Washington, D.C.

Trump attorney Chris Kise fiercely objected, arguing that McCarty was testifying about facts not established during the trial. During questioning, state attorneys declined to ask a Deutsche Bank executive if the bank would have still done business with Trump had they known his financial statements were inflated.

"They are not ill-gotten gains if the bank does not testify it would have done it differently," Kise said.

"I decided these were ill-gotten," the Judge Engoron replied.

Following Wallace's direct examination of McCarty, defense attorney Jesus Suarez began his cross-examination.

Thanks. So maybe $100mm happens.

First off before I get into the weeds…because…I’m not advocating for leniency on this dipshit. Hammer him, he probably owes the country a heck of a lot more anyways. But where Id be hyper critical:

Of course that’s the states expert witness. I’ve done a little litigation support (not worth it usually but for people I want to work with). I also have been on the other side of accountants, they don’t often have any handle on market valution at all. Have seen some wildly incorrect confidence in accountants who think they are bankers or finance people. Hence OTTI and FMV are separated. I once had a CFO have to casters his accountants when they needed to mark some Trust Preferred Securities of an acquired bank. The accountants are sitting there is sitting it’s +700 and comparing to straight common equity (which still didn’t make sense because the client bank was trading at 3x book value and making a 18% ROE, which implies a going in 6% yield on common equity in the market) and I knew I could replace the hybrid tier 1 regulatory capital for +225-300bps. (They did it with another firm at 250 a few months later) On $100mm that accounting was off by $4mm/yr and the maturity was like 13-15yrs out on the trust preferred so do that discount math. The accountants were off by 30-40pts on par which on their issuance was tens of millions of dollars.

So that’s presumably the most aggressive, outside “wing” on the high side. The low is probably in my $10-$50mm range and then I guess it comes down to which side is more convincing to the judge. But split the two and you do get to like $75-$100mm or close to your estimate. But it could end up half that still.

I can’t stand non market experienced valuation practitioners insisting they know. Smart folks but man they get it so wrong so often I don’t know what people are paying for sometimes. There’s some good ones for sure I got a buddy with a smaller shop in Nashville but the head principal spent a lot of time in markets in a prior life with some active firms. But the 28-33yrs olds at accounting firms doing valuation and more worried about the internal utilization than getting it right. They’ll also add intangible values like “reputational cost” which lets be honest, isn’t a factor for these firms anymore. Saw one recently on Twitter where there was a Musk discount with is probably real in the market but not supportable quantitatively.

I don’t know, I just know market conditions, they really weren’t impacted in reality. This debate in court is just mark to model semantics. Of course I can’t stand the guy so hit him with $170mm and call it a day. But if we’re being fair I just don’t think they were realistically hurt by all this.

It seems Trump, in the end, employed business/econ people much like yourself, who knew the system so well, they knew where the edge of the cliff was and could flirted with it. Not implying unscrupulous on your part, just people that could work in the grey.

The changing of valuation for financial gain…. Sometimes within the same week speaks of intent to defraud. It’s the pattern. It has already been determined to be fraud. It’s how much of a penalty he will pay is what is being decided. Had he and his family not directed their employees or agents to falsify the numbers likely would result in a lesser fine. The more egregious the manipulation and the lack of contrition, the larger the fine.

That's my take as well, admittedly not a professional accountant nor litigator...but I think the pattern of deception, again and again and again, and the egregiousness of the lies, and the magnitude of the deceptions, together, take it way beyond "grey". If these were close calls on which professionals could reasonably disagree that's indeed par for the course (not that it's really ok for those rich and willing to play sharp ball to get away with such while regular folks do not), but this is an example of massive exaggeration beyond any scope of reasonable defense of the estimates, often in direct defiance of what the professionals had actually reported to their client, coupled with clear and direct lies about the assumptions an expert should work with to derive an estimate, whether square footage or deed encumbrances. Beyond the pale.

So, the question, Geneva and Youth, is really about whether deals were done that might not have been done or not done at the same terms...what's the differential in the terms worth to the borrower or insured? Apparently, all profits from such frauds are subject to recapture by civil authorities, regardless of whether the private parties wish to pursue. The state has interests in the rule of law whereas the private parties may face forces that cause them to wish to avoid litigation, regardless of the harm or benefit lost by having been fraudulently manipulated.

I tend to think the judge will come to a conclusion that the frauds benefited Trump materially, whether at the high end of the State's expert witness' argument or half that. But quite substantial. And the punitive will be multiples of such so as to clearly send the signal to others that it's not worth the risk to commit such frauds.

I'm not seeing anything in Trump's defense strategy likely to shift that outcome. Of course, they will appeal, so the judge needs to give them plenty of opportunity to make their case that the damages were insubstantial...but I doubt any appeals court will overrule the judge's ruling that the frauds actually occurred. They're too egregious and the pattern is too obvious.

