How Forbes Exposed Trump's Lies About The Size Of His Penthouse

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  jbb  •  5 days ago  •  83 comments

By:   Chase Peterson-Withorn (Forbes)

How Forbes Exposed Trump's Lies About The Size Of His Penthouse
The New York attorney general is suing Trump for $250 million, in part for lying about his Manhattan apartment. Here's the original Forbes story that revealed his deceit.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



Donald Trump at Trump Tower in 2015.

Jamel Toppin/The Forbes Collection

It's September 21, 2015 and Donald Trump is wheeling around his Trump Tower penthouse like a realtor at a showing. "35-foot ceilings!" he exclaims in the living room. "We have a fireplace," he points out in the two-story dining room. "Can't even get 'em anymore." He shows me the window where he claims he watched the second plane hit the World Trade Center. He directs me to a knockout view of Central Park. But more important to Trump than any one feature is the apartment's size: 33,000 square feet-the entire top three floors of the skyscraper. He's mentioned it at least 10 times over the past two hours as part of a marathon meeting stretching from his 26th-floor office to the Trump Tower gym and, finally, his gilded palace in the sky, which he says is much bigger and much more valuable than we're estimating for our Forbes 400 list of the richest Americans.

Except none of it was true. I dug through property records, which showed Trump's apartment was 10,996 square feet and only took up part of the floors. I spent hours sifting through every photo or video shot inside the penthouse, looking for extra rooms. I visited a grungy Manhattan records office, where I was told the apartment's blueprints should be, but they were missing-perhaps taken by the Secret Service, I thought. I even had our stellar research librarian unearth a copy of Architectural Digest from the 1980s that featured an earlier version of Trump's place, hoping to find evidence of the missing 22,004 square feet. No dice.

The records were clear: Donald Trump owned a 10,996-square-foot pad-more than 6 times the size of the median U.S. home, but nowhere near what Trump claimed-so I wrote a story, published in May 2017: Donald Trump Has Been Lying About The Size Of His Penthouse.

Last year, I was subpoenaed by the Manhattan district attorney's office to testify about this article to a grand jury mulling criminal charges for Trump. Now, seven years to the day after then-candidate Trump insisted to me that his penthouse was 33,000 square feet, he's being sued for $250 million by the New York attorney general, in part for lying about its size. The former president has allegedly been overvaluing the place on the financial statements he gives to his financial institutions, as part of an alleged scheme "to induce banks to lend money to the Trump Organization on more favorable terms than would otherwise have been available to the company, to satisfy continuing loan covenants, to induce insurers to provide insurance coverage for higher limits and at lower premiums, and to gain tax benefits, among other things." (Trump has criticized the investigation as a partisan witch hunt.)

Here's the original Forbes story, now cited in the civil lawsuit against Trump, on how Trump faked the size of his penthouse, republished in full:

During the presidential race, Donald Trump left the campaign trail to give Forbes a guided tour of his three-story Trump Tower penthouse—part of his decades-long crusade for a higher spot on our billionaire rankings. Gliding through his gilded home, he bragged that people have called his Manhattan aerie the "best apartment ever built" and emphasized its immense size (33,000 square feet) and value (at least $200 million). "I own the top three floors—the whole floor, times three!" He admitted to having once had a neighbor, pointing to a door on the 66th floor. "I leased that little section to Michael Jackson. I knew him better than anybody."

Those comments were typical Trump: boastful and inaccurate. We recently dug up New York City records showing that he still shares those floors with a neighbor and has been exaggerating the size of his own place by a factor of three.

Records show Trump acquiring a 6,096-square-foot triplex apartment, occupying sections of floors 66 through 68, around the time Trump Tower opened in 1983. A decade later he expanded his penthouse, merging parts of two neighboring apartments into his home, according to the filings. The end result is 10,996 square feet of prime Manhattan real estate—a massive residence, no doubt, but much smaller than what Trump claims to own. No records filed with the city indicate that he has added or shed square footage in the years since.

