No, that would be too quick and painless. I would like him (them!) to do time, and get in touch with his feminine side in the big house.Personally I'm wishing for a Jack Ruby solution to the Trump crime family. Wishing, not advocating, which would be illegal.
Preparing for Trump's Indictment
- Thread starter gwb-trading
- Start date
Not in this country.
We fought a seven year war with King George over that.
It is not our job help the king's men make a case against us.
As a Canadian you welcome that kind of Chinese system.
Said the lap dog. (Wipe that brown off your nose.)
They had the records in handwriting of illegal activities that were crimes per se... All they had to do was prove any stream of income came to him or his organization and he went down for tax evasion......
trumps activities were in a legal organization covered by thousands of lines of accounting and tax...
Attorney General James Takes Action to Force Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Jr., and Ivanka Trump to Comply with Ongoing Investigation Into Trump Organization’s Financial Dealings
https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/202...tion-force-donald-j-trump-donald-trump-jr-and
Motion to Compel Filed After Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Jr.,
and Ivanka Trump Refuse to Provide Sworn Testimony
Ongoing OAG Investigation Preliminarily Determined that Trump Organization
Used Fraudulent and Misleading Asset Valuations to Obtain Economic Benefits
NEW YORK – New York Attorney General Letitia James today took legal action to compel Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Jr., and Ivanka Trump to appear for sworn testimony as part of the office’s ongoing civil investigation into the Trump Organization’s financial dealings. The motion to compel filed today seeks a court order enforcing testimonial subpoenas issued to Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Jr., and Ivanka Trump, as well as the production of documents held by Donald J. Trump. As the papers filed today make clear, each of the individuals was directly involved in one or more transactions under review. Earlier this month, the Trumps filed a motion to quash these interviews, and the papers filed today by the Attorney General oppose that motion.
Since moving to compel the testimony of Eric Trump in August 2020, the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) has collected significant additional evidence indicating that the Trump Organization used fraudulent or misleading asset valuations to obtain a host of economic benefits, including loans, insurance coverage, and tax deductions. While OAG has not yet reached a final decision regarding whether this evidence merits legal action, the grounds for pursuing the investigation are self-evident. The OAG filed today’s motion to get necessary testimony and evidence from high-ranking corporate personnel with close involvement in the events under investigation to determine, among other things, their relevant knowledge about those events.
“For more than two years, the Trump Organization has used delay tactics and litigation in an attempt to thwart a legitimate investigation into its financial dealings,” said Attorney General James. “Thus far in our investigation, we have uncovered significant evidence that suggests Donald J. Trump and the Trump Organization falsely and fraudulently valued multiple assets and misrepresented those values to financial institutions for economic benefit. The Trumps must comply with our lawful subpoenas for documents and testimony because no one in this country can pick and choose if and how the law applies to them. We will not be deterred in our efforts to continue this investigation and ensure that no one is above the law.”
Background
As detailed in today’s filings, Attorney General James opened an investigation into Donald J. Trump and the Trump Organization in March 2019, after Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen, testified before Congress that Trump’s annual financial statements inflated the values of Trump’s assets to obtain favorable terms for loans and insurance coverage, while also deflating the value of other assets to reduce real estate taxes.
For more than two years, the Trump Organization has acknowledged OAG’s authority to investigate the matters alleged and has professed cooperation, but has only recently begun to produce the bulk of the documents called for in subpoenas issued as far back as December 2019. While more than a dozen current and former Trump Organization employees have provided sworn testimony, in recent weeks, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Jr., and Ivanka Trump refused to appear to give testimony pursuant to subpoenas, despite their roles in certain transactions and high-ranking positions in the Trump Organization.
Since at least 2004, Mr. Trump and the Trump Organization have prepared an annual “Statement of Financial Condition of Donald J. Trump,” and since 2017, when Mr. Trump became president, these statements have been issued by the Trustees of the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, which is overseen by Donald Trump, Jr. and Allen Weisselberg. These financial statements contain Mr. Trump’s or the Trustees’ assertions of net worth, based principally on asserted values of particular assets minus outstanding debt.
The statements were submitted to counterparties, including financial institutions, other lenders, and insurers in connection with Trump Organization business transactions. The counterparties relied on the statements and additional information provided by the Trump Organization in evaluating Mr. Trump’s financial condition.
The OAG has determined that the Statements of Financial Condition described Mr. Trump’s (or the Trustees of the Revocable Trust’s) valuation process in broad terms and in ways which were often inaccurate or misleading when compared with the supporting data and documentation that the Trump Organization submitted to its accounting firm. Among other things, the statements:
1) Seven Springs
Seven Springs is a 212-acre property in Westchester County, purchased by the Trump Organization in 1995. In 2004, the Trump Organization valued the property at $80 million; in 2007 they valued it at $200 million; and by 2012, they valued it at $291 million. The principal basis of this last valuation was the contention that the property was zoned for nine luxurious homes worth a supposed $161 million of profit. Two separate, professional appraisers valued the lots that were supposedly going to be developed at mere fractions of the prices used in the Trump Statement of Financial Condition. After receiving the March 2016 appraisal, which valued the property at $56 million, Mr. Trump’s subsequent financial statement was changed in a manner that disguised what would otherwise have appeared as a more than 80 percent drop in the value of Seven Springs (from $291 million to $56 million) by moving the property to a catch-all category where no asset was itemized.
2) Trump Tower Triplex
In that same catch-all category was Mr. Trump’s triplex apartment, which on the same statement was given a value increase of $127 million. The valuations of Mr. Trump’s triplex apartment in Trump Tower since at least 2012 were based on the assertion that the triplex apartment was 30,000 square feet in size. However, the actual size of Mr. Trump’s triplex apartment was 10,996 square feet, and documents confirming that fact were signed by Mr. Trump himself in 2012. Nevertheless, Mr. Trump’s 2015 and 2016 financial statement reported the value of Mr. Trump’s triplex apartment as $327 million, based on the apartment having 30,000 square feet of space multiplied by a certain price per square foot. In testimony to OAG, Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg admitted that the value of Mr. Trump’s apartment was overstated by “give or take” $200 million.