Yeah I don’t think you caught at the very beginning I clearly said “go the punitive route” before getting into concerns about the reality of economic damages (which I also realize in court it’s about warring mark to models with tons of embedded assumptions and which one is presented in a more compelling manner).

I absolutely Believe (know in fact from former colleagues) he’s been fraudulent for decades and you never trusted anything that he says or gives you. You do the business because it’s “money good collateral” and high end class A/B+ assets in 24hr markers are always dogfights where all the lenders have pulled their pants down once through the door. CRE lenders, especially w respect to NYC larger owners, our up with ungodly amounts of turd from their borrowers and happily ask for more because it’s just a volume game and they know if they aren’t lending to one dishonest, criminal jerk they’re just lending to another in that universe.

They all should be held accountable as this Fat Wanna Be Thug should. But the banks are all in on this game which is why I was concerned about pricing damages but just hammer his a** on punitive

I'd be surprised to see major punitive damages without a determination of substantial benefits achieved by the fraud. The punitive can be many multiples of the benefits, but if no benefit, I doubt the punitive would hold up beyond a slap on the wrist (which would bankrupt the common person but be gnat to guys like Trump). But there'll very likely be a determination that he benefited substantially and the judge will land on a defensible number based on testimony and common sense. But yes, the punitive will be where it stings.

Well as long as there’s no confided multiple cap all you technically need is One Dollar of damage right? No need to stretch and exercise that side too much and leave an opening for this dbag to cut a better payout deal down the road.

I'm far from an expert, just a casual observer (and thankfully not on the sharp end of such) but what I've read is that judges tend to see the world as I described. I'd speculate that they see the temptation to benefit substantially from a fraud needs to be balanced by the fear of large punishment. If the fraud was relatively immaterial, a 5-10X of the fraud benefit may be sufficient relative to the temptation for most people. A big benefit can only be achieved by big players and it takes a heck of a lot more punitive to get their attention...but 5-10X of a big benefit is a huge number.

But even a number like that isn't going scare the truly big fellas, the "Elon" scale billionaires, sovereign wealth funds, etc. But there are quite a few folks in the Trump scale.

New York State has requested $250 million be considered. Judge could say $40 million in benefit $200 million in punitive.
State says $168 million in ill-gotten benefit. Judge could do $500 million or a billion in punitive.
If so, that could lead to a settlement discussion landing at lesser number that Trump can actually raise.

My hunch is the judge lands near where the State originally asked. Plus the loss of business lines already determined but stayed.
Seizure of assets and sale.

Smart play would be a settlement and the ability to control the disposition of assets.

But Trump likely fights and, if so, appeals may push this even beyond Trump's personal lifetime.

Trump perpetrated fraud against banks as well as Insurance companies and local tax departments.

[Kismet]

Garbage in garbage out from VDH as per usual.

He should work at Faux News - oops that's part of the evil media.

AS usual, your facts are wrong McGurk has been engaged for quite some time and he has been at NSC not State for Biden.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/biden-na ... 937ff4287f

He initially left after Orang Fatso's Syria withdrawal FUBAR which you supported.

And yet you will sniff HCR rear end all day long.

She was not involved in any of this. I'm not a fan of her either

My point was one of these historians is idolized and worshipped on this forum like a goddess. The other is a radical ideologe whose experience as a historian with his own doctorate in American History is incompetent and inept. Go figure. So you can take 2 people who earned their doctorates in American history yet have 2 diametrically opposed points of view when it comes to their interpretation of American history. So which PhD historian is more correct than the other??

Goebbels had his own historians on the payroll, too.

[cradleandshoot]

Garbage in garbage out from VDH as per usual.

He should work at Faux News - oops that's part of the evil media.

AS usual, your facts are wrong McGurk has been engaged for quite some time and he has been at NSC not State for Biden.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/biden-na ... 937ff4287f

He initially left after Orang Fatso's Syria withdrawal FUBAR which you supported.

And yet you will sniff HCR rear end all day long.

She was not involved in any of this. I'm not a fan of her either

My point was one of these historians is idolized and worshipped on this forum like a goddess. The other is a radical ideologe whose experience as a historian with his own doctorate in American History is incompetent and inept. Go figure. So you can take 2 people who earned their doctorates in American history yet have 2 diametrically opposed points of view when it comes to their interpretation of American history. So which PhD historian is more correct than the other??

Goebbels had his own historians on the payroll, too.

So HCR has her own historians doing her research? I can see HCR sucking Nazi bung hole.

[Farfromgeneva]

ABC

Nov 01, 12:05 PM EDT
Trump's misrepresentations cost banks $168M, expert testifies

The state's expert witness, Michiel McCarty, calculated that Donald Trump's lenders lost $168 million in potential interest between 2014 and 2023, according to a report he presented in court.