As for that neighbor, it's Joel R. Anderson, an Alabama businessman who has owned a 3,368-square-foot apartment on two of the floors since 1996. Anderson has been identified in the past as a member of the Trump Tower condo board and he reportedly raised more than $400,000 for a library foundation in his hometown of Florence, Ala. by hosting an event called the 2005 Donald Trump Library Benefit Dinner. (Anderson could not be reached for comment.)

Together, Trump's and Anderson's penthouses combine for about 14,000 square feet. So where does Trump's 33,000 square feet figure come from? It's hard to tell. No one else lives on those floors, according to city records. Instead "common elements"—things like hallways and elevators—and mechanical space appear to take up the rest of the area Trump claims to live in. The residents of Trump Tower likely own these areas through their condo association, their stakes divvied up based on the size of their apartments.

That includes Michael Jackson's supposed penthouse: Records indicate the area Trump pointed to during the tour has never been a residence either. It appears to be mechanical space. (Jackson reportedly lived elsewhere—on floor 63.)

No Trump spokesperson would comment on any of this, so using the correct square footage, we estimate the president's pad is worth $64 million, less than a third of his number.

Follow me on Twitter. Send me a secure tip.Chase Peterson-WithornEditorial StandardsCorrectionsReprints & Permissions


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1  seeder  JBB    5 days ago

Trump falsely claimed that his 11,000 square foot monstrosity of a tasteless apartment was over 30,000 square feet and claimed it was valued at $372,000,000.00 which is ten times its real top valuation...

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  JBB @1    5 days ago

If only the banks had "owned the libs'. The far right would be defending them now instead of complaining that Trump's problems are the banks fault. 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1.1.1  seeder  JBB  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1    5 days ago

NY AG Letitia James has the proof of Trump's crimes in her hands!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @1.1.1    5 days ago

So why didn't she indict him criminally for this?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1.1.3  seeder  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.2    5 days ago

How many times must you be told Trump's crimes are federal?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @1.1.3    5 days ago
How many times must you be told Trump's crimes are federal?

Is fraud a crime in New York?

Why, yes, yes it is!

So why didn;t she indict him for fraud?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
1.1.5  Greg Jones  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.4    5 days ago

Cuz she couldn't win in a criminal court case.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.6  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.4    5 days ago

So why didn;t she indict him for fraud?

jurisdiction.jpg

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.6    5 days ago

Hate to be the one to break this earth-shattering news to you, but if a crime is committed in NY, she has the authority to prosecute it.

Why all the deflections?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.8  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.7    5 days ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.9  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.7    4 days ago
Hate to be the one to break this earth-shattering news to you, but if a crime is committed in NY, she has the authority to prosecute it.

Hate to be the one to break this earth-shattering news to you, but jurisdictions are not that simple in America.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.10  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.2    4 days ago

She sent a criminal referral to the DoJ and IRS because she believes Trump committed federal crimes such as false accounting statements and bank fraud.    She is handling the balance with a civil case which focuses on fraudulent activity.   I do not know the specific thought process here, but it certainly is possible that she considered the lower bar of a civil case and wanted to ensure a win.    It is also possible that (outside of the potential federal crimes) she did not see sufficient state crimes to pursue a criminal case.

Hopefully we will learn more as this case proceeds.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Masters Guide
1.1.11  Snuffy  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.10    4 days ago
She sent a criminal referral to the DoJ and IRS because she believes Trump committed federal crimes such as false accounting statements and bank fraud.

You're assuming, you don't know what she believes.  I don't know what she believes either.  It's also a guess that she sent them to the DOJ and the IRS in order to get the horsepower of the federal government on this.  We will know more if the federal government brings charges against Trump and his organization. 

I do not know the specific thought process here, but it certainly is possible that she considered the lower bar of a civil case and wanted to ensure a win.    It is also possible that (outside of the potentialfederalcrimes) she did not see sufficient state crimes to pursue a criminal case.

