A remarkable development occurred when a Deutsche Bank AG executive validated the assertions made by former President Donald Trump regarding the fraudulent lawsuit initiated by New York Attorney General Letitia James during the entire proceeding: No individuals were injured.
The Designed Civil Case of the New York Attorney General Disintegrates.
Bank Executive Flips the Script During His Testimony at Trump's NY Fraud Trial
— Constitutionalist 💯 🇺🇲 (@Kc_Casey1) November 29, 2023
On the grounds that the Trump Organization overvalued its properties in order to defraud financial institutions such as Deutsche Bank in order to obtain business loans, New York Attorney General Letitia James has filed a civil suit. The lawsuit filed by James claims that in order to secure more favorable loan terms, the company artificially increased the value of its properties by up to $3.6 billion. Come on, everyone, let's be honest. It is widely recognized that exaggerating one's assets in order to secure a favorable agreement does not constitute a crime. Isn't that just a wise business move?
Amid the executive's testimony, Trump's legal representative Jesus Suarez reprimanded him, compelling him to concede that the bank routinely evaluates and sanctions a client's financial statements. Contradictions between the bank and the client regarding the value of assets are not deal-breakers in terms of credit extension, the executive admitted. Is the case now closed?
Trump's Financial Statements Are Not Quite Skeptical
"Therefore, there is no fraud," Trump told reporters prior to his testimony, adding that his company's financial statements were "extremely conservative." Additionally, he noted that his property valuations contain a "substantial disclaimer clause" instructing lenders to conduct their own research. Individually, he begs them to verify his figures once more.
Although it is evident that banks are intelligent enough to conduct their own valuations and are not easily duped, even a former federal prosecutor, Andrew McCarthy, concurred with Trump and criticized the absurdity of the case. Further, he asserted that there is no indication that banks would have imposed a higher interest rate, irrespective of whether Trump's properties were overvalued. "Boom, mic drops."
Counsel for Trump, Christopher Kise, petitioned for an instantaneous directed verdict in favor of his client following the executive's testimony. Kise contended that the testimony provided by the executive disproved the allegations made by James. Although at first the magistrate appeared hesitant to grant the request, come on, people! Clearly, no case exists in this instance. Considering Trump is contending for the 2024 presidential nomination, this entire spectacle may be more concerned with tarnishing his candidacy than pursuing justice, even though the judge's alleged ruling does not appear to be in accordance with the truth.