>>> IF YOU START IN -- IN >>> IF YOU START IN -- IN MANHATTAN AND YOU GO NORTH FROM MANHATTAN AND YOU GO NORTH FROM MANHATTAN, THE FIRST THING YOU MANHATTAN, THE FIRST THING YOU HIT IS THE BRONX. HIT IS THE BRONX. IF YOU KEEP GOING NORTH THROUGH IF YOU KEEP GOING NORTH THROUGH THE BRONX, THE NEXT THING YOU THE BRONX, THE NEXT THING YOU HIT IS WEST CHESTER COUNTY, NEW HIT IS WEST CHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK. YORK. WITH GREAT TOWNS YOU’LL HIT WITH GREAT TOWNS YOU’LL HIT FIRST ON THE ROAD LIKE YONKERS FIRST ON THE ROAD LIKE YONKERS AND NEW ROCHELLE. AND NEW ROCHELLE. IF YOU KEEP GOING NORTH, KEEP IF YOU KEEP GOING NORTH, KEEP GOING DEEPER INTO SPRAWLING WEST GOING DEEPER INTO SPRAWLING WEST CHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK, YOU CHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK, YOU WILL EVENTUALLY GET TO A PLACE WILL EVENTUALLY GET TO A PLACE CALLED BEDFORD. CALLED BEDFORD. AND BEDFORD, NEW YORK IS PRETTY. AND BEDFORD, NEW YORK IS PRETTY. I HAVE BEEN THERE. I HAVE BEEN THERE. IT’S A NICE PART OF THE STATE OF IT’S A NICE PART OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK. NEW YORK. IT’S A NICE PART OF THE COUNTRY. IT’S A NICE PART OF THE COUNTRY. BEDFORD ALSO HAS SOME BEDFORD ALSO HAS SOME INTERESTING HISTORIC SITES. INTERESTING HISTORIC SITES. IT’S GOT A PLACE CALLED STEPPING IT’S GOT A PLACE CALLED STEPPING STONES, THIS HOME. STONES, THIS HOME. THIS IS THE PRESERVED HOME OF THIS IS THE PRESERVED HOME OF BILL W. BILL W. IF YOU’RE IN AA OR KNOW ANYBODY IF YOU’RE IN AA OR KNOW ANYBODY WHO HAS EVER BEEN IN AA, YOU WHO HAS EVER BEEN IN AA, YOU KNOW WHAT WILL W. MEANS, KNOW WHAT WILL W. MEANS, INCLUDING THE FACT IT’S JUST THE INCLUDING THE FACT IT’S JUST THE LAST INITIAL. LAST INITIAL. BILL WILSON WAS THE FOUNDER OF BILL WILSON WAS THE FOUNDER OF ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS AND HIS ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS AND HIS HOME IS PRESERVED IN BEDFORD, HOME IS PRESERVED IN BEDFORD, NEW YORK. NEW YORK. IT IS A NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE. IT IS A NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE. NOT FAR FROM THERE IS THE NOT FAR FROM THERE IS THE MASSIVE BEDFORD HILLS MASSIVE BEDFORD HILLS CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, WHICH IS CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, WHICH IS ACTUALLY WHY I HAVE BEEN TO ACTUALLY WHY I HAVE BEEN TO BEDFORD, NEW YORK. BEDFORD, NEW YORK. I USED TO WORK ON PRISON REFORM I USED TO WORK ON PRISON REFORM ISSUES IN A PREVIOUS LIFE SO I ISSUES IN A PREVIOUS LIFE SO I HAVE BEEN TO THAT PRISON. HAVE BEEN TO THAT PRISON. IT’S THE ONLY MAXIMUM SECURITY IT’S THE ONLY MAXIMUM SECURITY WOMEN’S PRISON IN THE NEW YORK WOMEN’S PRISON IN THE NEW YORK STATE CORRECTIONAL SYSTEM. STATE CORRECTIONAL SYSTEM. BEDFORD, NEW YORK WAS BRIEFLY BEDFORD, NEW YORK WAS BRIEFLY THE FOCUS OF NATIONAL AND THE FOCUS OF NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL ATTENTION IN 2009 INTERNATIONAL ATTENTION IN 2009 WHEN THEN LIBYAN DICTATOR WHEN THEN LIBYAN DICTATOR MOAMMAR GADHAFI MADE PLANS TO MOAMMAR GADHAFI