3) Trump International Golf Club Scotland
This property, which is located in Aberdeen, Scotland, was purchased by the Trump Organization in 2006 for $12.6 million. In 2011, the valuation of Aberdeen used for Mr. Trump’s financial statement was estimated at £75 million or $161 million, however, this valuation appears to have been based on an email prepared to provide information to Forbes magazine for a quote and was not professionally determined. For Mr. Trump’s 2014 financial statement, the Trump Organization valued the entire Aberdeen property at $435.56 million, in part by assuming the right to build 2,500 luxury homes on the property – despite approval to build fewer than 1,500 holiday apartments and golf villas.
4) The Trump Brand
Mr. Trump’s financial statements explicitly state that the statements do not incorporate any brand value. Mr. Trump was personally aware of the fact that his Statements of Financial Condition represented that no brand value was included in the valuations, however, based on evidence that OAG obtained, that representation was false or at least misleading. The financial statements included an undisclosed added brand premium for most of the properties classified as “Club Facilities and Related Real Estate.” From 2013-2014, seven golf club facilities were valued in a manner that included an undisclosed flat 30 percent premium on top of fixed assets for a “fully operational branded facility.” From 2015-2020, the value of those same seven facilities included an undisclosed flat 15 percent premium. The financial institutions that provided loans or insurance for these facilities required that brand value be excluded from the individual’s “net worth.”
5) Trump National Golf Club Westchester
Mr. Trump purchased Trump National Golf Club Westchester for $8.5 million. In his 2011 financial statement, the property was valued at $68.7 million. A portion of that total reflected the value of the initiation fee for 67 unsold memberships, totaling $12.77 million on the assumption that the club was currently “getting $150,000” per membership and that amount would only rise. But the investigation determined that the $150,000 number was false. Many new members paid no deposit at all in 2011, and Trump Organization records showed no members paid an initiation fee in 2012. The valuation also included an undiscounted amount from the sale of 31 mid-rise units that the Trump Organization recognized had been “put on hold.”
6) Trump Park Avenue
Trump Park Avenue is reflected on Mr. Trump’s financial statements from 2011-2020. In these years, the property was reported as representing between $135 million and $350 million of Mr. Trump’s total assets. Evidence obtained by OAG establishes that unsold residential condominium units represented the majority of the reported value (in excess of 95 percent in some years). In 2011, the reported value of the property was $311.6 million with unsold residential units comprising $293.1 million of that value. Evidence obtained by OAG indicates both that the reported values of the unsold residential units of the Trump Park Avenue building were significantly higher than the internal valuations used by the Trump Organization for business planning and failed to account for the fact that many units were rent stabilized. For one apartment, Ivanka Trump held an option to purchase an apartment she was renting for $8.5 million, but it was valued as high as $25 million on Mr. Trump’s financial statements.
7) 40 Wall Street
The Trump Organization owns a “ground lease” at 40 Wall Street, meaning it holds a leasehold interest in the land and buildings on the land, but pays rent to the owner. The OAG has obtained evidence raising questions regarding the true value of the Trump Organization’s leasehold interest in 40 Wall Street as reported on Mr. Trump’s financial statements. Outside appraisals conducted by Cushman & Wakefield in 2010-2012 for Capital One, which held a $160 million mortgage on the building, valued the Trump Organization’s interest in the property between $200 million and $220 million. During the same period, Mr. Trump’s financial statements represented that 40 Wall Street had a valuation of $601.8 million in 2010, $524.7 million in 2011, $527.2 million in 2012, and $530.7 million in 2013 – values between two and three times the value recorded in the three consecutive appraisals
In early 2015, the Trump Organization sought to renegotiate its loan to avoid a $5 million principal payment, citing its $550 million valuation as grounds for the renegotiation. Capital One, which had performed its own valuation in November 2014 determining that 40 Wall Street was worth $257 million, declined to renegotiate. Thereafter, the Trump Organization, under Mr. Weisselberg’s leadership, began working with his son, Jack Weisselberg, a director at Ladder Capital to refinance the $160 million mortgage. Now working for Ladder Capital, the same Cushman & Wakefield team that performed the 2010-2012 appraisals valued the building at $550 million. While OAG has obtained evidence that the 2015 appraisal did not reflect a good-faith assessment of value, using demonstrably incorrect facts and aggressive assumptions, even this inflated value was insufficient for Mr. Trump. Mr. Trump’s financial statements as of June 2015 added almost $200 million to that figure and valued the building at $735.4 million.
Misrepresentations to Financial Institutions
The OAG is investigating the Trump Organization’s representations to banks and insurers and whether those institutions relied on Mr. Trump’s financial statements. The evidence to date indicates that banks and other financial institutions relied on Mr. Trump’s financial statements in considering whether to grant Mr. Trump and the Trump Organization access to credit and coverage. Mr. Trump’s Statements of Financial Condition were submitted to multiple banks and insurers to obtain credit and coverage and to comply with covenants on existing loans that required periodic submission of financial statements.
Misrepresentations to Insurance Providers
Evidence indicates that over a period of years, Allen Weisselberg misrepresented the source of valuations on Mr. Trump’s financial statements in order to obtain favorable terms for insurance coverage on multiple occasions. Mr. Weisselberg repeatedly represented that the valuations listed in Mr. Trump’s personal financial statements were prepared annually by professional appraisal firms, which was false. With respect to nearly all valuations, the Trump Organization did not retain any professional appraisal firm to prepare the valuations of the Trump Organization’s real estate holdings that appeared in Mr. Trump’s financial statements shown to the underwriter. Rather, the valuations were prepared by Trump Organization staff, contrary to what an underwriter was expressly told and believed.
Misrepresentations to the IRS
Evidence indicates that the Trump Organization also submitted fraudulent or misleading valuations to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), specifically related to the Trump National Golf Club Los Angeles and Seven Springs.
Evidence indicates that an appraisal commissioned by the Trump Organization and submitted to the IRS substantially overstated the value of a land donation at the Trump National Golf Club Los Angeles by overstating the speed with which the site could be developed and by failing to value a reduction in affordable housing requirements that the donation enabled. During the preparation of that appraisal, one appraiser wrote that “Trump is fighting for every $1.” The misrepresentations were incorporated into the final valuation arrived at by appraisers, and ultimately submitted to the IRS in connection with a tax deduction Mr. Trump sought on the property.
Evidence indicates that an appraisal commissioned by the Trump Organization also substantially overstated the value of a land donation at Seven Springs. After efforts to develop the Seven Springs property in Westchester were unsuccessful, the Trump Organization granted a conservation easement over 158 acres of the property in 2015.
