A Deutsche Bank executive may have just wrecked New York Attorney General Letitia James’ lawsuit against former President Donald Trump.
James’ lawsuit has turned on framing the German bank lender as Trump’s ‘victim’ in an alleged scheme to inflate his assets in order to get better terms from banks and insurers.
It turns out that she has a problem with her alleged ‘victim.’ The bank seems to have approved of Trump’s asset valuation.
David Williams, who worked directly on at least one of Trump’s loans over several decades, testified on Tuesday in Manhattan that it’s “atypical, but not entirely unusual” for a bank to internally slash a client’s stated asset values by 50% and still approve a loan, as they did with Trump, according to Bloomberg.
“It just depends on the circumstances,” said Williams, a managing director at the bank.
As Bloomberg reported:
Deutsche Bank, which loaned hundreds of millions of dollars to Trump for properties in Miami, Chicago and Washington, cut his stated net worth in 2011 and 2012 from about $4.2 billion to $2.3 billion, according to internal bank credit memos. The same documents indicated the bank approved the loans anyway because it expected them to generate a profit based on Trump’s history of successful developments and other criteria.
Trump, who denies wrongdoing and claims the case is politically motivated, is calling to the stand this week four current and former Deutsche Bank employees — including the family’s former private banker Rosemary Vrablic — as part of his defense case, seeking to flip the script on the state’s version of events.
The testimony destroys AG James’ assumption that Trump misled the German bank.
“As part of our due diligence, we subject a client’s asset value to adjustments,” said Williams.
“It’s part of our underwriting process we apply it to every client regardless of what’s reported.”
“Is a difference of opinion in asset values between the client and the bank a disqualifying factor to extend credit?” Trump attorney Jesus Suarez asked Williams.
“No,” he replied.
“Why not?”
“It’s just a difference of opinion,” Williams continued.
“I think we expect clients to provide information to be accurate.”
Is the Attorney General actually prosecuting a former president based on a “difference of opinion”? It appears so.
Earlier in the trial, Trump and two of his sons, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, testified that no banks had been harmed by the alleged inflated valuation, and that multiple lenders had profited millions of dollars in interest on the loans. Trump also claimed that the earlier assessments took into account his name and the possibility for future development.
According to James, a radical Anti-Trump Democrat AG, Trump and his firm misrepresented records to banks and insurers. Judge Arthur Engoron has already held Trump liable for fraud in a unilateral judgment before gathering all the facts and statements of witnesses.
In the Fulton County “racketeering” case against Donald Trump led by partisan District Attorney Fani Willis, the indictment document for Trump appeared on the court’s server before the grand jury had even rendered a decision.
These are nothing but partisan show trials being prosecuted for the purposes of election interference and are being overseen by partisan operatives. These cases have nothing to do with “justice” and have everything to do with a political vendetta to “get Trump” at all costs — even at the expense of our judicial system.