MADE PLANS TO TRAVEL TO THE ANNUAL MEETING OF TRAVEL TO THE ANNUAL MEETING OF THE U.N. GENERAL ASSEMBLY. THE U.N. GENERAL ASSEMBLY. HE SENT A LARGE ADVANCED PARTY HE SENT A LARGE ADVANCED PARTY TO PITCH HIM A TENT ON THE TO PITCH HIM A TENT ON THE GROUNDS OF AN ESTATE IN BEDFORD, GROUNDS OF AN ESTATE IN BEDFORD, NEW YORK. NEW YORK. LITERALLY THEY WERE GOING TO LITERALLY THEY WERE GOING TO PITCH A TENT ON THE LAWN OF THAT PITCH A TENT ON THE LAWN OF THAT ESTATE AND GADHAFI AND HIS ESTATE AND GADHAFI AND HIS ENTOURAGE PLANNED TO STAY IN ENTOURAGE PLANNED TO STAY IN THAT TENT WHILE HE WAS IN NEW THAT TENT WHILE HE WAS IN NEW YORK VISITING THE U.N. GENERAL YORK VISITING THE U.N. GENERAL ASSEMBLY. ASSEMBLY. THAT WAS THE PLAN UNTIL TOWN THAT WAS THE PLAN UNTIL TOWN OFFICIALS IN BEDFORD DECIDED OFFICIALS IN BEDFORD DECIDED THEY WERE NOT INTO THAT IDEA AT THEY WERE NOT INTO THAT IDEA AT ALL. ALL. THEY SENT SOMEBODY FROM THE TOWN THEY SENT SOMEBODY FROM THE TOWN OVER TO INSPECT LIKE THE OVER TO INSPECT LIKE THE EXTENSION CORDS AND THE OTHER EXTENSION CORDS AND THE OTHER LITTLE TEMPORARY ELECTRICAL LITTLE TEMPORARY ELECTRICAL CONNECTIONS THEY HAD SET UP TO CONNECTIONS THEY HAD SET UP TO SERVICE GADHAFI’S WOULD-BE SERVICE GADHAFI’S WOULD-BE LIVING QUARTERS IN THAT SENT ON LIVING QUARTERS IN THAT SENT ON THE LAWN AND THE TOWN UPON THE LAWN AND THE TOWN UPON INSPECTING THOSE ELECTRICAL INSPECTING THOSE ELECTRICAL FACILITIES ISSUED A STOP WORK FACILITIES ISSUED A STOP WORK ORDER. ORDER. SO EVEN THOUGH THE LIBYAN SO EVEN THOUGH THE LIBYAN GOVERNMENT RENTED THAT PLACE FOR GOVERNMENT RENTED THAT PLACE FOR HIM, THE LIBYAN DICTATOR, HIM, THE LIBYAN DICTATOR, MOAMMAR GADHAFI, NEVER ACTUALLY MOAMMAR GADHAFI, NEVER ACTUALLY ENDED UP STAYING IN THAT TENT ON ENDED UP STAYING IN THAT TENT ON THAT LAWN AT THAT ESTATE IN THAT LAWN AT THAT ESTATE IN BEDFORD, NEW YORK. BEDFORD, NEW YORK. BUT THE SPECIFIC LOCATION OF BUT THE SPECIFIC LOCATION OF THAT WEIRD THREE-DAY SORT OF THAT WEIRD THREE-DAY SORT OF SMALL-SCALE DIPLOMATIC CRISIS SMALL-SCALE DIPLOMATIC CRISIS OVER MOAMMAR GADHAFI AND HIS OVER MOAMMAR GADHAFI AND HIS EXTENSION CORDS, THE SPECIFIC EXTENSION CORDS, THE SPECIFIC LOCATION OF THAT IN BEDFORD, NEW LOCATION OF THAT IN BEDFORD, NEW YORK WAS A PLACE CALLED SEVEN YORK WAS A PLACE CALLED SEVEN SPRINGS. SPRINGS. THAT WAS -- THAT WAS THE ESTATE THAT WAS -- THAT WAS THE ESTATE WHERE GADHAFI PLANNED TO STAY ON WHERE GADHAFI PLANNED TO STAY ON THE LAWN. THE LAWN. AT THE TIME OF THAT GADHAFI AT THE TIME OF THAT GADHAFI CONTROVERSY, SEVEN SPRINGS WAS CONTROVERSY, SEVEN SPRINGS WAS OWN AND IT IS STILL OWNED TODAY OWN AND IT IS STILL OWNED TODAY BY PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP. BY PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP. AND THAT TONIGHT IS WHERE WE GET AND THAT TONIGHT IS WHERE WE GET TO THE CRIME PART OF THIS STORY, TO THE CRIME PART OF THIS STORY, THE MAYBE CRIME PART, OR AT THE MAYBE CRIME PART, OR AT LEAST THE CRIME QUESTION. LEAST THE CRIME QUESTION. THIS PROPERTY IN BEDFORD, NEW THIS PROPERTY IN BEDFORD, NEW YORK, SEVEN SPRINGS. YORK, SEVEN SPRINGS. AS YOU CAN SEE, IT’S A BIG AS YOU CAN SEE, IT’S A BIG MANSION. MANSION. IT’S JUST OVER 200 ACRES. IT’S JUST OVER 200 ACRES. MR. TRUMP BOUGHT THE PROPERTY IN MR. TRUMP BOUGHT THE PROPERTY IN 1995. 