That's very possible, the bar for a civil case is much lower.  But as a civil case it's also possible that Trump offers a settlement that she accepts because even at the lower bar this is not a slam-dunk case.  Time will tell how this plays out.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.12  TᵢG  replied to  Snuffy @1.1.11    4 days ago
You're assuming, you don't know what she believes.

Not a grand assumption that her act of referring possible federal crimes to the DoJ and FBI means that she believes Trump committed crimes.   It is quite unlikely that she believes these are not federal crimes and then stupidly refers them to federal authorities.   Commonsense is good.

By the same token, it is not a grand assumption to hold, based on her actions, that she believes she has a civil case against Trump.   Again, it is unlikely that the AG would make such a public event and bring forth a civil case if she believed that Trump is not liable.   Again, basic logic, commonsense.

Quite amusing that you do not comprehend how these actions reveal the position of the AG on these matters.   How do you wind up thinking the AG might refer these matters if she thought Trump did not likely commit federal crimes or she thought Trump is not liable for fraudulent activity per her allegations?   

It's also a guess that she sent them to the DOJ and the IRS in order to get the horsepower of the federal government on this. 

That is not what I stated; I did not state she is trying to get federal horsepower.   She referred federal matters to federal authorities.   She referred matters to the appropriate authorities to deal with the matters.   It is not about horsepower, but proper handling.   If Trump allegedly broke federal crimes, it would be up to the federal government to pursue that matter.

You see that, right?   Federal crime allegations means referral to federal authorities.   Should be obvious.

But as a civil case it's also possible that Trump offers a settlement that she accepts because even at the lower bar this is not a slam-dunk case

Explain, specifically, how you KNOW this is not a slam-dunk.   BTW, I have not made any indication that this will be a slam-dunk.   I think the plaintiff will likely prevail based on Trump's history and the nature of these allegations, but nobody has any basis on which to claim "slam-dunk" or not.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Masters Guide
1.1.13  Snuffy  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.12    4 days ago
You're assuming, you don't know what she believes.
Not a grand assumption that her act of referring possible federal crimes to the DoJ and FBI means that she believes Trump committed crimes.   It is quite unlikely that she believes these are not federal crimes and then stupidly refers them to federal authorities.   Commonsense is good.

By the same token, it is not a grand assumption to hold, based on her actions, that she believes she has a civil case against Trump.   Again, it is unlikely that the AG would make such a public event and bring forth a civil case if she believed that Trump is not liable.   Again, basic logic, commonsense.

Quite amusing that you do not comprehend how these actions reveal the position of the AG on these matters.   How do you wind up thinking the AG might refer these matters if she thought Trump did not likely commit federal crimes or she thought Trump is not liable for fraudulent activity per her allegations?   

You continue to assume you know, but you do not know.  You infer, you believe but you do not know.  You want to assume that common sense is correct and it may very well be in this case but again you just do not know.  You can be amused by whatever you want, but the simple truth is that you are assuming your belief is correct.  Time will tell.

Considering Trumps history of being accused of something and then skating out from any legal concerns is well documented.  As I do not know what is on her mind other than what I infer from her actions, I am more than willing to wait for any outcome down the road.  But I'm not going to sit here and state he's innocent or guilty simply based on an assumption of other people's actions and words.  We are very close to saying the same thing but  you assume that I am attacking you with my comment rather than a simple statement that you are assuming things and you don't know her mind. 

As far as getting federal horsepower involved, she went for a civil suit.  Adding in possible federal charges will further stretch Trump's financial means and legal teams as they will be dividing their time between the State of NY and the Federal government suits.  

But as a civil case it's also possible that Trump offers a settlement that she accepts becauseeven at the lower bar this isnot a slam-dunkcase. 
Explain, specifically, how you KNOW this is not a slam-dunk.   BTW, I have not made any indication that this will be a slam-dunk.   I think the plaintiff will likely prevail based on Trump's history and the nature of these allegations, but nobody has any basis on which to claim "slam-dunk" or not.

