Trump attorney Alina Habbas makes an important distinction:
<><>the statute being used against Trump is a consumer fraud statute,
<><>that statute is intended to protect borrowers from predatory lenders,
<><>yet in this case, Trump is prosecuted as a borrower; banks were the lenders,
<><>the New York AG is flipping the statute,
<><>she claims the borrower defrauded the lenders,
<><>even as the lenders deny there was any fraud,
<><>and evidence shows there was no legal harm done.
There are no victims. There was no fraud. All of the lenders did their own due diligence. All of the
loans were paid back without issue, and the statement of financial condition was factual and accurate.
Thanks for the post.
ptsal