Could this be a more transparent show trial?

Did Deutsche Bank Just Destroy New York AG's Case Against Trump?

A Deutsche Bank executive may have just tanked New York Attorney General Letitia James' lawsuit against former President Donal Drump - which revolved around portraying the German lender as Trump's biggest victim in an alleged scheme to inflate his assets in order to obtain favorable terms from banks and insurers.

David Williams, who directly worked on at least one of several loans obtained by Trump 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 approve a loan anyway, as they did with Trump, Bloomberg reports.

"It just depends on the circumstances," said Williams, a managing director at the bank.

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. -Bloomberg

The testimony completely undermines AG James' premise, that Trump defrauded 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."

Victimless crime?

Trump and two of his sons, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, testified earlier in the trial that no banks had been victimized by the alleged inflated valuation, and that various lenders had made millions of dollars in interest on the loans. Trump also argued that his name, and the potential for future development, was a factor in the previous valuations.

James, an activist Democrat AG, says that Trump and his company falsified documents to banks and insurers. The judge in the case, Arthur Engoron, has similarly proven himself to be a partisan operative and not a neutral arbiter.

Justice Aurthur Engoron, who is overseeing the case, held Trump liable for fraud on the eve of trial, resolving the biggest claim in the case and putting Trump’s control of his assets at risk.

The trial is focusing on six remaining claims, as well as penalties. The state is seeking the return of $250 million in “illegal profit” and a ban on Trump and his sons from serving as directors or officers of any New York-based company. -Bloomberg

Could this be a more transparent show trial? (read more)