The OAG has identified evidence that the number of lots relied upon to calculate the value of the conservation easement that the Trump Organization sought on this property was more than double what was permitted by development restrictions imposed by a locality — restrictions that the Trump Organization was long aware of and had agreed to on the record at a town meeting. As a result of these restrictions, the Trump Organization would have been required to reduce the number of potential subdivision lots that could be developed, which on information and belief, would have reduced the value reached by the appraisal by as much as approximately 50 percent. The OAG has also identified evidence suggesting that the development timeline used to calculate the value of the easement donation was inconsistent with applicable disturbance restrictions, and if the actual timeline were utilized, it would have further reduced the value of the appraisal.
Mr. Trump’s accountants have told OAG that the easement deductions at Trump National Golf Club Los Angeles and Seven Springs resulted in several million dollars of benefit to Mr. Trump.
Individuals Who Have Not Sufficiently Answered OAG Subpoenas
Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Jr., and Ivanka Trump do not dispute that they were each properly served with subpoenas calling for their testimony. At the outset, Donald J. Trump offered no objection to that portion of his subpoena seeking the production of documents. To the contrary, on December 3, 2021, while leaving open the question of whether he would appear for testimony and objecting to the document return date of December 17, 2021, counsel for Mr. Trump agreed to produce responsive documents in advance of his testimony.
Donald J. Trump
Donald J. Trump is the beneficial owner of the Trump Organization. He had ultimate authority over a wide swath of conduct by the Trump Organization. Through 2016, Mr. Trump took personal responsibility for the accuracy of his financial statements.
Donald Trump, Jr.
Donald Trump, Jr. runs the Trump Organization with Eric Trump. He is also a trustee of the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust and has certified annual financial statements regarding the assets the Trust holds for Donald J. Trump.
Ivanka Trump
Ivanka Trump was the Executive Vice President for Development and Acquisitions of the Trump Organization through at least 2016. Among other responsibilities, Ms. Trump negotiated and secured financing for Trump Organization properties. Until January 2017, Ms. Trump was a primary contact for the Trump Organization’s largest lender, Deutsche Bank.
Today’s motion to compel was submitted under New York state’s Executive Law § 63(12), which gives OAG broad powers to investigate fraud and illegality in the conduct of business.
The OAG has reached no conclusions in this matter, and the investigation remains ongoing.
A memorandum of law and supplemental verified petition were filed in this matter.
https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/202...tion-force-donald-j-trump-donald-trump-jr-and
Motion to Compel Filed After Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Jr.,
and Ivanka Trump Refuse to Provide Sworn Testimony
Ongoing OAG Investigation Preliminarily Determined that Trump Organization
Used Fraudulent and Misleading Asset Valuations to Obtain Economic Benefits
NEW YORK – New York Attorney General Letitia James today took legal action to compel Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Jr., and Ivanka Trump to appear for sworn testimony as part of the office’s ongoing civil investigation into the Trump Organization’s financial dealings. The motion to compel filed today seeks a court order enforcing testimonial subpoenas issued to Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Jr., and Ivanka Trump, as well as the production of documents held by Donald J. Trump. As the papers filed today make clear, each of the individuals was directly involved in one or more transactions under review. Earlier this month, the Trumps filed a motion to quash these interviews, and the papers filed today by the Attorney General oppose that motion.
Since moving to compel the testimony of Eric Trump in August 2020, the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) has collected significant additional evidence indicating that the Trump Organization used fraudulent or misleading asset valuations to obtain a host of economic benefits, including loans, insurance coverage, and tax deductions. While OAG has not yet reached a final decision regarding whether this evidence merits legal action, the grounds for pursuing the investigation are self-evident. The OAG filed today’s motion to get necessary testimony and evidence from high-ranking corporate personnel with close involvement in the events under investigation to determine, among other things, their relevant knowledge about those events.
“For more than two years, the Trump Organization has used delay tactics and litigation in an attempt to thwart a legitimate investigation into its financial dealings,” said Attorney General James. “Thus far in our investigation, we have uncovered significant evidence that suggests Donald J. Trump and the Trump Organization falsely and fraudulently valued multiple assets and misrepresented those values to financial institutions for economic benefit. The Trumps must comply with our lawful subpoenas for documents and testimony because no one in this country can pick and choose if and how the law applies to them. We will not be deterred in our efforts to continue this investigation and ensure that no one is above the law.”
Background
As detailed in today’s filings, Attorney General James opened an investigation into Donald J. Trump and the Trump Organization in March 2019, after Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen, testified before Congress that Trump’s annual financial statements inflated the values of Trump’s assets to obtain favorable terms for loans and insurance coverage, while also deflating the value of other assets to reduce real estate taxes.
For more than two years, the Trump Organization has acknowledged OAG’s authority to investigate the matters alleged and has professed cooperation, but has only recently begun to produce the bulk of the documents called for in subpoenas issued as far back as December 2019. While more than a dozen current and former Trump Organization employees have provided sworn testimony, in recent weeks, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Jr., and Ivanka Trump refused to appear to give testimony pursuant to subpoenas, despite their roles in certain transactions and high-ranking positions in the Trump Organization.
Since at least 2004, Mr. Trump and the Trump Organization have prepared an annual “Statement of Financial Condition of Donald J. Trump,” and since 2017, when Mr. Trump became president, these statements have been issued by the Trustees of the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, which is overseen by Donald Trump, Jr. and Allen Weisselberg. These financial statements contain Mr. Trump’s or the Trustees’ assertions of net worth, based principally on asserted values of particular assets minus outstanding debt.
The statements were submitted to counterparties, including financial institutions, other lenders, and insurers in connection with Trump Organization business transactions. The counterparties relied on the statements and additional information provided by the Trump Organization in evaluating Mr. Trump’s financial condition.
The OAG has determined that the Statements of Financial Condition described Mr. Trump’s (or the Trustees of the Revocable Trust’s) valuation process in broad terms and in ways which were often inaccurate or misleading when compared with the supporting data and documentation that the Trump Organization submitted to its accounting firm. Among other things, the statements:
- Misstated objective facts, like the size of Mr. Trump’s Trump Tower penthouse;
- Miscategorized assets outside Mr. Trump’s or the Trump Organization’s control as “cash,” thereby overstating his liquidity;
- Misstated the process by which Mr. Trump or his associates reached valuations, including deviations from generally accepted accounting principles in ways that the statements did not disclose;
- Failed to use fundamental techniques of valuation, like discounting future revenues and expenses to their present value, or choosing as “comparables” only similar properties in order to impute valuations from public sales data;
- Misstated the purported involvement of “outside professionals” in reaching the valuations; and
- Failed to advise that certain valuation amounts were inflated by an undisclosed amount for brand value.