McCarty's testimony appeared to reinforce a central tenet of New York Attorney General Letitia James' case: that Trump's misrepresentations in his financial statements cost banks potential earnings from interest, even if the banks made money on the loans.

State attorney Kevin Wallace directed McCarty to a footnote in Judge Engoron's earlier summary judgment order about the concept of lost interest, in which Engoron said, "The subject loans made the banks lots of money; but the fraudulent SFCs [Statements of Financial Condition] cost the banks lots of money. The less collateral for a loan, the riskier it is, and a first principle of loan accounting is that as risk rises, so do interest rates. Thus, accurate SFCs would have allowed the lenders to make even more money than they did."

McCarty, who said he agreed with this assessment, ultimately found that banks lost a total of $168,040,168 in potential interest from loans related to four of Trump's properties in Miami, New York, Chicago, and Washington, D.C.

Trump attorney Chris Kise fiercely objected, arguing that McCarty was testifying about facts not established during the trial. During questioning, state attorneys declined to ask a Deutsche Bank executive if the bank would have still done business with Trump had they known his financial statements were inflated.

"They are not ill-gotten gains if the bank does not testify it would have done it differently," Kise said.

"I decided these were ill-gotten," the Judge Engoron replied.

Following Wallace's direct examination of McCarty, defense attorney Jesus Suarez began his cross-examination.

Thanks. So maybe $100mm happens.

First off before I get into the weeds…because…I’m not advocating for leniency on this dipshit. Hammer him, he probably owes the country a heck of a lot more anyways. But where Id be hyper critical:

Of course that’s the states expert witness. I’ve done a little litigation support (not worth it usually but for people I want to work with). I also have been on the other side of accountants, they don’t often have any handle on market valution at all. Have seen some wildly incorrect confidence in accountants who think they are bankers or finance people. Hence OTTI and FMV are separated. I once had a CFO have to casters his accountants when they needed to mark some Trust Preferred Securities of an acquired bank. The accountants are sitting there is sitting it’s +700 and comparing to straight common equity (which still didn’t make sense because the client bank was trading at 3x book value and making a 18% ROE, which implies a going in 6% yield on common equity in the market) and I knew I could replace the hybrid tier 1 regulatory capital for +225-300bps. (They did it with another firm at 250 a few months later) On $100mm that accounting was off by $4mm/yr and the maturity was like 13-15yrs out on the trust preferred so do that discount math. The accountants were off by 30-40pts on par which on their issuance was tens of millions of dollars.

So that’s presumably the most aggressive, outside “wing” on the high side. The low is probably in my $10-$50mm range and then I guess it comes down to which side is more convincing to the judge. But split the two and you do get to like $75-$100mm or close to your estimate. But it could end up half that still.

I can’t stand non market experienced valuation practitioners insisting they know. Smart folks but man they get it so wrong so often I don’t know what people are paying for sometimes. There’s some good ones for sure I got a buddy with a smaller shop in Nashville but the head principal spent a lot of time in markets in a prior life with some active firms. But the 28-33yrs olds at accounting firms doing valuation and more worried about the internal utilization than getting it right. They’ll also add intangible values like “reputational cost” which lets be honest, isn’t a factor for these firms anymore. Saw one recently on Twitter where there was a Musk discount with is probably real in the market but not supportable quantitatively.

I don’t know, I just know market conditions, they really weren’t impacted in reality. This debate in court is just mark to model semantics. Of course I can’t stand the guy so hit him with $170mm and call it a day. But if we’re being fair I just don’t think they were realistically hurt by all this.

It seems Trump, in the end, employed business/econ people much like yourself, who knew the system so well, they knew where the edge of the cliff was and could flirted with it. Not implying unscrupulous on your part, just people that could work in the grey.

The changing of valuation for financial gain…. Sometimes within the same week speaks of intent to defraud. It’s the pattern. It has already been determined to be fraud. It’s how much of a penalty he will pay is what is being decided. Had he and his family not directed their employees or agents to falsify the numbers likely would result in a lesser fine. The more egregious the manipulation and the lack of contrition, the larger the fine.

That's my take as well, admittedly not a professional accountant nor litigator...but I think the pattern of deception, again and again and again, and the egregiousness of the lies, and the magnitude of the deceptions, together, take it way beyond "grey". If these were close calls on which professionals could reasonably disagree that's indeed par for the course (not that it's really ok for those rich and willing to play sharp ball to get away with such while regular folks do not), but this is an example of massive exaggeration beyond any scope of reasonable defense of the estimates, often in direct defiance of what the professionals had actually reported to their client, coupled with clear and direct lies about the assumptions an expert should work with to derive an estimate, whether square footage or deed encumbrances. Beyond the pale.