1995. WHEN TRUMP BOUGHT IT IN 1995, HE WHEN TRUMP BOUGHT IT IN 1995, HE PAID $7.5 MILLION FOR IT. PAID $7.5 MILLION FOR IT. AND THERE’S GOOD EVIDENCE, AND THERE’S GOOD EVIDENCE, RELIABLE PUBLIC RECORDS EVIDENCE RELIABLE PUBLIC RECORDS EVIDENCE THAT THAT PROPERTY, THAT SILVER THAT THAT PROPERTY, THAT SILVER -- SORRY, THAT SEVEN SPRINGS -- SORRY, THAT SEVEN SPRINGS PROPERTY HAS APPRECIATED NICELY PROPERTY HAS APPRECIATED NICELY OVER TIME. OVER TIME. "THE WASHINGTON POST" REPORTS "THE WASHINGTON POST" REPORTS THAT BY 2013, SO LESS THAN 20 THAT BY 2013, SO LESS THAN 20 YEARS AFTER TRUMP FIRST BOUGHT YEARS AFTER TRUMP FIRST BOUGHT IT IN 1995, THAT PROPERTY HAD IT IN 1995, THAT PROPERTY HAD MORE THAN DOUBLED IN VALUE. MORE THAN DOUBLED IN VALUE. IT WAS ASSESSED IN 2013 AT $18.9 IT WAS ASSESSED IN 2013 AT $18.9 MILLION. MILLION. NICE, RIGHT? NICE, RIGHT? THE LOCAL PAPER, "THE WEST THE LOCAL PAPER, "THE WEST CHESTER COUNTY JOURNAL NEWS" CHESTER COUNTY JOURNAL NEWS" SAYS BY 2017 THE PROCESS -- THE SAYS BY 2017 THE PROCESS -- THE PROPERTY WAS ASSESSED EVEN A PROPERTY WAS ASSESSED EVEN A LITTLE BIT HIGHER. LITTLE BIT HIGHER. IT WAS ASSESSED AT $19.6 IT WAS ASSESSED AT $19.6 MILLION. MILLION. PRESIDENT TRUMP IN HIS FEDERAL PRESIDENT TRUMP IN HIS FEDERAL FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE FORM FOR FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE FORM FOR LAST YEAR, 2018, HE DIDN’T HAVE LAST YEAR, 2018, HE DIDN’T HAVE TO GIVE A PRECISE VALUATION FOR TO GIVE A PRECISE VALUATION FOR THE PROPERTY ON THOSE KINDS OF THE PROPERTY ON THOSE KINDS OF FEDERAL ETHICS FORMS. FEDERAL ETHICS FORMS. YOU JUST HAVE TO GIVE A RANGE OF YOU JUST HAVE TO GIVE A RANGE OF VALUE. VALUE. WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP FILED HIS WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP FILED HIS FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE FORM LAST FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE FORM LAST YEAR, HE SAID THE VALUE OF THAT YEAR, HE SAID THE VALUE OF THAT PROPERTY IN WEST CHESTER COUNTY PROPERTY IN WEST CHESTER COUNTY WAS IN THE RANGE OF $25 TO $50 WAS IN THE RANGE OF $25 TO $50 MILLION. MILLION. NOW, EVEN $25 MILLION IS NOW, EVEN $25 MILLION IS CONSIDERABLY MORE THAN WHAT WE CONSIDERABLY MORE THAN WHAT WE KNOW THAT PROPERTY WAS ASSESSED KNOW THAT PROPERTY WAS ASSESSED AT IN TERMS OF ITS VALUE JUST AT IN TERMS OF ITS VALUE JUST ONE YEAR BEFORE, BUT, EH, WHAT ONE YEAR BEFORE, BUT, EH, WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO? ARE YOU GOING TO DO? WHAT IS VALUE, REALLY, RIGHT? WHAT IS VALUE, REALLY, RIGHT? THESE THINGS CAN ALWAYS BE THESE THINGS CAN ALWAYS BE FUDGED A LITTLE BIT. FUDGED A LITTLE BIT. BASICALLY THE SAME THING, BASICALLY THE SAME THING, BALLPARK FIGURE. BALLPARK FIGURE. IT’S GETTING ASSESSED AT 19, $20 IT’S GETTING ASSESSED AT 19, $20 MILLION WITHIN THE LAST FEW MILLION WITHIN THE LAST FEW YEARS. YEARS. HE PUTS IT AT A RANGE OF $25 TO HE PUTS IT AT A RANGE OF $25 TO $50 MILLION. $50 MILLION. WELL, AT LEAST THE RANGE STARTS WELL, AT LEAST THE RANGE STARTS AT $25 MILLION. AT $25 MILLION. BUT CAN WE PUT THAT VALUE UP BUT CAN WE PUT THAT VALUE UP OVER TIME? OVER TIME? YES, WE’VE DONE THIS ON THIS YES, WE’VE DONE THIS ON THIS LITTLE GRAPH. LITTLE GRAPH. NOW, REMEMBER, THIS IS ALL FOR NOW, REMEMBER, THIS IS ALL FOR THIS ONE SAME PROPERTY. THIS ONE SAME PROPERTY. AS FAR AS WE KNOW, THERE HAVE AS FAR AS WE KNOW, THERE HAVE BEEN NO MASSIVE CHANGES TO THIS BEEN NO MASSIVE CHANGES TO THIS PROPERTY OVER THE TIME THAT PROPERTY OVER THE TIME THAT TRUMP HAS OWNED IT. TRUMP HAS OWNED IT. I MEAN, GADHAFI DID SEND HIS I MEAN, GADHAFI DID SEND HIS DUDES TO GO PUT UP A TENT THERE DUDES TO GO PUT UP A TENT THERE FOR HIM, BUT THEN THEY HAD TO FOR HIM, BUT THEN THEY HAD TO TAKE THE TENT DOWN AND GO HOME TAKE THE TENT DOWN AND GO HOME SO AS WE KNOW, NOTHING REALLY SO AS WE KNOW, NOTHING REALLY HAS CHANGED. HAS CHANGED. YOU CAN SEE THE PROGRESSION YOU CAN SEE THE PROGRESSION THERE OF THE VALUE, RIGHT? THERE OF THE VALUE, RIGHT? THIS IS A HAPPY REAL ESTATE THIS IS A HAPPY REAL ESTATE VALUATION STORY. VALUATION STORY. YOU BUY IT FOR $7.5 MILLION IN YOU BUY IT FOR $7.5 MILLION IN 1995, BY 2013 IT’S UP TO 19 1995, BY 2013 IT’S UP TO 19 MILLION, BY 2017 IT’S UP TO 20 MILLION, BY 2017 IT’S UP TO 20 MILLION. MILLION. BY 2018, YOU ARE SOMEWHAT BY 2018, YOU ARE SOMEWHAT PLAUSIBLY SAYING IT’S WORTH $25 PLAUSIBLY SAYING IT’S WORTH $25 TO $50 MILLION. TO $50 MILLION. ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. SO THAT’S THE PUBLIC RECORD. SO THAT’S THE PUBLIC RECORD. THAT’S WHERE WE THOUGHT WE WERE THAT’S WHERE WE THOUGHT WE WERE ON THIS. ON THIS. IF YOU WERE AT ALL INTERESTED IN IF YOU WERE AT ALL INTERESTED IN THAT PARTICULAR DONALD TRUMP THAT PARTICULAR DONALD TRUMP PROPERTY, THIS IS WHAT YOU WOULD PROPERTY, THIS IS WHAT YOU WOULD FIND IN TERMS OF THE VALUE OF FIND IN TERMS OF THE VALUE OF THAT PROPERTY. THAT PROPERTY. BUT NOW WE AS A COUNTRY HAVE GOT BUT NOW WE AS A COUNTRY HAVE GOT SOMETHING QUITE NEW ABOUT THAT SOMETHING QUITE NEW ABOUT THAT PROPERTY, AND IT TURNS THAT SORT PROPERTY, AND IT TURNS THAT SORT OF BORING, YOU KNOW, VAGUELY OF BORING, YOU KNOW, VAGUELY HAPPY REAL ESTATE VALUATION HAPPY REAL ESTATE VALUATION STORY INTO A SUSPENSEFUL COPS STORY INTO A SUSPENSEFUL COPS AND ROBBERS CRIME DRAW THAT AND ROBBERS CRIME DRAW THAT POTENTIALLY COMES A MAJOR POTENTIALLY COMES A MAJOR CHAPTER IN AMERICAN PRESIDENTIAL CHAPTER IN AMERICAN PRESIDENTIAL HISTORY AND BETWEEN GREAT POWER HISTORY AND BETWEEN GREAT POWER AND INDEPENDENT AMERICAN LAW AND INDEPENDENT AMERICAN LAW ENFORCEMENT. ENFORCEMENT. BECAUSE IN HIS RIVETING DAY-LONG BECAUSE IN HIS RIVETING DAY-LONG TESTIMONY BEFORE THE HOUSE TESTIMONY BEFORE THE HOUSE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE YESTERDAY, OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE YESTERDAY, ONE OF THE THINGS THE ONE OF THE THINGS THE PRESIDENT’S LONGTIME PERSONAL PRESIDENT’S LONGTIME PERSONAL LAWYER MICHAEL COHEN MADE PUBLIC LAWYER MICHAEL COHEN MADE PUBLIC WAS A SHORT STACK OF FINANCIAL WAS A SHORT STACK OF FINANCIAL