1) Seven Springs
Seven Springs is a 212-acre property in Westchester County, purchased by the Trump Organization in 1995. In 2004, the Trump Organization valued the property at $80 million; in 2007 they valued it at $200 million; and by 2012, they valued it at $291 million. The principal basis of this last valuation was the contention that the property was zoned for nine luxurious homes worth a supposed $161 million of profit. Two separate, professional appraisers valued the lots that were supposedly going to be developed at mere fractions of the prices used in the Trump Statement of Financial Condition. After receiving the March 2016 appraisal, which valued the property at $56 million, Mr. Trump’s subsequent financial statement was changed in a manner that disguised what would otherwise have appeared as a more than 80 percent drop in the value of Seven Springs (from $291 million to $56 million) by moving the property to a catch-all category where no asset was itemized.
2) Trump Tower Triplex
In that same catch-all category was Mr. Trump’s triplex apartment, which on the same statement was given a value increase of $127 million. The valuations of Mr. Trump’s triplex apartment in Trump Tower since at least 2012 were based on the assertion that the triplex apartment was 30,000 square feet in size. However, the actual size of Mr. Trump’s triplex apartment was 10,996 square feet, and documents confirming that fact were signed by Mr. Trump himself in 2012. Nevertheless, Mr. Trump’s 2015 and 2016 financial statement reported the value of Mr. Trump’s triplex apartment as $327 million, based on the apartment having 30,000 square feet of space multiplied by a certain price per square foot. In testimony to OAG, Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg admitted that the value of Mr. Trump’s apartment was overstated by “give or take” $200 million.
3) Trump International Golf Club Scotland
This property, which is located in Aberdeen, Scotland, was purchased by the Trump Organization in 2006 for $12.6 million. In 2011, the valuation of Aberdeen used for Mr. Trump’s financial statement was estimated at £75 million or $161 million, however, this valuation appears to have been based on an email prepared to provide information to Forbes magazine for a quote and was not professionally determined. For Mr. Trump’s 2014 financial statement, the Trump Organization valued the entire Aberdeen property at $435.56 million, in part by assuming the right to build 2,500 luxury homes on the property – despite approval to build fewer than 1,500 holiday apartments and golf villas.
4) The Trump Brand
Mr. Trump’s financial statements explicitly state that the statements do not incorporate any brand value. Mr. Trump was personally aware of the fact that his Statements of Financial Condition represented that no brand value was included in the valuations, however, based on evidence that OAG obtained, that representation was false or at least misleading. The financial statements included an undisclosed added brand premium for most of the properties classified as “Club Facilities and Related Real Estate.” From 2013-2014, seven golf club facilities were valued in a manner that included an undisclosed flat 30 percent premium on top of fixed assets for a “fully operational branded facility.” From 2015-2020, the value of those same seven facilities included an undisclosed flat 15 percent premium. The financial institutions that provided loans or insurance for these facilities required that brand value be excluded from the individual’s “net worth.”
5) Trump National Golf Club Westchester
Mr. Trump purchased Trump National Golf Club Westchester for $8.5 million. In his 2011 financial statement, the property was valued at $68.7 million. A portion of that total reflected the value of the initiation fee for 67 unsold memberships, totaling $12.77 million on the assumption that the club was currently “getting $150,000” per membership and that amount would only rise. But the investigation determined that the $150,000 number was false. Many new members paid no deposit at all in 2011, and Trump Organization records showed no members paid an initiation fee in 2012. The valuation also included an undiscounted amount from the sale of 31 mid-rise units that the Trump Organization recognized had been “put on hold.”
6) Trump Park Avenue
Trump Park Avenue is reflected on Mr. Trump’s financial statements from 2011-2020. In these years, the property was reported as representing between $135 million and $350 million of Mr. Trump’s total assets. Evidence obtained by OAG establishes that unsold residential condominium units represented the majority of the reported value (in excess of 95 percent in some years). In 2011, the reported value of the property was $311.6 million with unsold residential units comprising $293.1 million of that value. Evidence obtained by OAG indicates both that the reported values of the unsold residential units of the Trump Park Avenue building were significantly higher than the internal valuations used by the Trump Organization for business planning and failed to account for the fact that many units were rent stabilized. For one apartment, Ivanka Trump held an option to purchase an apartment she was renting for $8.5 million, but it was valued as high as $25 million on Mr. Trump’s financial statements.
7) 40 Wall Street
The Trump Organization owns a “ground lease” at 40 Wall Street, meaning it holds a leasehold interest in the land and buildings on the land, but pays rent to the owner. The OAG has obtained evidence raising questions regarding the true value of the Trump Organization’s leasehold interest in 40 Wall Street as reported on Mr. Trump’s financial statements. Outside appraisals conducted by Cushman & Wakefield in 2010-2012 for Capital One, which held a $160 million mortgage on the building, valued the Trump Organization’s interest in the property between $200 million and $220 million. During the same period, Mr. Trump’s financial statements represented that 40 Wall Street had a valuation of $601.8 million in 2010, $524.7 million in 2011, $527.2 million in 2012, and $530.7 million in 2013 – values between two and three times the value recorded in the three consecutive appraisals
In early 2015, the Trump Organization sought to renegotiate its loan to avoid a $5 million principal payment, citing its $550 million valuation as grounds for the renegotiation. Capital One, which had performed its own valuation in November 2014 determining that 40 Wall Street was worth $257 million, declined to renegotiate. Thereafter, the Trump Organization, under Mr. Weisselberg’s leadership, began working with his son, Jack Weisselberg, a director at Ladder Capital to refinance the $160 million mortgage. Now working for Ladder Capital, the same Cushman & Wakefield team that performed the 2010-2012 appraisals valued the building at $550 million. While OAG has obtained evidence that the 2015 appraisal did not reflect a good-faith assessment of value, using demonstrably incorrect facts and aggressive assumptions, even this inflated value was insufficient for Mr. Trump. Mr. Trump’s financial statements as of June 2015 added almost $200 million to that figure and valued the building at $735.4 million.