I never said you indicated it was a slam-dunk case, please don't twist my words.  The AG may accept a settlement offer from Trump because she knows that any case brought before a jury can have twists and turns that one does not expect and no case should be thought of as slam-dunk.  It may be advantageous for her to accept a settlement offer because that would be a sure win for her as well as the knowledge of his offering a settlement may be advantageous to federal suits.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.14  TᵢG  replied to  Snuffy @1.1.13    4 days ago
You continue to assume you know, but you do not know. 

What is actually taking place is that you are desperately trying to find a gotcha.   Your chosen gotcha is feeble and contrived.   

It is obvious that the AG believes Trump may have committed federal crimes because she referred same to federal authorities.   Anyone can put this 2 + 2 together and come up with 4.   This is not an assumption, it is very simple, obvious commonsense logic.   It is as obvious as holding that a driver signaling left intends to turn left.

Considering Trumps history of being accused of something and then skating out from any legal concerns is well documented.  

What does this have to do with the AG's belief of Trump's guilt (federal) or liability (civil).   You are off on a tangent.

As far as getting federal horsepower involved, she went for a civil suit.  Adding in possible federal charges will further stretch Trump's financial means and legal teams as they will be dividing their time between the State of NY and the Federal government suits.  

One refers federal matters to federal authorities.   Simple.   It is unlikely that the AG would engage federal authorities on a witch hunt (will just blow up in her face) just to stretch Trump's resources.  When you do not know something, it is smart to speculate on the most logical, likely scenarios.

I never said you indicated it was a slam-dunk case, please don't twist my words.

I did not claim that you said I said that — I told you that I did not indicate this was a slam-dunk which illustrates this all came from you.   I have not twisted your words, I quoted them directly.    You stated this is not a slam-dunk case and I asked you how you know this.  

So, how do you know this?

 
 
 
Snuffy
Masters Guide
1.1.15  Snuffy  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.14    4 days ago
You continue to assume you know, but you do not know. 
What is actually taking place is that you are desperately trying to find a gotcha.   Your chosen gotcha is feeble and contrived.   

It is obvious that the AG believes Trump may have committed federal crimes because she referred same to federal authorities.   Anyone can put this 2 + 2 together and come up with 4.   This is not an assumption, it is very simple, obvious commonsense logic.   It is as obvious as holding that a driver signaling left intends to turn left.

Considering Trumps history of being accused of something and then skating out from any legal concerns is well documented.  

Nope, you started by stating what the AG believes and I called you out on that because you are not a mind reader and you do not know what she believes.  You say that it's simple obvious commonsense logic but what you are doing is inferring something based on her actions.  You do not know exactly what is on her mind and any commentary otherwise is bullshit.  The only gotcha there is that you refuse to acknowledge that you over-reached. 

Considering Trumps history of being accused of something and then skating out from any legal concerns is well documented.  
What does this have to do with the AG's belief of Trump's guilt (federal) or liability (civil).   You are off on a tangent.

Read the rest of the paragraph, it ties it together.  All I said there is based on Trump's history of skating out of legal concerns I am willing to wait for the final outcome.  

How do I know this is not a slam-dunk case?  The same fucking way you do.  Any time an attorney goes in front of a judge and jury they try to cover all the bases and insure they have all contingencies covered, but it's not a sure thing and they still have to deal with a jury which can be fickle.  So based on that it is not a slam-dunk.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.16  TᵢG  replied to  Snuffy @1.1.15    4 days ago
Nope, you started by stating what the AG believes and I called you out on that because you are not a mind reader and you do not know what she believes. 

Feeble and pathetic attempt at a gotcha.  Truly pathetic that this is the best you can do.

If the AG refers to federal authorities allegations of federal crimes, it is obvious that she believes that she is not feeding them a bunch of bullshit.    One need not be a mindreader to know this.   One need only commonsense.   Hello?

It is, in contrast, stupid to think that an AG would intentionally lie to federal authorities since a) that would get her in legal trouble and b) that would hurt her politically and c) that would harm the public perception of her civil case against Trump.

How do I know this is not a slam-dunk case?  The same fucking way you do.  

Then how do you NOT KNOW that the AG believes Trump likely committed federal crimes given she referred same to federal authorities?

