NYC vs the Trump Crime Family Watch Thread

[Guest Lobo]

Just now, Neonmoon said:

Indictment also mentions a “Unindicted Co-Conspirator #1”

Eric Trump (gleefully waving phone around to family members), "Hey everyone, I'm finally #1 in something Dad related!"  

[texas08 1599]

Hi.

[Bookman 4754]

On 6/30/2021 at 10:22 AM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The assumption that Allen flipping would result in Trump consequences was ridiculous anyway.  There isn’t a lack of evidence or a missing smoking gun to bring charges against Trump. There are however, plenty of excuses and an endless supply of “flippers” to keep kicking the can on holding Trump accountable. 

How do you know what evidence they have?

[TwiceHorn 31983]

7 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

I’m more interested in the financial consequences of Trump Org being indicted. Seeing whispers that creditors can come calling now. Any finance people want to explain?

Can't help creditworthiness much, that's for sure.

[TwiceHorn 31983]

1 minute ago, Bookman said:

How do you know what evidence they have?

It is, unfortunately, quite plausible that they don't have criminal evidence of Trump's involvement with the illegality.  Not sure Trump is smart enough to stay out of it entirely, but he may not be on record, or what's on record needs elaboration by someone like Weisselberg.

[Lagunamadre 1975]

This seems pretty meh. Obviously they were doing some untoward stuff here, but can't see this resulting in anything other than a $1M fine. Too much hoopla. 

[Felix 613]

So this isn't tax evasion?  Isn't this the very definition of tax evasion?  Isn't tax evasion what put Al Capone in jail for 1000 years or something?

[Bookman 4754]

16 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

It is, unfortunately, quite plausible that they don't have criminal evidence of Trump's involvement with the illegality.  Not sure Trump is smart enough to stay out of it entirely, but he may not be on record, or what's on record needs elaboration by someone like Weisselberg.

If they had evidence that Trump committed a crime I assume they’d charge him.

[Biff Tannen 46060]

4 minutes ago, Felix said:

So this isn't tax evasion?  Isn't this the very definition of tax evasion?  Isn't tax evasion what put Al Capone in jail for 1000 years or something?

11 years, but yes.

[Guest Lobo]

3 minutes ago, Felix said:

So this isn't tax evasion?  Isn't this the very definition of tax evasion?  Isn't tax evasion what put Al Capone in jail for 1000 years or something?

No, Capone went to jail for giving syphilis to his daughter.  

 

Oh wait, now I see the connection.

[Lagunamadre 1975]

10 minutes ago, Felix said:

So this isn't tax evasion?  Isn't this the very definition of tax evasion?  Isn't tax evasion what put Al Capone in jail for 1000 years or something?

Certainly guilty, but obviously not to the degree of Capone. Capone was going 150 MPH in a school zone, Trump org was going 35 in a 30. Both guilty, but don't expect the same punishment. 

[Satchel 6982]

1 hour ago, Lobo said:

The Trump Organization turns 100 years old in like 18 months.  You'd think over that period of time, there'd be a bunch of "Trump-o-nnaires" like Dellionaires.  But outside of Donald and his children (sort of), nobody has ever actually gotten rich working for him or with him.  It's amazing.  Everybody I know in New York real estate that ever did a deal with him, they got their hurdle rate, maybe a little better, but that was it.  He fucked up more deals than he ever did well with.  

In 100 years of wealth, they've never started a foundation or a family office.  And none of his supporters find that odd.  

To be fair, Trump had a foundation but was forced to dissolve it when it was determined the monies raised were for his personal use.

[WhatTheBuck 28904]

3 hours ago, speed817 said:

Putin?

That’s working on, not with or for. 

[Underdog 29099]

Capone went to jail for fucking over Geraldo on National TV. 

[Jatrain 288]

9 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

I’m more interested in the financial consequences of Trump Org being indicted. Seeing whispers that creditors can come calling now. Any finance people want to explain?