INFORMATION. INFORMATION. THESE ARE DOCUMENTS THAT WERE THESE ARE DOCUMENTS THAT WERE APPARENTLY AMONG THE MATERIALS APPARENTLY AMONG THE MATERIALS THAT WERE SEIZED FROM MICHAEL THAT WERE SEIZED FROM MICHAEL COHEN’S HOME AND OFFICE WHEN THE COHEN’S HOME AND OFFICE WHEN THE FBI RAIDED HIM LAST YEAR TO FBI RAIDED HIM LAST YEAR TO SERVE MULTIPLE SEARCH WARRANTS SERVE MULTIPLE SEARCH WARRANTS ON HIM. ON HIM. THESE DOCUMENTS WERE SEIZED BY THESE DOCUMENTS WERE SEIZED BY THE FBI. THE FBI. THEY HAVE SINCE BEEN RETURNED TO THEY HAVE SINCE BEEN RETURNED TO MR. COHEN BY THE GOVERNMENT. MR. COHEN BY THE GOVERNMENT. HE SAYS IN PREPARATION FOR HIS HE SAYS IN PREPARATION FOR HIS TESTIMONY. TESTIMONY. HE HE HE WENT THROUGH THOSE BOXES OF HE WENT THROUGH THOSE BOXES OF RETURNED MATERIAL AND HE WAS RETURNED MATERIAL AND HE WAS THUS ABLE TO HAND OVER, AMONG THUS ABLE TO HAND OVER, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THESE FINANCIAL OTHER THINGS, THESE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS PART OF HIS STATEMENTS AS PART OF HIS TESTIMONY YESTERDAY. TESTIMONY YESTERDAY. HE THEN YESTERDAY AT HIS HE THEN YESTERDAY AT HIS TESTIMONY EXPLAINED WHAT THESE TESTIMONY EXPLAINED WHAT THESE STATEMENTS WERE AND WHAT THEY STATEMENTS WERE AND WHAT THEY WERE USED FOR, AND HE DID IT IN WERE USED FOR, AND HE DID IT IN PRETTY BLUNT TERMS. PRETTY BLUNT TERMS. >> I AM GIVING TO THE COMMITTEE >> I AM GIVING TO THE COMMITTEE TODAY THREE YEARS OF MR. TRUMP’S TODAY THREE YEARS OF MR. TRUMP’S PERSONAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PERSONAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FROM 2011, 2012 AND 2013. FROM 2011, 2012 AND 2013. WHICH HE GAVE TO DEUTSCHE BANK WHICH HE GAVE TO DEUTSCHE BANK TO ENQUIRE ABOUT A LOAN TO BUY TO ENQUIRE ABOUT A LOAN TO BUY THE BUFFALO BILLS AND TO THE BUFFALO BILLS AND TO "FORBES." "FORBES." THESE ARE EXISTS 1-A, 1-B AND THESE ARE EXISTS 1-A, 1-B AND 1-C TO MY TESTIMONY. 1-C TO MY TESTIMONY. IT WAS MY EXPERIENCE THAT MR. IT WAS MY EXPERIENCE THAT MR. TRUMP INFLATED HIS TOTAL ASSETS TRUMP INFLATED HIS TOTAL ASSETS WHEN IT SERVED HIS PURPOSES. WHEN IT SERVED HIS PURPOSES. >> I’D LIKE TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT >> I’D LIKE TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT THE PRESIDENT’S ASSETS. THE PRESIDENT’S ASSETS. SINCE BY LAW THESE MUST BE SINCE BY LAW THESE MUST BE REPORTED ACCURATELY ON HIS REPORTED ACCURATELY ON HIS FEDERAL FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE, FEDERAL FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE, AND WHEN HE SUBMITS THEM FOR A AND WHEN HE SUBMITS THEM FOR A BANK LOAN. BANK LOAN. MR. COHEN, YOU SERVED FOR NEARLY MR. COHEN, YOU SERVED FOR NEARLY A DECADE AS THEN BUSINESSMAN A DECADE AS THEN BUSINESSMAN TRUMP’S PERSONAL ATTORNEY AND TRUMP’S PERSONAL ATTORNEY AND SO-CALLED FIXER. SO-CALLED FIXER. DID YOU HAVE -- DID YOU ALSO DID YOU HAVE -- DID YOU ALSO HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE PRESIDENT’S ASSETS AND HOW HE PRESIDENT’S ASSETS AND HOW HE VALUED THOSE ITEMS? VALUED THOSE ITEMS? >> YES. >> YES. >> TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, DID