So, the question, Geneva and Youth, is really about whether deals were done that might not have been done or not done at the same terms...what's the differential in the terms worth to the borrower or insured? Apparently, all profits from such frauds are subject to recapture by civil authorities, regardless of whether the private parties wish to pursue. The state has interests in the rule of law whereas the private parties may face forces that cause them to wish to avoid litigation, regardless of the harm or benefit lost by having been fraudulently manipulated.

I tend to think the judge will come to a conclusion that the frauds benefited Trump materially, whether at the high end of the State's expert witness' argument or half that. But quite substantial. And the punitive will be multiples of such so as to clearly send the signal to others that it's not worth the risk to commit such frauds.

I'm not seeing anything in Trump's defense strategy likely to shift that outcome. Of course, they will appeal, so the judge needs to give them plenty of opportunity to make their case that the damages were insubstantial...but I doubt any appeals court will overrule the judge's ruling that the frauds actually occurred. They're too egregious and the pattern is too obvious.

Yeah I don’t think you caught at the very beginning I clearly said “go the punitive route” before getting into concerns about the reality of economic damages (which I also realize in court it’s about warring mark to models with tons of embedded assumptions and which one is presented in a more compelling manner).

I absolutely Believe (know in fact from former colleagues) he’s been fraudulent for decades and you never trusted anything that he says or gives you. You do the business because it’s “money good collateral” and high end class A/B+ assets in 24hr markers are always dogfights where all the lenders have pulled their pants down once through the door. CRE lenders, especially w respect to NYC larger owners, our up with ungodly amounts of turd from their borrowers and happily ask for more because it’s just a volume game and they know if they aren’t lending to one dishonest, criminal jerk they’re just lending to another in that universe.

They all should be held accountable as this Fat Wanna Be Thug should. But the banks are all in on this game which is why I was concerned about pricing damages but just hammer his a** on punitive

I'd be surprised to see major punitive damages without a determination of substantial benefits achieved by the fraud. The punitive can be many multiples of the benefits, but if no benefit, I doubt the punitive would hold up beyond a slap on the wrist (which would bankrupt the common person but be gnat to guys like Trump). But there'll very likely be a determination that he benefited substantially and the judge will land on a defensible number based on testimony and common sense. But yes, the punitive will be where it stings.

Well as long as there’s no confided multiple cap all you technically need is One Dollar of damage right? No need to stretch and exercise that side too much and leave an opening for this dbag to cut a better payout deal down the road.

I'm far from an expert, just a casual observer (and thankfully not on the sharp end of such) but what I've read is that judges tend to see the world as I described. I'd speculate that they see the temptation to benefit substantially from a fraud needs to be balanced by the fear of large punishment. If the fraud was relatively immaterial, a 5-10X of the fraud benefit may be sufficient relative to the temptation for most people. A big benefit can only be achieved by big players and it takes a heck of a lot more punitive to get their attention...but 5-10X of a big benefit is a huge number.

But even a number like that isn't going scare the truly big fellas, the "Elon" scale billionaires, sovereign wealth funds, etc. But there are quite a few folks in the Trump scale.

New York State has requested $250 million be considered. Judge could say $40 million in benefit $200 million in punitive.
State says $168 million in ill-gotten benefit. Judge could do $500 million or a billion in punitive.
If so, that could lead to a settlement discussion landing at lesser number that Trump can actually raise.

My hunch is the judge lands near where the State originally asked. Plus the loss of business lines already determined but stayed.
Seizure of assets and sale.

Smart play would be a settlement and the ability to control the disposition of assets.

But Trump likely fights and, if so, appeals may push this even beyond Trump's personal lifetime.

If this (bolded above) is real and reasonably fair, even if I don’t think he dresses fairness at this point it’s still got a place in this, I really hope that’s the outcome.

[Farfromgeneva]

Garbage in garbage out from VDH as per usual.

He should work at Faux News - oops that's part of the evil media.

AS usual, your facts are wrong McGurk has been engaged for quite some time and he has been at NSC not State for Biden.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/biden-na ... 937ff4287f

He initially left after Orang Fatso's Syria withdrawal FUBAR which you supported.

And yet you will sniff HCR rear end all day long.

She was not involved in any of this. I'm not a fan of her either

My point was one of these historians is idolized and worshipped on this forum like a goddess. The other is a radical ideologe whose experience as a historian with his own doctorate in American History is incompetent and inept. Go figure. So you can take 2 people who earned their doctorates in American history yet have 2 diametrically opposed points of view when it comes to their interpretation of American history. So which PhD historian is more correct than the other??

Goebbels had his own historians on the payroll, too.

So HCR has her own historians doing her research? I can see HCR sucking Nazi bung hole.

Everyone has their own tastes and perversions of course but even I don’t share my deepest proclivities here. Is that a mommy/daddy issue or did you pick that interest up later in life while exploring the merit of honey vs jelly and syrup?

