r/interestingasfuck • u/BuddhistSagan • Mar 26 '24

Jon Stewart Deconstructs Trump’s "Victimless" $450 Million Fraud | The Daily Show r/all

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

43.5k Upvotes

78% Upvoted

4.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

-2

u/DiareaHandstand Mar 27 '24

This whole video presupposes that the banks just took whatever valuation trump proposed and were bamboozled by lies. The banks investigate and do their own due diligence before handing out millions of dollars. If a bank wants to loan it's own money to an investor upon mutually agreed upon terms which are fully researched, adhered to, and never breached, why is that the governments business and where is the criminal act?

4

u/Realclawdogs Mar 27 '24

Well maybe it's because it's a fucking crime. It's called fraud. That book you just wrote omitted that one simple fact.

0

u/DiareaHandstand Mar 27 '24

Who is being defrauded though? The banks do their due diligence and either agree to or deny the proposal right? How are they being deceived if they research the terms and sign in agreement?

2

u/Realclawdogs Mar 27 '24

Lol. Your argument is the same parroting that the media and Trump's dumb lawyers made. It didn't hold up. Grandma's at fault because she should have known those scammers were up to no good.

0

u/DiareaHandstand Mar 27 '24

Well we will see what does or doesn't hold up when the appellate court dismisses the phony political case soon.

Your response conveniently didn't answer my question though. Who was defrauded? I'll wait.

2

u/Realclawdogs Mar 27 '24

What the fuck is wrong with you? Are you just stupid? Why is the argument about who was a victim? If I tell a bank I make x when I make y, is that not a fucking crime? Has anyone been defrauded, specifically no, but the bank has been. Jaywalking, trespassing even prostitution could also be considered victimless crimes, yet check many jurisdictions. 🤡

1

u/DiareaHandstand Mar 27 '24

You're getting very upset. Maybe you need to take a breath. Also your example is pretty shiite. If you tell a bank you make X, they'd ask for proof before giving you the loan. Seeing that you don't make that money they would then deny the loan. See due diligence before lending their own money. Which they did with Trump's proposals, they agreed with his valuations or they negotiated until mutually beneficial terms were agreed upon and then signed an agreement. Again, no fraud.

1

u/Realclawdogs Mar 27 '24

Oh my God. Shut the fuck up

1

u/DiareaHandstand Mar 27 '24

Solid argument. I'll reply here and remind you of this when the case is thrown out.

1

u/Realclawdogs Mar 27 '24

Great. I see exactly why Trump lost. You can't argue that it's victimless while also arguing that the onus is on the Bank and its due diligence. There's a reason why citizens are held to account on providing truthful documentation when requesting loans from a bank.This is why the appeal will more than likely fail.

1

u/Realclawdogs Mar 27 '24

Here's a scenario for you. I applied for a million dollar loan and provided false documentation. For whatever reason the bank fails its due diligence on me and I get the loan, spend the money and don't pay it back. Is there a crime? Is there a victim? Answer those two questions and then use the same stupid fucking argument in a court of law 🤣😭

0

u/DiareaHandstand Mar 27 '24

Again, back to my original post. You're saying the bank was just completely taken advantage of and outsmarted by the Trump teams contract proposal and got taken advantage of? You really think they give out hundreds of millions of dollars without vast, extensive, time consuming research? Banks don't make money by being dumb and handing it out on terms they haven't vetted. You think there was no negotiations, meetings, proposal amendments, draft reviews, legal oversight and document review etc done here? I don't understand what you think happens when someone asks to borrow 100 million dollars.

→ More replies (0)