THE >> TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, DID THE PRESIDENT OR HIS COMPANY EVER PRESIDENT OR HIS COMPANY EVER INFLATE ASSETS OR REVENUES? INFLATE ASSETS OR REVENUES? >> YES. >> YES. >> AND WAS THAT DONE WITH THE >> AND WAS THAT DONE WITH THE PRESIDENT’S KNOWLEDGE OR PRESIDENT’S KNOWLEDGE OR DIRECTION? DIRECTION? >> EVERYTHING WAS DONE WITH THE >> EVERYTHING WAS DONE WITH THE KNOWLEDGE AND AT THE DIRECTION KNOWLEDGE AND AT THE DIRECTION OF MR. TRUMP. OF MR. TRUMP. >> YOU HAVE PROVIDED THE -- THIS >> YOU HAVE PROVIDED THE -- THIS COMMITTEE WITH COPIES OF THE COMMITTEE WITH COPIES OF THE PRESIDENT’S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PRESIDENT’S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OR PARTS OF THEM FROM 2011, 2012 OR PARTS OF THEM FROM 2011, 2012 AND ’13. AND ’13. CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY YOU HAD CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY YOU HAD THESE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THESE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND WHAT YOU USED THEM FOR? WHAT YOU USED THEM FOR? >> SO, THESE FINANCIAL >> SO, THESE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS WERE USED BY ME FOR STATEMENTS WERE USED BY ME FOR TWO PURPOSES. TWO PURPOSES. ONE WAS DISCUSSING WITH MEDIA, ONE WAS DISCUSSING WITH MEDIA, WHETHER IT WAS "FORBES" OR OTHER WHETHER IT WAS "FORBES" OR OTHER MAGAZINES, TO DEMONSTRATE MR. MAGAZINES, TO DEMONSTRATE MR. TRUMP’S SIGNIFICANT NET WORTH. TRUMP’S SIGNIFICANT NET WORTH. THAT WAS ONE FUNCTION. THAT WAS ONE FUNCTION. ANOTHER WAS WHEN WE WERE DEALING ANOTHER WAS WHEN WE WERE DEALING LATER ON WITH INSURANCE LATER ON WITH INSURANCE COMPANIES, WE WOULD PROVIDE THEM COMPANIES, WE WOULD PROVIDE THEM WITH THESE COPIES SO THAT THEY WITH THESE COPIES SO THAT THEY WOULD UNDERSTAND THAT THE WOULD UNDERSTAND THAT THE PREMIUM, WHICH IS BASED PREMIUM, WHICH IS BASED SOMETIMES UPON THE INDIVIDUAL’S SOMETIMES UPON THE INDIVIDUAL’S CAPABILITIES TO PAY, WOULD BE CAPABILITIES TO PAY, WOULD BE REDUCED. REDUCED. >> AND ALL OF THIS WAS DONE AT >> AND ALL OF THIS WAS DONE AT THE PRESIDENT’S DIRECTION AND THE PRESIDENT’S DIRECTION AND WITH HIS KNOWLEDGE? WITH HIS KNOWLEDGE? >> YES. >> YES. BECAUSE WHATEVER THE NUMBERS BECAUSE WHATEVER THE NUMBERS WOULD COME BACK TO BE, WE WOULD WOULD COME BACK TO BE, WE WOULD IMMEDIATELY REPORT IT BACK. IMMEDIATELY REPORT IT BACK. >> AND DID THIS INFORMATION >> AND DID THIS INFORMATION PROVIDED TO US INFLATE THE PROVIDED TO US INFLATE THE PRESIDENT’S ASSETS? PRESIDENT’S ASSETS? >> I BELIEVE THESE NUMBERS ARE >> I BELIEVE THESE NUMBERS ARE INFLATED. INFLATED. >> AND OF COURSE INVITING -- >> AND OF COURSE INVITING -- INFLATING ASSETS TO WIN A INFLATING ASSETS TO WIN A NEWSPAPER POLL TO BOOST YOUR EGO NEWSPAPER POLL TO BOOST YOUR EGO IS NOT A CRIME, BUT TO YOUR IS NOT A CRIME, BUT TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, DID THE PRESIDENT KNOWLEDGE, DID THE PRESIDENT EVER PROVIDE INFLATED ASSETS TO EVER PROVIDE INFLATED ASSETS TO A BANK IN ORDER TO HELP HIM A BANK IN ORDER TO HELP HIM OBTAIN A LOAN? OBTAIN A LOAN? >> YOU