[MDlaxfan76]

ABC

Nov 01, 12:05 PM EDT
Trump's misrepresentations cost banks $168M, expert testifies

The state's expert witness, Michiel McCarty, calculated that Donald Trump's lenders lost $168 million in potential interest between 2014 and 2023, according to a report he presented in court.

McCarty's testimony appeared to reinforce a central tenet of New York Attorney General Letitia James' case: that Trump's misrepresentations in his financial statements cost banks potential earnings from interest, even if the banks made money on the loans.

State attorney Kevin Wallace directed McCarty to a footnote in Judge Engoron's earlier summary judgment order about the concept of lost interest, in which Engoron said, "The subject loans made the banks lots of money; but the fraudulent SFCs [Statements of Financial Condition] cost the banks lots of money. The less collateral for a loan, the riskier it is, and a first principle of loan accounting is that as risk rises, so do interest rates. Thus, accurate SFCs would have allowed the lenders to make even more money than they did."

McCarty, who said he agreed with this assessment, ultimately found that banks lost a total of $168,040,168 in potential interest from loans related to four of Trump's properties in Miami, New York, Chicago, and Washington, D.C.

Trump attorney Chris Kise fiercely objected, arguing that McCarty was testifying about facts not established during the trial. During questioning, state attorneys declined to ask a Deutsche Bank executive if the bank would have still done business with Trump had they known his financial statements were inflated.

"They are not ill-gotten gains if the bank does not testify it would have done it differently," Kise said.

"I decided these were ill-gotten," the Judge Engoron replied.

Following Wallace's direct examination of McCarty, defense attorney Jesus Suarez began his cross-examination.

Thanks. So maybe $100mm happens.

First off before I get into the weeds…because…I’m not advocating for leniency on this dipshit. Hammer him, he probably owes the country a heck of a lot more anyways. But where Id be hyper critical:

Of course that’s the states expert witness. I’ve done a little litigation support (not worth it usually but for people I want to work with). I also have been on the other side of accountants, they don’t often have any handle on market valution at all. Have seen some wildly incorrect confidence in accountants who think they are bankers or finance people. Hence OTTI and FMV are separated. I once had a CFO have to casters his accountants when they needed to mark some Trust Preferred Securities of an acquired bank. The accountants are sitting there is sitting it’s +700 and comparing to straight common equity (which still didn’t make sense because the client bank was trading at 3x book value and making a 18% ROE, which implies a going in 6% yield on common equity in the market) and I knew I could replace the hybrid tier 1 regulatory capital for +225-300bps. (They did it with another firm at 250 a few months later) On $100mm that accounting was off by $4mm/yr and the maturity was like 13-15yrs out on the trust preferred so do that discount math. The accountants were off by 30-40pts on par which on their issuance was tens of millions of dollars.

So that’s presumably the most aggressive, outside “wing” on the high side. The low is probably in my $10-$50mm range and then I guess it comes down to which side is more convincing to the judge. But split the two and you do get to like $75-$100mm or close to your estimate. But it could end up half that still.

I can’t stand non market experienced valuation practitioners insisting they know. Smart folks but man they get it so wrong so often I don’t know what people are paying for sometimes. There’s some good ones for sure I got a buddy with a smaller shop in Nashville but the head principal spent a lot of time in markets in a prior life with some active firms. But the 28-33yrs olds at accounting firms doing valuation and more worried about the internal utilization than getting it right. They’ll also add intangible values like “reputational cost” which lets be honest, isn’t a factor for these firms anymore. Saw one recently on Twitter where there was a Musk discount with is probably real in the market but not supportable quantitatively.

I don’t know, I just know market conditions, they really weren’t impacted in reality. This debate in court is just mark to model semantics. Of course I can’t stand the guy so hit him with $170mm and call it a day. But if we’re being fair I just don’t think they were realistically hurt by all this.

It seems Trump, in the end, employed business/econ people much like yourself, who knew the system so well, they knew where the edge of the cliff was and could flirted with it. Not implying unscrupulous on your part, just people that could work in the grey.

The changing of valuation for financial gain…. Sometimes within the same week speaks of intent to defraud. It’s the pattern. It has already been determined to be fraud. It’s how much of a penalty he will pay is what is being decided. Had he and his family not directed their employees or agents to falsify the numbers likely would result in a lesser fine. The more egregious the manipulation and the lack of contrition, the larger the fine.

That's my take as well, admittedly not a professional accountant nor litigator...but I think the pattern of deception, again and again and again, and the egregiousness of the lies, and the magnitude of the deceptions, together, take it way beyond "grey". If these were close calls on which professionals could reasonably disagree that's indeed par for the course (not that it's really ok for those rich and willing to play sharp ball to get away with such while regular folks do not), but this is an example of massive exaggeration beyond any scope of reasonable defense of the estimates, often in direct defiance of what the professionals had actually reported to their client, coupled with clear and direct lies about the assumptions an expert should work with to derive an estimate, whether square footage or deed encumbrances. Beyond the pale.