Misrepresentations to Financial Institutions
The OAG is investigating the Trump Organization’s representations to banks and insurers and whether those institutions relied on Mr. Trump’s financial statements. The evidence to date indicates that banks and other financial institutions relied on Mr. Trump’s financial statements in considering whether to grant Mr. Trump and the Trump Organization access to credit and coverage. Mr. Trump’s Statements of Financial Condition were submitted to multiple banks and insurers to obtain credit and coverage and to comply with covenants on existing loans that required periodic submission of financial statements.
Misrepresentations to Insurance Providers
Evidence indicates that over a period of years, Allen Weisselberg misrepresented the source of valuations on Mr. Trump’s financial statements in order to obtain favorable terms for insurance coverage on multiple occasions. Mr. Weisselberg repeatedly represented that the valuations listed in Mr. Trump’s personal financial statements were prepared annually by professional appraisal firms, which was false. With respect to nearly all valuations, the Trump Organization did not retain any professional appraisal firm to prepare the valuations of the Trump Organization’s real estate holdings that appeared in Mr. Trump’s financial statements shown to the underwriter. Rather, the valuations were prepared by Trump Organization staff, contrary to what an underwriter was expressly told and believed.
Misrepresentations to the IRS
Evidence indicates that the Trump Organization also submitted fraudulent or misleading valuations to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), specifically related to the Trump National Golf Club Los Angeles and Seven Springs.
Evidence indicates that an appraisal commissioned by the Trump Organization and submitted to the IRS substantially overstated the value of a land donation at the Trump National Golf Club Los Angeles by overstating the speed with which the site could be developed and by failing to value a reduction in affordable housing requirements that the donation enabled. During the preparation of that appraisal, one appraiser wrote that “Trump is fighting for every $1.” The misrepresentations were incorporated into the final valuation arrived at by appraisers, and ultimately submitted to the IRS in connection with a tax deduction Mr. Trump sought on the property.
Evidence indicates that an appraisal commissioned by the Trump Organization also substantially overstated the value of a land donation at Seven Springs. After efforts to develop the Seven Springs property in Westchester were unsuccessful, the Trump Organization granted a conservation easement over 158 acres of the property in 2015.
The OAG has identified evidence that the number of lots relied upon to calculate the value of the conservation easement that the Trump Organization sought on this property was more than double what was permitted by development restrictions imposed by a locality — restrictions that the Trump Organization was long aware of and had agreed to on the record at a town meeting. As a result of these restrictions, the Trump Organization would have been required to reduce the number of potential subdivision lots that could be developed, which on information and belief, would have reduced the value reached by the appraisal by as much as approximately 50 percent. The OAG has also identified evidence suggesting that the development timeline used to calculate the value of the easement donation was inconsistent with applicable disturbance restrictions, and if the actual timeline were utilized, it would have further reduced the value of the appraisal.
Mr. Trump’s accountants have told OAG that the easement deductions at Trump National Golf Club Los Angeles and Seven Springs resulted in several million dollars of benefit to Mr. Trump.
Individuals Who Have Not Sufficiently Answered OAG Subpoenas
Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Jr., and Ivanka Trump do not dispute that they were each properly served with subpoenas calling for their testimony. At the outset, Donald J. Trump offered no objection to that portion of his subpoena seeking the production of documents. To the contrary, on December 3, 2021, while leaving open the question of whether he would appear for testimony and objecting to the document return date of December 17, 2021, counsel for Mr. Trump agreed to produce responsive documents in advance of his testimony.
Donald J. Trump
Donald J. Trump is the beneficial owner of the Trump Organization. He had ultimate authority over a wide swath of conduct by the Trump Organization. Through 2016, Mr. Trump took personal responsibility for the accuracy of his financial statements.
Donald Trump, Jr.
Donald Trump, Jr. runs the Trump Organization with Eric Trump. He is also a trustee of the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust and has certified annual financial statements regarding the assets the Trust holds for Donald J. Trump.
Ivanka Trump
Ivanka Trump was the Executive Vice President for Development and Acquisitions of the Trump Organization through at least 2016. Among other responsibilities, Ms. Trump negotiated and secured financing for Trump Organization properties. Until January 2017, Ms. Trump was a primary contact for the Trump Organization’s largest lender, Deutsche Bank.
Today’s motion to compel was submitted under New York state’s Executive Law § 63(12), which gives OAG broad powers to investigate fraud and illegality in the conduct of business.
The OAG has reached no conclusions in this matter, and the investigation remains ongoing.
A memorandum of law and supplemental verified petition were filed in this matter.
I, for one, am pissed that they didn't (yet?) get any traction with the "alleged" money laundering through Deutsche Bank:
Deutsche Bank Staff Saw Suspicious Activity in Trump and Kushner Accounts
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/19/business/deutsche-bank-trump-kushner.html
JACKSONVILLE, Fla. — Anti-money-laundering specialists at Deutsche Bank recommended in 2016 and 2017 that multiple transactions involving legal entities controlled by Donald J. Trump and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, be reported to a federal financial-crimes watchdog.
The transactions, some of which involved Mr. Trump’s now-defunct foundation, set off alerts in a computer system designed to detect illicit activity, according to five current and former bank employees. Compliance staff members who then reviewed the transactions prepared so-called suspicious activity reports that they believed should be sent to a unit of the Treasury Department that polices financial crimes.
But executives at Deutsche Bank, which has lent billions of dollars to the Trump and Kushner companies, rejected their employees’ advice. The reports were never filed with the government.
The nature of the transactions was not clear. At least some of them involved money flowing back and forth with overseas entities or individuals, which bank employees considered suspicious.
Real estate developers like Mr. Trump and Mr. Kushner sometimes do large, all-cash deals, including with people outside the United States, any of which can prompt anti-money laundering reviews. The red flags raised by employees do not necessarily mean the transactions were improper. Banks sometimes opt not to file suspicious activity reports if they conclude their employees’ concerns are unwarranted.
But former Deutsche Bank employees said the decision not to report the Trump and Kushner transactions reflected the bank’s generally lax approach to money laundering laws. The employees — most of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity to preserve their ability to work in the industry — said it was part of a pattern of the bank’s executives rejecting valid reports to protect relationships with lucrative clients.