MAY ANSWER THAT QUESTION. >> YOU MAY ANSWER THAT QUESTION. >> THESE DOCUMENTS AND OTHERS >> THESE DOCUMENTS AND OTHERS WERE PROVIDED TO DEUTSCHE BANK WERE PROVIDED TO DEUTSCHE BANK ON ONE OCCASION WHERE I WAS WITH ON ONE OCCASION WHERE I WAS WITH THEM IN OUR ATTEMPT TO OBTAIN THEM IN OUR ATTEMPT TO OBTAIN MONEY SO THAT WE CAN PUT A BID MONEY SO THAT WE CAN PUT A BID ON THE BUFFALO BILLS. ON THE BUFFALO BILLS. >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR ANSWER. >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR ANSWER. >> TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, DID THE >> TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, DID THE PRESIDENT EVER PROVIDE INFLATED PRESIDENT EVER PROVIDE INFLATED ASSETS TO AN INSURANCE COMPANY? ASSETS TO AN INSURANCE COMPANY? >> YES. >> YES. >> WHO ELSE KNOWS THAT THE >> WHO ELSE KNOWS THAT THE PRESIDENT DID THIS? PRESIDENT DID THIS? >> ALLEN WEISSLEBERG, RON >> ALLEN WEISSLEBERG, RON LIEBERMAN AND MATTHEW CALAMARI. LIEBERMAN AND MATTHEW CALAMARI. >> TODAY IN THE WAKE OF THIS >> TODAY IN THE WAKE OF THIS TESTIMONY, THE DAILY BEAST WAS TESTIMONY, THE DAILY BEAST WAS FIRST TO REPORT THAT TRUMP CHIEF FIRST TO REPORT THAT TRUMP CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER ALLEN FINANCIAL OFFICER ALLEN WEISSLEBERG WILL NOW BE SUMMONED WEISSLEBERG WILL NOW BE SUMMONED TO TESTIFY TO CONGRESS. TO TESTIFY TO CONGRESS. THE DAILY BEAST WAS FIRST TO THE DAILY BEAST WAS FIRST TO REPORT HE WILL BE CALLED TO REPORT HE WILL BE CALLED TO TESTIFY BEFORE THE HOUSE TESTIFY BEFORE THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE. INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE. HOUSE OVERSIGHT CHAIRMAN ELIJAH HOUSE OVERSIGHT CHAIRMAN ELIJAH CUMMINGS TOLD REPORTERS TODAY CUMMINGS TOLD REPORTERS TODAY THAT IF YOU ARE LOOKING FOR A THAT IF YOU ARE LOOKING FOR A GUIDE AS TO WHO ELSE MAY BE GUIDE AS TO WHO ELSE MAY BE SUMMONED TO TESTIFY IN THE WAKE SUMMONED TO TESTIFY IN THE WAKE OF COHEN’S TESTIMONY, A PRETTY OF COHEN’S TESTIMONY, A PRETTY GOOD WAY TO ANTICIPATE THOSE GOOD WAY TO ANTICIPATE THOSE WITNESSES WOULD BE TO READ WITNESSES WOULD BE TO READ THROUGH THE TRANSCRIPT AND THROUGH THE TRANSCRIPT AND HIGHLIGHT EVERY NAME MENTIONED HIGHLIGHT EVERY NAME MENTIONED AS TO SOMEONE WHO COULD AS TO SOMEONE WHO COULD POTENTIALLY PROVIDE USEFUL POTENTIALLY PROVIDE USEFUL INFORMATION. INFORMATION. ONE OF THE PROVOCATIVE THINGS ONE OF THE PROVOCATIVE THINGS THAT MAY SIGNAL, ONE OR MORE OF THAT MAY SIGNAL, ONE OR MORE OF THE PRESIDENT’S ADULT CHILDREN THE PRESIDENT’S ADULT CHILDREN WILL BE INCLUDED IN THAT. WILL BE INCLUDED IN THAT. WE SHALL SEE. WE SHALL SEE. BEFORE ANYONE IS CALLED FOR BEFORE ANYONE IS CALLED FOR QUESTIONING IN THE WAKE OF QUESTIONING IN THE WAKE OF COHEN’S TESTIMONY. COHEN’S TESTIMONY. COHEN HAS ALREADY HANDED OVER COHEN HAS ALREADY HANDED OVER EXHIBITS AND DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND DOCUMENTS, INCLUDING THE CHECKS AND THE INCLUDING THE CHECKS AND THE TRUST THAT CONTROLS THE TRUST THAT CONTROLS THE PRESIDENT’S BUSINESSES. PRESIDENT’S BUSINESSES. REIMBURSING COHEN FOR PAYMENTS REIMBURSING