So, the question, Geneva and Youth, is really about whether deals were done that might not have been done or not done at the same terms...what's the differential in the terms worth to the borrower or insured? Apparently, all profits from such frauds are subject to recapture by civil authorities, regardless of whether the private parties wish to pursue. The state has interests in the rule of law whereas the private parties may face forces that cause them to wish to avoid litigation, regardless of the harm or benefit lost by having been fraudulently manipulated.

I tend to think the judge will come to a conclusion that the frauds benefited Trump materially, whether at the high end of the State's expert witness' argument or half that. But quite substantial. And the punitive will be multiples of such so as to clearly send the signal to others that it's not worth the risk to commit such frauds.

I'm not seeing anything in Trump's defense strategy likely to shift that outcome. Of course, they will appeal, so the judge needs to give them plenty of opportunity to make their case that the damages were insubstantial...but I doubt any appeals court will overrule the judge's ruling that the frauds actually occurred. They're too egregious and the pattern is too obvious.

Yeah I don’t think you caught at the very beginning I clearly said “go the punitive route” before getting into concerns about the reality of economic damages (which I also realize in court it’s about warring mark to models with tons of embedded assumptions and which one is presented in a more compelling manner).

I absolutely Believe (know in fact from former colleagues) he’s been fraudulent for decades and you never trusted anything that he says or gives you. You do the business because it’s “money good collateral” and high end class A/B+ assets in 24hr markers are always dogfights where all the lenders have pulled their pants down once through the door. CRE lenders, especially w respect to NYC larger owners, our up with ungodly amounts of turd from their borrowers and happily ask for more because it’s just a volume game and they know if they aren’t lending to one dishonest, criminal jerk they’re just lending to another in that universe.

They all should be held accountable as this Fat Wanna Be Thug should. But the banks are all in on this game which is why I was concerned about pricing damages but just hammer his a** on punitive

I'd be surprised to see major punitive damages without a determination of substantial benefits achieved by the fraud. The punitive can be many multiples of the benefits, but if no benefit, I doubt the punitive would hold up beyond a slap on the wrist (which would bankrupt the common person but be gnat to guys like Trump). But there'll very likely be a determination that he benefited substantially and the judge will land on a defensible number based on testimony and common sense. But yes, the punitive will be where it stings.

Well as long as there’s no confided multiple cap all you technically need is One Dollar of damage right? No need to stretch and exercise that side too much and leave an opening for this dbag to cut a better payout deal down the road.

I'm far from an expert, just a casual observer (and thankfully not on the sharp end of such) but what I've read is that judges tend to see the world as I described. I'd speculate that they see the temptation to benefit substantially from a fraud needs to be balanced by the fear of large punishment. If the fraud was relatively immaterial, a 5-10X of the fraud benefit may be sufficient relative to the temptation for most people. A big benefit can only be achieved by big players and it takes a heck of a lot more punitive to get their attention...but 5-10X of a big benefit is a huge number.

But even a number like that isn't going scare the truly big fellas, the "Elon" scale billionaires, sovereign wealth funds, etc. But there are quite a few folks in the Trump scale.

New York State has requested $250 million be considered. Judge could say $40 million in benefit $200 million in punitive.
State says $168 million in ill-gotten benefit. Judge could do $500 million or a billion in punitive.
If so, that could lead to a settlement discussion landing at lesser number that Trump can actually raise.

My hunch is the judge lands near where the State originally asked. Plus the loss of business lines already determined but stayed.
Seizure of assets and sale.

Smart play would be a settlement and the ability to control the disposition of assets.

But Trump likely fights and, if so, appeals may push this even beyond Trump's personal lifetime.

If this (bolded above) is real and reasonably fair, even if I don’t think he dresses fairness at this point it’s still got a place in this, I really hope that’s the outcome.

My understanding is that is how it would work, at least in assets held in New York, given that they lose their license to operate such assets. But I think it can extend beyond, with a trustee placed in control to dispose of such assets, settle debts, etc. But not my field of expertise.

[Seacoaster(1)]

Be afraid, be very afraid.

https://twitter.com/VDHanson/status/1725201086313873765
Victor Davis Hanson
@VDHanson, Nov 16, 2023

Trump Revenge?

As Joe Biden’s polls plunge, his public bewilderment becomes chronic, and his exposed corruption can no longer be defended, pundits are writing furiously about the specter of “Trump revenge”. What is that, and why is it coming up now?

The Republican primary polls alarm them, but the general election polls favoring Trump over Biden utterly terrify them.