Buy a vowel.   

If you are going to go after me, you need to think through your attack.   Your (repeated) feeble and pathetic attempts at a gotcha suggest an intent of trolling rather than civil, thoughtful discourse.

 
 
 
squiggy
Sophomore Quiet
1.1.17  squiggy  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.16    4 days ago

"Buy a vowel."   

a3186a4de3a64a8fb801542195875224--intellectual-quotes-big-words.jpg

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
1.2  Greg Jones  replied to  JBB @1    5 days ago

OMG!  Another article bout Trump?  jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

So  what?  Who''s  the injured party?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.2.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Greg Jones @1.2    5 days ago

Reality is the injured party. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.3  Tessylo  replied to  JBB @1    5 days ago

Stephen Colbert covered this the other night.

As usual, he was spot on!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.4  Tessylo  replied to  JBB @1    5 days ago

308473206_1432445513929789_6416641939650938116_n.jpg?_nc_cat=100&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=YmvIP6_2uoAAX-ckgI2&tn=ddyv9WRSVi2y4Anp&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=00_AT-_gYnOxIF6GFjOw-3ygQod5_5PU9Hbvmlgba1nTvP0_g&oe=6331B2E3

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2  Texan1211    5 days ago

How stupid, ignorant, and financially irresponsible must a bank be when they don't do due diligence?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.1  seeder  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @2    5 days ago

That is why no New York banks will do any business with Trump!

Banking, financial and tax fraud are serious crimes for a reason...

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @2.1    5 days ago
Banking, financial and tax fraud are serious crimes for a reason..

Yes they sure are.

I wonder why no one has indicted Trump for any of those since so many yahoos on the left have already painted him guilty?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.1.2  seeder  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.1    5 days ago

Letitia James just handed her case to the FBI / IRS yesterday!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @2.1.2    5 days ago

Why didn't she criminally indict Trump?

 
 
 
George
Freshman Silent
2.1.4  George  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.3    5 days ago

Because she is an incompetent piece of crap?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.1.5  seeder  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.3    5 days ago

Because the crimes Trump is accused of are Federal Crimes. So, New York has filed civil suits demanding two hundred fifty million dollars in fines and to bar the Trump Organization and its officers from doing business in New York. Anything else? 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.1.6  seeder  JBB  replied to  George @2.1.4    5 days ago

I saw her news conference and she seemed competent to me.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @2.1.5    5 days ago

Trump was audited multiple times by the IRS.

Are they totally incompetent?

The very same IRS the Democrats want to give more money to for them to conduct more audits?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.8  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @2.1.5    5 days ago
Because the crimes Trump is accused of are Federal Crimes.

Please list the crimes Trump has been accused of, I am sure it is a mile long.

Then, show me an indictment for ONE on the list.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.9  JohnRussell  replied to  JBB @2.1.6    5 days ago

You should put seeds like this in a group where you could delete some of the ridiculous trolling we are seeing here. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
2.1.10  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JBB @2.1.2    5 days ago
Letitia James just handed her case to the FBI / IRS yesterday!

The same FBI that has been discredited as partisan hacks?

The same IRS Obama used against his opponents.  You don't think that if there were something there, Obama would have made sure it come out at the 2016 election?  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.11  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @2.1.6    5 days ago
I saw her news conference and she seemed competent to me.

Yeah, but just remember, you think Biden and Harris are competent, too!

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
2.1.12  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JBB @2.1.6    5 days ago
bank / lender and state

That's not saying much.  You believe Biden and Harris.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
2.1.13  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.9    5 days ago

Yeah....run and hide instead of dealing with the truth

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.14  Tessylo  replied to  JBB @2.1.6    5 days ago

"I saw her news conference and she seemed competent to me."

Of course she is.  Anyone bringing a suit against that monumental turd MUST be maligned at all costs.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
2.1.15  Jack_TX  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.7    4 days ago
Trump was audited multiple times by the IRS. Are they totally incompetent?