 

 

Edited July 1, 2021 by Jatrain
I’m a dumbass

[Underdog 29099]

[Neonmoon 38130]

38 minutes ago, Jatrain said:

 

 

Thank you! That’s exactly the info I was asking about. So he could be fucked because of loan covenants, but as always with Trump, he might wiggle out of this 

[TwiceHorn 31983]

45 minutes ago, Jatrain said:

 

 

Nice conclusion, Kurt.

......and given that those of us who covered his business for decades - back when he was a democrat/reform party/whoever would have him - and always knew he was a crook, all I can say is, what the hell took so long?

 

 

[TwiceHorn 31983]

There are also likely loan covenants relating to payment of state and federal taxes and to generally abide by the laws, both of which are material to the condition of the borrower and are implicated by this indictment.

How salty the lenders want to get may be another matter.  But I think they're going to have the ability to do so.

[Updawg 2378]

So how does it work? Once one or two lenders start calling in loans everyone else gets spooked to get in line as well?

[Fudge Nuggets 19407]

3 hours ago, Bookman said:

If they had evidence that Trump committed a crime I assume they’d charge him.

You’re adorable.

[Keef 852]

I think that twitter thread is a little overblown.  Granted, the Trump Organization may not have had much leverage when the loans were negotiated (or it may have had a ton if the facilities were entered into when Trump was president), but my understanding is that these documents are generally pretty borrower favorable. No one wants to enter into a loan which can be called at the drop of a hat. 

I'm not sure what loan covenant this would even trip - I've never seen an agreement where an entity represents it hasn't been criminally charged.  Perhaps compliance with laws?  Doesn't that typically have an MAE qualifier?  Plus, the lenders may not call the loan even if they could, because Trump can't pay them.  Better to keep collecting the monthly payments that jeopardize the whole thing, I would think.  I'm only vaguely familiar with credit facilities/loans, so someone please tell me if I'm way off base.

[JimmyJames 12271]

Just now, Keef said:

but my understanding is that these documents are generally pretty borrower favorable. 

Uh... wut?

[JimmyJames 12271]

Loan documents written by bank lawyers are heavily slanted towards the bank. Usually the only leverage the borrower ever has is, yeah I signed that, but unfortunately I can’t pay. Sue me.

[TwiceHorn 31983]

3 minutes ago, Keef said:

I think that twitter thread is a little overblown.  Granted, the Trump Organization may not have had much leverage when the loans were negotiated (or it may have had a ton if the facilities were entered into when Trump was president), but my understanding is that these documents are generally pretty borrower favorable. No one wants to enter into a loan which can be called at the drop of a hat. 

I'm not sure what loan covenant this would even trip - I've never seen an agreement where an entity represents it hasn't been criminally charged.  Perhaps compliance with laws?  Doesn't that typically have an MAE qualifier?  Plus, the lenders may not call the loan even if they could, because Trump can't pay them.  Better to keep collecting the monthly payments that jeopardize the whole thing, I would think.  I'm only vaguely familiar with credit facilities/loans, so someone please tell me if I'm way off base.

Eichenwald referred to the covenant to keep good and accurate records and to make the available to the lender.

I'm not a corporate finance guy, but that's probably got to be a pretty hard covenant to get rid of.

[Fudge Nuggets 19407]

1 hour ago, Jatrain said:

 

 

Kurt thinks the banks are going to look at dotard’s books and pull their loans?  What fucking world has he been living in for the last five years?  For someone that claims to know how stupid and shitty dotard is, he doesn’t appear to have been paying attention.

[Keef 852]

2 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Loan documents written by bank lawyers are heavily slanted towards the bank. Usually the only leverage the borrower ever has is, yeah I signed that, but unfortunately I can’t pay. Sue me.

Well, of course, but these are negotiated documents, particularly the credit facilities that have the capacity to bankrupt a large company.  Borrowers that banks will lend hundreds of millions of dollars to absolutely have some leverage.

[Fudge Nuggets 19407]

1 hour ago, Neonmoon said:

Thank you! That’s exactly the info I was asking about. So he could be fucked because of loan covenants, but as always with Trump, he might wiggle out of this 

Have we seen any evidence at all that any of these banks actually want to call in their loans?  I’m sure they have had ample opportunity to do so already if they were inclined to do so. 

