Legal analysts say Trump admitted that the intent in financial representations he made was to convince lenders to loan him money.

  • AchillesUltimate@lemy.lol
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    55
    ·
    1 year ago

    Of course? That’s why he was talking the the lenders in the first place. He was trying to get a loan. If he intentionally falsified the information is another question, but of course he was trying to get a loan.

    • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      61
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It seems obvious and therefore like not a big deal. but it was a critical step for the prosecution to make their argument. Basically “these statements were meant to get a loan”. They’ve already demonstrated that the statements were false, and that they knew they were false. Final step is to show that they made the false statements to either get a more favorable loan- or because an honest statement wouldn’t have succeeded.

      • SheeEttin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        47
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s the thing about effective prosecutions. They break it down into tiny little baby steps, each of which are simple and true, and nobody can argue against them. Then they put them all together, and the case is ironclad.

    • ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      1 year ago

      When someone’s on trial for a crime, the state often needs to prove the person intended to commit the crime. Trump saying he intended to use those documents to secure a loan proves intent.

      The court has already established the documents contained knowingly false information, with the residence that Trump has lived in for decades being listed as 3x its actual size. Even conservatively, his property holdings were overestimated by $812 million. The judge ruled there was no way that could be considered an accident.

      So the court has ruled that the documents are knowingly false, and now Trump stated he intended to use them to get a loan. No lawyer in the world could get Trump out of this one.

    • Fades@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      All these morons like yourself don’t understand shit about these court cases but you sure feel confident in sharing your uneducated opinions!

      Do yourself a favor, check out Justice Matters with Glenn Kirschner, legal AF, or the Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s The Breakdown: the Trump indictment

      Maybe you’ll actually realize what is going on instead of going by clickbait titles in the media

      • AchillesUltimate@lemy.lol
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I know enough (thanks to everyone who kindly replied) to know that everyone in the world save for those directly involved in the court case can safely assume Trump wanted a loan when he a applied for a loan. Sure, it’s an important step for the lawyers, but it’s so obvious that it’s only newsworthy if they couldn’t establish it.

        The article is a waste of time.

    • FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      28
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, I’m not sure what the news part about this is. This feels like it’s building to something newsworthy but isn’t itself newsworthy. It’s not exactly shocking that the person applying for a loan wanted a loan.

      • squiblet@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        The lawyers and legal analysts think it’s significant. While it seems obvious to us, it’s part of proving their case step-by-step.

      • Fades@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Why don’t you go ahead and tell all of these legal analysts they’re wrong, I wonder how they would react to a layman such as yourself dripping with willful ignorance telling them what they say is meaningless and not shocking

        Like, it’s not about shock it’s about the court case. If you don’t understand it, maybe try and learn first. I’ll give you a jump start, check out Justice Matters with Glenn Kirschner, Legal AF, or the Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s The breakdown: the Trump indictment

        Maybe you’ll actually understand what is being done and why, informed by actual fucking lawyers instead of going by news articles and clickbait.

        • FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s not how this works. I shouldn’t have to be previously informed of legal documents in order to understand a news article. The article should cover that… I don’t have the time to be reading legal docs that will in no way benefit my life. If the news can’t inform me, then it isn’t newsworthy. That’s just bad journalism.

      • mommykink@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        37
        ·
        1 year ago

        The news is that the left never learned that Trump rode his way to presidency off these meaningless “guyz guess what stupid thing le drumpf did today click our paywall article to find out and remember to turn off ad blocker or you hate democracy” articles.

        • squiblet@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Truly would have been nice if the media had stfu about him at any time in the past few years. Amazing how much free publicity they give this chump while they profit from it.