Yes.  Pretty much so.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.16  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.15    4 days ago

We agree on this.   Further, they are politically influenced.   They are not objectively administering the collection of revenue.   As is true in general, who you know, what you own, what power you wield, etc. all factor into how the IRS handles your case.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
2.1.17  bugsy  replied to  JBB @2.1.6    4 days ago

It was obviously a scripted and rehearsed triggered speech. She actually sounded robotic in some areas, and a southern black preacher in others.

Not impressive or believable

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
3  Sean Treacy    5 days ago

Alternate title:  people who compulsively lie about trump outraged trump lies. 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.1  seeder  JBB  replied to  Sean Treacy @3    5 days ago

I am not following you. What are you talking about? Explain yourself...

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @3.1    5 days ago
What are you talking about?

Which words did you not understand?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.1.2  seeder  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.1    5 days ago

Who in the article is Sean talking about? I can't find that part...

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @3.1.2    5 days ago
people who compulsively lie about trump

There you go, it was right there in front of you this whole time!

You're welcome!

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.1.4  seeder  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.3    5 days ago

But, MAGA are the people who compulsively lie about Trump!

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.1.5  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JBB @3.1.4    5 days ago
bank / lender and state

Ahh, somebody explained 3 to you.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @3.1.4    5 days ago
But, MAGA are the people who compulsively lie about Trump!

Maybe in Bizarro Land.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
3.1.7  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.6    4 days ago
Maybe in Bizarro Land.

Yes, they lie to themselves, they lie for Trump, they lie about their motives, all in right wing conservative alternate "Bizarro Land" where up is down, education is ridiculed, prejudice is protected, stupid is standard, science is fiction and biblical fiction is fact and a fat lying thrice married serial adulterer and accused sexual predator con man and tax cheat is their moral compass and chosen messiah.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.8  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.1.7    4 days ago

This post is reminiscent of a broken record.

 
 
 
George
Freshman Silent
4  George    5 days ago

So in 50 plus years the IRS and the DOJ never found anything on Trump but a incompetent piece of crap NY AG did? 
What kind of idiot do you have to be to believe this crap?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1  Texan1211  replied to  George @4    5 days ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
4.2  igknorantzrulz  replied to  George @4    5 days ago
What kind of idiot do you have to be to believe this crap?

I'm supposing, those gullible enough to believe Trump is innocent, because he's never been convicted

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.1  Texan1211  replied to  igknorantzrulz @4.2    5 days ago

as opposed to those who have convicted him outside of the law 

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
4.2.2  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.1    4 days ago

why do you continue to defend a LYING SCUMBAG. no reply required, because it would probably piss me off more

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.3  Texan1211  replied to  igknorantzrulz @4.2.2    4 days ago
why do you continue to defend a LYING SCUMBAG. no reply required,

Quote me defending him or stuff it.

because it would probably piss me off more

Oh, no, whatever shall we do now?

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
4.2.4  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.3    4 days ago
Oh, no, whatever shall we do now?

Well, i possibly could make a fool of you, but you're currently doing a fine enough job on your own. Congratz

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.5  Texan1211  replied to  igknorantzrulz @4.2.4    4 days ago
Well, i possibly could make a fool of you, but you're currently doing a fine enough job on your own. Congratz

Gee, that certainly doesn't look like a quote of mine, what's the matter,  STILL unable to back your shit up?

Do better!

If possible.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
4.2.6  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.5    4 days ago

Hey Tex, i can back my shit up, ,  .with cheese, and perhaps a tad more than i would like to show yoummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, even f u mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmioi7mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. If U, really need  Denorex causing you convincing. cause & asz U need a shampoo, conditioner, lather, rinse, and repeat

often, in a feeble a tempt,

to feel like your/you're head & shoulders  ...   R knot

up Trumps' trunk/trunks ala 4 swimmin, wit bo leggit women, spewin sum serious bunk, and possibly still drunk....

N  NOW, stating  never have sided with Trump, and,ore bin inn Trumps TRUNK,  with one of his Playmate Pornstars, asz ewe r, far,....& an obviously, and always has bin, always a Biden man are you ?