[Pato del Muerto 53327]

2 hours ago, Jatrain said:

 

 

This is the point at which @Bozo_Casanovabegan making inquiries as to whether he has to buy Doral to get the burger recipe or if it is a separate of IP asset to be parted out independently and sold standalone. 

[Pato del Muerto 53327]

12 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Eichenwald referred to the covenant to keep good and accurate records and to make the available to the lender.

I'm not a corporate finance guy, but that's probably got to be a pretty hard covenant to get rid of.

You’d think some of these lenders would have asked for the books at one time or another. Are the books they’d get now different than the books they’d have gotten upon request previously?

[TwiceHorn 31983]

2 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

You’d think some of these lenders would have asked for the books at one time or another. Are the books they’d get now different than the books they’d have gotten upon request previously?

The same.

But now they have reason to believe that they are cooked.

They might also show insufficient cash flow cooked or not.

Any of these could give the banks the right to foreclose the loans, but not without litigation and the specter of settlement short of foreclosure.

But the bigger question is, does any bank want the property back.  Or are they willing to take their chances for a couple more years on being bought out of it.

Edited July 2, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[Sawbonz 28081]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

There are also likely loan covenants relating to payment of state and federal taxes and to generally abide by the laws, both of which are material to the condition of the borrower and are implicated by this indictment.

How salty the lenders want to get may be another matter.  But I think they're going to have the ability to do so.

I could see it becoming a panic when they look at his debt to asset ratio and see a legit chance to minimize their losses and all want to be first in line

[Underdog 29099]

Sounds like both Melania and Vanky will need to break out the lipstick, fishnet stocking and high heels.  

[Pato del Muerto 53327]

2 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

I could see it becoming a panic when they look at his debt to asset ratio and see a legit chance to minimize their losses and all want to be first in line

Like a run on the bank but in reverse lol. 
 

actually if you take It’s a Wonderful Life and make the opposite, it could pass for a trump biopic. Everyone hates him and he finds out that the world woruld be a better place without him (maybe in a covid induced fever dream), only to come back and have all the banks take his money and everyone desert him. 

Edited July 2, 2021 by Pato del Muerto

[Sawbonz 28081]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The same.

But now they have reason to believe that they are cooked.

They might also show insufficient cash flow cooked or not.

And don’t they have an obligation to their stakeholders to prove up the books  now that the state has brought these indictments? 

[Brandywine 1326]

1 hour ago, Neonmoon said:

Thank you! That’s exactly the info I was asking about. So he could be fucked because of loan covenants, but as always with Trump, he might wiggle out of this 

He'll wiggle out of it. They'll take this down so many long and winding roads, and it will take years, that people will forget about it. And again his base will say he did nothing wrong and the main stream media is against him. He's a weasel and a major con artist. 

[TwiceHorn 31983]

4 minutes ago, Brandywine said:

He'll wiggle out of it. They'll take this down so many long and winding roads, and it will take years, that people will forget about it. And again his base will say he did nothing wrong and the main stream media is against him. He's a weasel and a major con artist. 

Really, though, I am not aware of Trump entities ever being charged with criminal stuff.

It is much easier to draw out and bullshit your way through civil stuff, or wage a war of attrition, than it is criminal.  This is a whole new kettle of fish for these fuckers.

[Neonmoon 38130]

18 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

And don’t they have an obligation to their stakeholders to prove up the books  now that the state has brought these indictments? 

Directors and officers owe a fiduciary duty to the corporation and its stockholders. If they have information that a company is cooking the books, which this indictment clearly alleges, and as a lender they don't investigate this, then yeah, they could be personally liable if they breach their fiduciary duty. 

[GRHorn 105]

So what’s the deal here? Y’all are holding out hope that Trump himself faces criminal charges? 

[GhostOfTomJoad 9483]

So what’s the deal here? Y’all are holding out hope that Trump himself faces criminal charges? 

Pssh. You've never even heard of Donald Trump. Just go ask questions somewhere else.