“You present them with everything, and you give them a recommendation, and nothing happens,” said Tammy McFadden, a former Deutsche Bank anti-money laundering specialist who reviewed some of the transactions. “It’s the D.B. way. They are prone to discounting everything.”
Ms. McFadden said she was terminated last year after she raised concerns about the bank’s practices. Since then, she has filed complaints with the Securities and Exchange Commission and other regulators about the bank’s anti-money-laundering enforcement.
Kerrie McHugh, a Deutsche Bank spokeswoman, said the company had intensified its efforts to combat financial crime. An effective anti-money laundering program, she said, “requires sophisticated transaction screening technology as well as a trained group of individuals who can analyze the alerts generated by that technology both thoroughly and efficiently.”
“At no time was an investigator prevented from escalating activity identified as potentially suspicious,” she added. “Furthermore, the suggestion that anyone was reassigned or fired in an effort to quash concerns relating to any client is categorically false.”
Amanda Miller, a spokeswoman for the Trump Organization, the umbrella company for the Trump family’s many business interests, said: “We have no knowledge of any ‘flagged’ transactions with Deutsche Bank.” She said the Trump Organization currently has “no operating accounts with Deutsche Bank.” She did not respond when asked if other Trump entities had accounts.
Karen Zabarsky, a spokeswoman for Kushner Companies, said: “Any allegations regarding Deutsche Bank’s relationship with Kushner Companies which involved money laundering is completely made up and totally false. The New York Times continues to create dots that just don’t connect.”
Deutsche Bank’s decision not to report the transactions is the latest twist in Mr. Trump’s long, complicated relationship with the German bank — the only mainstream financial institution consistently willing to do business with the real estate developer.
Congressional and state authorities are investigating that relationship and have demanded the bank’s records related to the president, his family and their companies. Subpoenas from two House committees seek, among other things, documents related to any suspicious activities detected in Mr. Trump’s personal and business bank accounts since 2010, according to a copy of a subpoena included in a federal court filing.
Mr. Trump and his family sued Deutsche Bank in April, seeking to block it from complying with the congressional subpoenas. The president’s lawyers described the subpoenas as politically motivated.
Suspicious activity reports are at the heart of the federal government’s efforts to identify criminal activity like money laundering and sanctions violations. But government regulations give banks leeway in selecting which transactions to report to the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.
Lenders typically use a layered approach to detect improper activity. The first step is filtering thousands of transactions using computer programs, which send the ones considered potentially suspicious to midlevel employees for a detailed review. Those employees can decide whether to draft a suspicious activity report, but a final ruling on whether to submit it to the Treasury Department is often made by more senior managers.
In the summer of 2016, Deutsche Bank’s software flagged a series of transactions involving the real estate company of Mr. Kushner, now a senior White House adviser.
Ms. McFadden, a longtime anti-money laundering specialist in Deutsche Bank’s Jacksonville office, said she had reviewed the transactions and found that money had moved from Kushner Companies to Russian individuals. She concluded that the transactions should be reported to the government — in part because federal regulators had ordered Deutsche Bank, which had been caught laundering billions of dollars for Russians, to toughen its scrutiny of potentially illegal transactions.
Ms. McFadden drafted a suspicious activity report and compiled a small bundle of documents to back up her decision.
Typically, such a report would be reviewed by a team of anti-money laundering experts who are independent of the business line in which the transactions originated — in this case, the private-banking division — according to Ms. McFadden and two former Deutsche Bank managers.
That did not happen with this report. It went to managers in New York who were part of the private bank, which caters to the ultrawealthy. They felt Ms. McFadden’s concerns were unfounded and opted not to submit the report to the government, the employees said.
Ms. McFadden and some of her colleagues said they believed the report had been killed to maintain the private-banking division’s strong relationship with Mr. Kushner.
After Mr. Trump became president, transactions involving him and his companies were reviewed by an anti-financial crime team at the bank called the Special Investigations Unit. That team, based in Jacksonville, produced multiple suspicious activity reports involving different entities that Mr. Trump owned or controlled, according to three former Deutsche Bank employees who saw the reports in an internal computer system.
Some of those reports involved Mr. Trump’s limited liability companies. At least one was related to transactions involving the Donald J. Trump Foundation, two employees said.
Deutsche Bank ultimately chose not to file those suspicious activity reports with the Treasury Department, either, according to three former employees. They said it was unusual for the bank to reject a series of reports involving the same high-profile client.
Mr. Trump’s relationship with Deutsche Bank spans two decades. During a period when most Wall Street banks had stopped doing business with him after his repeated defaults, Deutsche Bank lent Mr. Trump and his companies a total of more than $2.5 billion. Projects financed through the private-banking division include Mr. Trump’s Doral golf resort near Miami and his transformation of Washington’s Old Post Office Building into a luxury hotel.
When he became president, he owed Deutsche Bank well over $300 million. That made the German institution Mr. Trump’s biggest creditor — and put the bank in a bind.
Senior executives worried that if they took a tough stance with Mr. Trump’s accounts — for example, by demanding payment of a delinquent loan — they could provoke the president’s wrath. On the other hand, if they didn’t do anything, the bank could be perceived as cutting a lucrative break for Mr. Trump, whose administration wields regulatory and law enforcement power over the bank.
In the past few years, United States and European authorities have punished Deutsche Bank for helping clients, including wealthy Russians, launder funds and for moving money into countries like Iran in violation of American sanctions. The bank has paid hundreds of millions of dollars in penalties and is operating under a Federal Reserve order that requires it to do more to stop illicit activities.
On two palm-tree-lined campuses in Jacksonville, Deutsche Bank has thousands of employees who vet customers and transactions. Six current and former bank employees there said the operations were deeply troubled.
Anti-money laundering workers were pressured to quickly sift through transactions to assess whether they were suspicious, the employees said. As a result, they often erred on the side of not flagging transactions.
Two former employees said that they had raised concerns about transactions involving companies linked to prominent Russians, but that managers had told them not to file suspicious activity reports. The employees were under the impression that the bank did not want to upset important clients.
Several employees said they had complained about the bank’s anti-money laundering processes to Joshua Blazer, the head of Deutsche Bank’s financial crimes investigations division in Jacksonville, and had then been criticized for having a negative attitude. One employee said she resigned last summer over concerns about the bank’s ethics.