What kind of conditioner was that again ? Artie officially flavored  Purple Fool Aide...?

or

Sumtin bout Marys' hair gel a ton of that sheeet, iz all ya'll ever kneads ....?,?,m?,?,? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.7  Texan1211  replied to  igknorantzrulz @4.2.6    3 days ago

ANOTHER word salad?

Still no quote from me?

Why not?

STILL not backing your shit up, I see.

Instead of a bunch of gobbledy-gook, why not just type "I can't" and be done with it?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
5  Jeremy Retired in NC    5 days ago

So the bank / lender and state failed to do proper due diligence and have proper appraisals done and suddenly this is on the owner?  Looks like another fraudulent lawsuit.  But looking at the whole situation, it is politically driven.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5.1  seeder  JBB  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5    5 days ago

No, Trump and his bonded agents submitted fraudulent documents!

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
5.1.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JBB @5.1    5 days ago

The bank / lender and state to verify them.  Could have been corrected when they were filed.  But since the bank / lender and state failed, this another politically driven pile of horseshit.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5.1.2  seeder  JBB  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.1.1    5 days ago

No, it is bank, insurance and tax fraud James has proof of...

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
5.1.3  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JBB @5.1.2    5 days ago

Proof of the bank / lender and state failing in their responsibility.  It's pretty childish to go back, what a decade, and dig up state failures like this then try to place the blame on the individual.

The state failed to do their job.  This is a political stunt that is going to end just like every other political stunts the left and Democrats have tried - complete failure.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5.1.4  seeder  JBB  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.1.3    5 days ago

Tell it to the judge and jury that will adjudicate Trump's case!

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
5.1.5  Greg Jones  replied to  JBB @5.1.4    4 days ago

There won't be a case.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.6  TᵢG  replied to  Greg Jones @5.1.5    4 days ago

Do you think the AG is just blowing smoke and that she has nothing?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
6  seeder  JBB    5 days ago

According to Stormy Daniels Trump lies about the size of everything...

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @6    5 days ago
According to Stormy Daniels Trump lies about the size of everything.

Gee, think James will call her as a witness?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
6.1.1  seeder  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1    5 days ago

No, the proof is all in the fraudulent documents Trump signed...

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
6.1.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JBB @6.1.1    5 days ago

The same documents the bank / lender and state signed?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
6.1.3  seeder  JBB  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.1.2    5 days ago

No, documents Trump provided the banks, insurers and IRS...

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Senior Quiet
6.1.4  Jack_TX  replied to  JBB @6.1.1    5 days ago
No, the proof is all in the fraudulent documents Trump signed...

Then what does Stormy Daniels have to do with it?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.4    5 days ago
Then what does Stormy Daniels have to do with it?

Not a fucking thing. 

I wonder why he would troll his own article?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
6.1.6  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JBB @6.1.3    5 days ago
No, documents Trump provided the banks, insurers and IRS...

That the banks, insurers and IRS signed. 

It's looking more and more like you don't really know the process and are just running with talking points.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
6.1.7  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.5    5 days ago
I wonder why he would troll his own article?

That's what happens when they realize they are wrong and losing an argument.  I'm surprised he hasn't started with memes.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
6.1.8  Greg Jones  replied to  JBB @6.1.1    4 days ago
"No, the proof is all in the fraudulent documents Trump signed..."

That his lawyers and accountants drew up and approved...

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.9  TᵢG  replied to  Greg Jones @6.1.8    4 days ago
That his lawyers and accountants drew up and approved...

Do you understand that when you sign something that your lawyers and accountants drew up and approved that you are attesting to the truth of the contents?

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
6.1.10  igknorantzrulz  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.9    4 days ago

i'd have to go with , NO

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
7  Sean Treacy    4 days ago

Why aren't the banks he supposedly defrauded suing him?

Oh yeah, because he paid off the loans. 

 
 

Who is online

Revillug
JBB
Kavika
JohnRussell
Thomas


38 visitors