They privately concede that the crude-sounding Trump nevertheless did not weaponize the FBI, CIA, or DOJ.

The Trump-hating Pentagon, retired generals, CIA and FBI directors, the Washington FBI hierarchy—all of them knew that the fiery and bombastic Trump nevertheless did not hound out his enemies and turn these agencies and institutions into West Wing political operatives, in the way that Biden has destroyed the reputations of the DOJ and FBI.

So why the new mantra of “Trump revenge”?

Most likely, the Left is afraid because they know that if they were Trump and had suffered such weaponized lawfare from their opponents and in-house apostates, and yet had finally regained power, then they would most certainly go after their enemies with mass firings, weaponized indictments, and fake news stories.

In other words, they are scared that Trump thinks and acts like they do, and thus would do what they most certainly would do if in his place.

But for all of Trump’s loud banter, invective, and over-the-top tweets, he never sicced the bureaucracies on his political and personal enemies, and in that regard was never quite like the Left.·

https://twitter.com/VDHanson/status/1729622316945129893
Victor Davis Hanson
@VDHanson, Nov 28, 2023

Don’t Do Unto Others What We Would Have Done to Them?

Once more, it gets even creepier how the projectionist Left is daily still shrieking about impending Trump “revenge” and “rage”, or about Trump’s purported enemies lists to come, or about his planned weaponization of the bureaucracies. The fear is in direct proportion to Biden cognitive decline, sinking polls, and walls-are-closing-in family corruption.

Should we laugh or cry about the transparent hypocrisy?

After all, who tried to wreck an administration with a 22-month-long Russian “collusion” fraud, suppressed a laptop with the lie it was Russian “disinformation”, or impeached a president for a phone call correctly identifying the Biden family’s operation in Ukraine as utterly corrupt and at the expense of U.S. interests?

Do we recall that the Obama-Biden nexus—from 2009-17, and from 2021 until now—cemented the reputation of FBI as a partisan operation, rebooted the Pentagon as an agent of woke change ferreting out “white rage” and “white privilege”, reinvented the DOJ as a Biden family protection service, politicized the CIA so that it, along with the FBI, interfered in the 2016 and 2020 elections, and warped the IRS by suppressing evidence of Biden family tax fraud?

What Lois Lerner, Eric Holder (self-identified as Obama’s “wingman”), and Loretta Lynch left undone was taken up by Merrick Garland.

Does the New York Times, or Joe Scarborough or any of these strange pundits raging about Trump rage to come remember how the “Logan Act” farce was used to destroy Michael Flynn?

Or the Foreign Policy essay of Rosa Brooks, a former Obama-era Pentagon lawyer, about how to drive out Trump without waiting for the 2020 election, by either impeachment, the 25thAmendment—or a military coup?

How about the “kill Trump” porn that saw celebrities, actors, and academics envisioning decapitating, stabbing, shooting, exploding, or incinerating the orange man?

How about Anonymous’s confessions about how fellow bureaucrats were trying to undermine and sabotage the operations of the Trump administration from within? Or the Pentagon’s retired 4-stars calling for Trump to be removed the “sooner the better”, or labeling him a Mussolini or Nazi-like figure?

Who paid Twitter millions to censor the news of political opponents?

Who paid foreign national Christopher Steele to peddle a fake dossier to destroy the 2016 Republican candidate?

Do we remember Biden’s Phantom-of-the-Opera harangue about his “ultra-MAGA” and “semi-fascists” political enemies?

Were not the twin pillars of Biden’s current foreign policy team, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, and Secretary of State Antony Blinken, once respectively knee-deep in the anti-Trump Alfa Bank-ping hoax and the “51 Intelligence Authorities” laptop scam?

Again, the reason the media and politicians are terrified is that they are convinced Trump would do exactly what they would do in his place—and what they would do utterly suddenly horrifies them.

Just silliness, partisan nonsense. Meanwhile, Kash Patel says as Trump’s next CIA Director he will lead “patriots” appointed by Trump in an all-out effort to prosecute and jail people in government and the media: “We will find the conspirators in govt and the media. Yes, we are going to come after the people in the media.”

Trump’s former Defense Secretary Mark Esper on the threat of a second Trump term: “He’ll be able to enact his policy of revenge that he’s been talking about and retribution. And look, it’s quite a dangerous time for our democracy if that were to happen.” But sure, we are overwrought, while tough retired guy and dog walker is OK with a second Trump Administration.

This must make you and VDH pretty happy; it's OK to jail the enemy -- you know, citizens who disagree with you. OS, you are the saddest person on these boards.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Be afraid, be very afraid.

https://twitter.com/VDHanson/status/1725201086313873765
Victor Davis Hanson
@VDHanson, Nov 16, 2023

Trump Revenge?