[tx 3 putt 78461]

2 hours ago, Jatrain said:

 

 

Who nails him out - Russians, Saudis or China ?

[Guest Lobo]

17 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

So what’s the deal here? Y’all are holding out hope that Trump himself faces criminal charges? 

He won't face criminal charges on this.  He likely won't even face a personal civil case.  

They're not gonna let 25 million of his supporters lose faith in the electoral system, the legal system, and the tax system in one 12 month period.  They're little heads would fucking explode.  

What's funny, or at least encouraging about this to some of us...is even his dumbest fucking supporters (and that's a ubiquitous smattering) won't be able to dismiss this chain of childhood logic.  His company doesn't pay their taxes, his company doesn't pay their lenders, his company doesn't pay their investors, and it's starting to look like the company doesn't really pay the people running it.  It's like they had to tell Mr. Kramer once before, "it's almost as if they have no business training whatsoever."  Even the idiots in Trumplandia will eventually look at this and think, "I dunno man, seems like a pro-business guy like Trump should figure out how to make a few bucks.  Maybe I should send him some cash to tie him over."  

[TwiceHorn 31983]

30 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Directors and officers owe a fiduciary duty to the corporation and its stockholders. If they have information that a company is cooking the books, which this indictment clearly alleges, and as a lender they don't investigate this, then yeah, they could be personally liable if they breach their fiduciary duty. 

Except here, unlike a publicly traded corp, or even some closely-held corps, the shareholders are the officers and directors, plus Trump.

Any lawsuit for breach of fiduciary duty will be "owned" by the corporation acting through the shareholders, who sue in a "derivative" capacity.

So that's not going to cause any of them any problems.

Edited July 2, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[Pato del Muerto 53327]

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Except here, unlike a publicly traded corp, or even some closely-held corps, the shareholders are the officers and directors, plus Trump.

So that's not going to cause any of them any problems.

The officers and shareholders of the lending institutions, not of trump org et al. 

[tx 3 putt 78461]

Can’t he file for bankruptcy again and then be protected from all his creditors ?

[TwiceHorn 31983]

14 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

The officers and shareholders of the lending institutions, not of trump org et al. 

They do not owe a fiduciary duty to the lending institutions.

[TwiceHorn 31983]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

They do not owe a fiduciary duty to the lending institutions.

Oh, I misread his post.

But, no, fiduciary duty to shareholders is not going to mandate that they investigate one borrower, even if it's a massive one.

The business judgment rule would cover that nicely.

[Bookman 4754]

1 hour ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

You’re adorable.

Don't patronize me. Trump is the ultimate prize for a D.A.

[TwiceHorn 31983]

2 minutes ago, Bookman said:

Don't patronize me. Trump is the ultimate prize for a D.A.

A lot of his escape in the past is simply due to being a rich white dude in NYC, no different from dozens of others.

Now that he's a marked man, the chances of him going down in a criminal or even civil thing are higher than ever.

[atomheartbevo 90542]

2 hours ago, Updawg said:

So how does it work? Once one or two lenders start calling in loans everyone else gets spooked to get in line as well?

Here's how it works.  First, you gotta have spreadsheets.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/07/allen-weisselberg-trump-organization-spreadsheets

Quote

Weisselberg caused the Trump Corporation to issue corporate checks made payable to a Trump Organization employee who cashed the checks and received cash. The cash was given to Weisselberg for his personal use. The Trump Corporation booked this cash as “Holiday Entertainment,” but maintained internal spreadsheets showing the cash to be part of Weisselberg’s employee compensation.

Quote

For certain years, the Trump Organization maintained internal spreadsheets that tracked the amounts it paid for Weisselberg’s rent, utility, and garage expenses. Simultaneously, the Trump Organization reduced the amount of direct compensation that Weisselberg received in the form of checks or direct deposits to account for the indirect compensation that he received in the form of payments of rent, utility bills, and garage expenses. The indirect compensation was not included on Weisselberg’s W-2 forms or otherwise reported to federal, state, or local tax authorities, and no income taxes were withheld by the corporate defendants in connection with the indirect compensation.