Mr. Blazer, hired by Deutsche Bank in 2017 to strengthen the bank’s financial crime-fighting apparatus, declined to comment.
Ms. McFadden’s job at Deutsche Bank was to inspect clients and transactions in the company’s private-banking division — the unit that lent money to Mr. Trump. She joined the bank in 2008, after working for Bank of America, also in Jacksonville.
Ms. McFadden had left Bank of America in 2005, and later sued for racial discrimination and wrongful termination. According to court records, her lawsuit was settled on confidential terms the same year she joined Deutsche Bank, where she went on to win multiple performance awards.
Around the time she flagged the Kushner Companies’ transactions, Ms. McFadden said, she also complained about how the bank was scrutinizing the accounts of high-profile customers, such as those in public office. Those customers — known as politically exposed persons — are regarded as at heightened risk of being involved in corruption. As a result, their accounts are subject to extra vetting.
Ms. McFadden said she had told her superiors that dozens of politically exposed clients of the private-banking division, including Mr. Trump and members of his family, were not receiving that added attention. Her superiors told her to stop raising questions, according to Ms. McFadden and the two former managers.
After taking her complaint to the human resources department, Ms. McFadden was transferred to another division. She was terminated in April 2018. The bank told her that she was not processing enough transactions.
Ms. McFadden disputed that. She said her superiors had reduced the number of transactions she was assigned to review after she voiced her concerns. She and the two former managers said they perceived her termination as an act of retaliation.
“They attempted to try to silence me,” she said. “I’m at peace because I know that I did the right thing.”
Deutsche Bank Staff Saw Suspicious Activity in Trump and Kushner Accounts
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/19/business/deutsche-bank-trump-kushner.html
JACKSONVILLE, Fla. — Anti-money-laundering specialists at Deutsche Bank recommended in 2016 and 2017 that multiple transactions involving legal entities controlled by Donald J. Trump and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, be reported to a federal financial-crimes watchdog.
The transactions, some of which involved Mr. Trump’s now-defunct foundation, set off alerts in a computer system designed to detect illicit activity, according to five current and former bank employees. Compliance staff members who then reviewed the transactions prepared so-called suspicious activity reports that they believed should be sent to a unit of the Treasury Department that polices financial crimes.
But executives at Deutsche Bank, which has lent billions of dollars to the Trump and Kushner companies, rejected their employees’ advice. The reports were never filed with the government.
The nature of the transactions was not clear. At least some of them involved money flowing back and forth with overseas entities or individuals, which bank employees considered suspicious.
Real estate developers like Mr. Trump and Mr. Kushner sometimes do large, all-cash deals, including with people outside the United States, any of which can prompt anti-money laundering reviews. The red flags raised by employees do not necessarily mean the transactions were improper. Banks sometimes opt not to file suspicious activity reports if they conclude their employees’ concerns are unwarranted.
But former Deutsche Bank employees said the decision not to report the Trump and Kushner transactions reflected the bank’s generally lax approach to money laundering laws. The employees — most of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity to preserve their ability to work in the industry — said it was part of a pattern of the bank’s executives rejecting valid reports to protect relationships with lucrative clients.
“You present them with everything, and you give them a recommendation, and nothing happens,” said Tammy McFadden, a former Deutsche Bank anti-money laundering specialist who reviewed some of the transactions. “It’s the D.B. way. They are prone to discounting everything.”
Ms. McFadden said she was terminated last year after she raised concerns about the bank’s practices. Since then, she has filed complaints with the Securities and Exchange Commission and other regulators about the bank’s anti-money-laundering enforcement.
Kerrie McHugh, a Deutsche Bank spokeswoman, said the company had intensified its efforts to combat financial crime. An effective anti-money laundering program, she said, “requires sophisticated transaction screening technology as well as a trained group of individuals who can analyze the alerts generated by that technology both thoroughly and efficiently.”
“At no time was an investigator prevented from escalating activity identified as potentially suspicious,” she added. “Furthermore, the suggestion that anyone was reassigned or fired in an effort to quash concerns relating to any client is categorically false.”
Amanda Miller, a spokeswoman for the Trump Organization, the umbrella company for the Trump family’s many business interests, said: “We have no knowledge of any ‘flagged’ transactions with Deutsche Bank.” She said the Trump Organization currently has “no operating accounts with Deutsche Bank.” She did not respond when asked if other Trump entities had accounts.
Karen Zabarsky, a spokeswoman for Kushner Companies, said: “Any allegations regarding Deutsche Bank’s relationship with Kushner Companies which involved money laundering is completely made up and totally false. The New York Times continues to create dots that just don’t connect.”
Deutsche Bank’s decision not to report the transactions is the latest twist in Mr. Trump’s long, complicated relationship with the German bank — the only mainstream financial institution consistently willing to do business with the real estate developer.
Congressional and state authorities are investigating that relationship and have demanded the bank’s records related to the president, his family and their companies. Subpoenas from two House committees seek, among other things, documents related to any suspicious activities detected in Mr. Trump’s personal and business bank accounts since 2010, according to a copy of a subpoena included in a federal court filing.
Mr. Trump and his family sued Deutsche Bank in April, seeking to block it from complying with the congressional subpoenas. The president’s lawyers described the subpoenas as politically motivated.
Suspicious activity reports are at the heart of the federal government’s efforts to identify criminal activity like money laundering and sanctions violations. But government regulations give banks leeway in selecting which transactions to report to the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.
Lenders typically use a layered approach to detect improper activity. The first step is filtering thousands of transactions using computer programs, which send the ones considered potentially suspicious to midlevel employees for a detailed review. Those employees can decide whether to draft a suspicious activity report, but a final ruling on whether to submit it to the Treasury Department is often made by more senior managers.
In the summer of 2016, Deutsche Bank’s software flagged a series of transactions involving the real estate company of Mr. Kushner, now a senior White House adviser.
Ms. McFadden, a longtime anti-money laundering specialist in Deutsche Bank’s Jacksonville office, said she had reviewed the transactions and found that money had moved from Kushner Companies to Russian individuals. She concluded that the transactions should be reported to the government — in part because federal regulators had ordered Deutsche Bank, which had been caught laundering billions of dollars for Russians, to toughen its scrutiny of potentially illegal transactions.