As Joe Biden’s polls plunge, his public bewilderment becomes chronic, and his exposed corruption can no longer be defended, pundits are writing furiously about the specter of “Trump revenge”. What is that, and why is it coming up now?

The Republican primary polls alarm them, but the general election polls favoring Trump over Biden utterly terrify them.

They privately concede that the crude-sounding Trump nevertheless did not weaponize the FBI, CIA, or DOJ.

The Trump-hating Pentagon, retired generals, CIA and FBI directors, the Washington FBI hierarchy—all of them knew that the fiery and bombastic Trump nevertheless did not hound out his enemies and turn these agencies and institutions into West Wing political operatives, in the way that Biden has destroyed the reputations of the DOJ and FBI.

So why the new mantra of “Trump revenge”?

Most likely, the Left is afraid because they know that if they were Trump and had suffered such weaponized lawfare from their opponents and in-house apostates, and yet had finally regained power, then they would most certainly go after their enemies with mass firings, weaponized indictments, and fake news stories.

In other words, they are scared that Trump thinks and acts like they do, and thus would do what they most certainly would do if in his place.

But for all of Trump’s loud banter, invective, and over-the-top tweets, he never sicced the bureaucracies on his political and personal enemies, and in that regard was never quite like the Left.·

https://twitter.com/VDHanson/status/1729622316945129893
Victor Davis Hanson
@VDHanson, Nov 28, 2023

Don’t Do Unto Others What We Would Have Done to Them?

Once more, it gets even creepier how the projectionist Left is daily still shrieking about impending Trump “revenge” and “rage”, or about Trump’s purported enemies lists to come, or about his planned weaponization of the bureaucracies. The fear is in direct proportion to Biden cognitive decline, sinking polls, and walls-are-closing-in family corruption.

Should we laugh or cry about the transparent hypocrisy?

After all, who tried to wreck an administration with a 22-month-long Russian “collusion” fraud, suppressed a laptop with the lie it was Russian “disinformation”, or impeached a president for a phone call correctly identifying the Biden family’s operation in Ukraine as utterly corrupt and at the expense of U.S. interests?

Do we recall that the Obama-Biden nexus—from 2009-17, and from 2021 until now—cemented the reputation of FBI as a partisan operation, rebooted the Pentagon as an agent of woke change ferreting out “white rage” and “white privilege”, reinvented the DOJ as a Biden family protection service, politicized the CIA so that it, along with the FBI, interfered in the 2016 and 2020 elections, and warped the IRS by suppressing evidence of Biden family tax fraud?

What Lois Lerner, Eric Holder (self-identified as Obama’s “wingman”), and Loretta Lynch left undone was taken up by Merrick Garland.

Does the New York Times, or Joe Scarborough or any of these strange pundits raging about Trump rage to come remember how the “Logan Act” farce was used to destroy Michael Flynn?

Or the Foreign Policy essay of Rosa Brooks, a former Obama-era Pentagon lawyer, about how to drive out Trump without waiting for the 2020 election, by either impeachment, the 25thAmendment—or a military coup?

How about the “kill Trump” porn that saw celebrities, actors, and academics envisioning decapitating, stabbing, shooting, exploding, or incinerating the orange man?

How about Anonymous’s confessions about how fellow bureaucrats were trying to undermine and sabotage the operations of the Trump administration from within? Or the Pentagon’s retired 4-stars calling for Trump to be removed the “sooner the better”, or labeling him a Mussolini or Nazi-like figure?

Who paid Twitter millions to censor the news of political opponents?

Who paid foreign national Christopher Steele to peddle a fake dossier to destroy the 2016 Republican candidate?

Do we remember Biden’s Phantom-of-the-Opera harangue about his “ultra-MAGA” and “semi-fascists” political enemies?

Were not the twin pillars of Biden’s current foreign policy team, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, and Secretary of State Antony Blinken, once respectively knee-deep in the anti-Trump Alfa Bank-ping hoax and the “51 Intelligence Authorities” laptop scam?

Again, the reason the media and politicians are terrified is that they are convinced Trump would do exactly what they would do in his place—and what they would do utterly suddenly horrifies them.

Just silliness, partisan nonsense. Meanwhile, Kash Patel says as Trump’s next CIA Director he will lead “patriots” appointed by Trump in an all-out effort to prosecute and jail people in government and the media: “We will find the conspirators in govt and the media. Yes, we are going to come after the people in the media.”

Trump’s former Defense Secretary Mark Esper on the threat of a second Trump term: “He’ll be able to enact his policy of revenge that he’s been talking about and retribution. And look, it’s quite a dangerous time for our democracy if that were to happen.” But sure, we are overwrought, while tough retired guy and dog walker is OK with a second Trump Administration.

This must make you and VDH pretty happy; it's OK to jail the enemy -- you know, citizens who disagree with you. OS, you are the saddest person on these boards.

I tried to point it out years ago.