Ms. McFadden drafted a suspicious activity report and compiled a small bundle of documents to back up her decision.
Typically, such a report would be reviewed by a team of anti-money laundering experts who are independent of the business line in which the transactions originated — in this case, the private-banking division — according to Ms. McFadden and two former Deutsche Bank managers.
That did not happen with this report. It went to managers in New York who were part of the private bank, which caters to the ultrawealthy. They felt Ms. McFadden’s concerns were unfounded and opted not to submit the report to the government, the employees said.
Ms. McFadden and some of her colleagues said they believed the report had been killed to maintain the private-banking division’s strong relationship with Mr. Kushner.
After Mr. Trump became president, transactions involving him and his companies were reviewed by an anti-financial crime team at the bank called the Special Investigations Unit. That team, based in Jacksonville, produced multiple suspicious activity reports involving different entities that Mr. Trump owned or controlled, according to three former Deutsche Bank employees who saw the reports in an internal computer system.
Some of those reports involved Mr. Trump’s limited liability companies. At least one was related to transactions involving the Donald J. Trump Foundation, two employees said.
Deutsche Bank ultimately chose not to file those suspicious activity reports with the Treasury Department, either, according to three former employees. They said it was unusual for the bank to reject a series of reports involving the same high-profile client.
Mr. Trump’s relationship with Deutsche Bank spans two decades. During a period when most Wall Street banks had stopped doing business with him after his repeated defaults, Deutsche Bank lent Mr. Trump and his companies a total of more than $2.5 billion. Projects financed through the private-banking division include Mr. Trump’s Doral golf resort near Miami and his transformation of Washington’s Old Post Office Building into a luxury hotel.
When he became president, he owed Deutsche Bank well over $300 million. That made the German institution Mr. Trump’s biggest creditor — and put the bank in a bind.
Senior executives worried that if they took a tough stance with Mr. Trump’s accounts — for example, by demanding payment of a delinquent loan — they could provoke the president’s wrath. On the other hand, if they didn’t do anything, the bank could be perceived as cutting a lucrative break for Mr. Trump, whose administration wields regulatory and law enforcement power over the bank.
In the past few years, United States and European authorities have punished Deutsche Bank for helping clients, including wealthy Russians, launder funds and for moving money into countries like Iran in violation of American sanctions. The bank has paid hundreds of millions of dollars in penalties and is operating under a Federal Reserve order that requires it to do more to stop illicit activities.
On two palm-tree-lined campuses in Jacksonville, Deutsche Bank has thousands of employees who vet customers and transactions. Six current and former bank employees there said the operations were deeply troubled.
Anti-money laundering workers were pressured to quickly sift through transactions to assess whether they were suspicious, the employees said. As a result, they often erred on the side of not flagging transactions.
Two former employees said that they had raised concerns about transactions involving companies linked to prominent Russians, but that managers had told them not to file suspicious activity reports. The employees were under the impression that the bank did not want to upset important clients.
Several employees said they had complained about the bank’s anti-money laundering processes to Joshua Blazer, the head of Deutsche Bank’s financial crimes investigations division in Jacksonville, and had then been criticized for having a negative attitude. One employee said she resigned last summer over concerns about the bank’s ethics.
Mr. Blazer, hired by Deutsche Bank in 2017 to strengthen the bank’s financial crime-fighting apparatus, declined to comment.
Ms. McFadden’s job at Deutsche Bank was to inspect clients and transactions in the company’s private-banking division — the unit that lent money to Mr. Trump. She joined the bank in 2008, after working for Bank of America, also in Jacksonville.
Ms. McFadden had left Bank of America in 2005, and later sued for racial discrimination and wrongful termination. According to court records, her lawsuit was settled on confidential terms the same year she joined Deutsche Bank, where she went on to win multiple performance awards.
Around the time she flagged the Kushner Companies’ transactions, Ms. McFadden said, she also complained about how the bank was scrutinizing the accounts of high-profile customers, such as those in public office. Those customers — known as politically exposed persons — are regarded as at heightened risk of being involved in corruption. As a result, their accounts are subject to extra vetting.
Ms. McFadden said she had told her superiors that dozens of politically exposed clients of the private-banking division, including Mr. Trump and members of his family, were not receiving that added attention. Her superiors told her to stop raising questions, according to Ms. McFadden and the two former managers.
After taking her complaint to the human resources department, Ms. McFadden was transferred to another division. She was terminated in April 2018. The bank told her that she was not processing enough transactions.
Ms. McFadden disputed that. She said her superiors had reduced the number of transactions she was assigned to review after she voiced her concerns. She and the two former managers said they perceived her termination as an act of retaliation.
“They attempted to try to silence me,” she said. “I’m at peace because I know that I did the right thing.”
Last edited:
This stuff is going to set off a flurry of emotional outbursts from the Trump base here.
They're going to be so shocked..... I tell ya.
Ivanka Trump 'caused misleading financial statements to be submitted to Deutsche Bank': NY AG
Former White House advisor Ivanka Trump is accused of misleading Deutsche Bank and the federal government in court documents filed by New York Attorney General Letitia James.
After Donald Trump, Ivanka, and Donald Trump, Jr. sought to quash a subpoena, James filed a 115-page motion arguing why all three should be compelled to testify.
James says Ivanka worked as an agent of her father in her role as executive vice president for development and acquisitions at the Trump Organization.
"Until January 2017, Ms. Trump was a primary contact for the Trump Organization’s largest lender, Deutsche Bank. In connection with this work, Ms. Trump caused misleading financial statements to be submitted to Deutsche Bank and the federal government," James wrote.
Yes. It looks like Trumps are facing an array of investigations spanning tax, bank and insurance fraud. That should all be documented.
On the other hand, due diligence says she should bring them in and give them a chance to explain why the evidence doesn’t suggest what they believe it does. As you said, Trump should have a slew of lawyers and accountants to back up his counter arguments. I assume these people are not Michael Cohen.
Anyway it’s “shut the fuck up friday” for the Trumps, and everyday is now Friday.
Can an individual who is suspected of criminal wrongdoings turn around and prosecute the Attorney General ?
‘Incredibly dumb’: Former federal prosecutor mocks Eric Trump for telling NY AG ‘we are prosecuting you’
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
‘Incredibly dumb’: Former federal prosecutor mocks Eric Trump for telling NY AG ‘we are prosecuting you’
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------