COHEN FOR PAYMENTS HE MADE AHEAD OF THE ELECTION HE MADE AHEAD OF THE ELECTION AND FOR WHICH HE’S ABOUT TO GO AND FOR WHICH HE’S ABOUT TO GO TO PRISON BECAUSE THEY WERE TO PRISON BECAUSE THEY WERE ILLEGAL CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS ILLEGAL CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS MADE AS A FELONY CAMPAIGN MADE AS A FELONY CAMPAIGN FINANCE SCHEME, BUT THERE IS FINANCE SCHEME, BUT THERE IS ALSO THOSE 2011, 2012, 2013 ALSO THOSE 2011, 2012, 2013 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS WHICH COHEN FINANCIAL STATEMENTS WHICH COHEN TOLD CONGRESS HAD BEEN USED FOR TOLD CONGRESS HAD BEEN USED FOR MULTIPLE PURPOSES. MULTIPLE PURPOSES. HE SAID THOSE STATEMENTS WERE HE SAID THOSE STATEMENTS WERE USED TO TRY TO CONVINCE A USED TO TRY TO CONVINCE A MAGAZINE TO CALL PRESIDENT TRUMP MAGAZINE TO CALL PRESIDENT TRUMP A BILLIONAIRE. A BILLIONAIRE. TRY TO CONVINCE A MAGAZINE TO TRY TO CONVINCE A MAGAZINE TO GIVE THE PRESIDENT A HIGHER NET GIVE THE PRESIDENT A HIGHER NET WORTH THAN HE ACTUALLY HAD. WORTH THAN HE ACTUALLY HAD. AND, I MEAN, WHAT DO YOU DO WITH AND, I MEAN, WHAT DO YOU DO WITH THAT? THAT? YOU KNOW, PITIFUL, VAIN AND SAD YOU KNOW, PITIFUL, VAIN AND SAD ARE SOME OF THE LESSER DWARVES ARE SOME OF THE LESSER DWARVES IN THIS STORY, BUT, YOU KNOW, IN THIS STORY, BUT, YOU KNOW, LYING TO A MAGAZINE TO MAKE LYING TO A MAGAZINE TO MAKE YOURSELF LOOK RICHER THAN YOU YOURSELF LOOK RICHER THAN YOU ARE IS NOBODY’S IDEA OF A CRIME. ARE IS NOBODY’S IDEA OF A CRIME. THE SERIOUS ISSUE HERE IS THAT THE SERIOUS ISSUE HERE IS THAT COHEN TESTIFIED THAT THESE COHEN TESTIFIED THAT THESE FINANCIAL DOCUMENTS WERE ALSO FINANCIAL DOCUMENTS WERE ALSO SUBMITTED TO INSURANCE COMPANIES SUBMITTED TO INSURANCE COMPANIES TO TRY TO GET TRUMP’S PREMIUMS TO TRY TO GET TRUMP’S PREMIUMS REDUCED ON HIS INSURANCE REDUCED ON HIS INSURANCE POLICIES. POLICIES. AND SIGNIFICANTLY HE SAID THESE AND SIGNIFICANTLY HE SAID THESE FINANCIALS WERE SUBMITTED TO A FINANCIALS WERE SUBMITTED TO A BANK, SPECIFICALLY TO DEUTSCHE BANK, SPECIFICALLY TO DEUTSCHE BANK TO TRY TO GET HIMSELF A BANK TO TRY TO GET HIMSELF A CASH LOAN. CASH LOAN. WHAT MAY HAVE BEEN AS LARGE AS WHAT MAY HAVE BEEN AS LARGE AS $1 BILLION CASH LOAN TO TRY TO $1 BILLION CASH LOAN TO TRY TO BUY A PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALL BUY A PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALL TEAM. TEAM. AND NOW HERE IS WHY THIS IS A AND NOW HERE IS WHY THIS IS A CONUNDRUM FOR US AS A COUNTRY. CONUNDRUM FOR US AS A COUNTRY. BECAUSE GO BACK TO TRUMP’S BIG BECAUSE GO BACK TO TRUMP’S BIG HOUSE IN WEST CHESTER COUNTY, HOUSE IN WEST CHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK, RIGHT? NEW YORK, RIGHT? UP BY THE MAXIMUM SECURITY UP BY THE MAXIMUM SECURITY WOMEN’S PRISON. WOMEN’S PRISON. PUT UP THAT GRAPH AGAIN SHOWING PUT UP THAT GRAPH AGAIN SHOWING THE VALUE OF THAT HOUSE. THE VALUE OF THAT HOUSE. AGAIN, THESE FIGURES ARE ALL AGAIN, THESE FIGURES ARE ALL BASED ON PUBLIC DOCUMENTS. BASED ON PUBLIC DOCUMENTS. THE PURCHASE PRICE WHEN TRUMP THE PURCHASE PRICE WHEN TRUMP BOUGHT IT, PUBLIC ASSESSMENTS OF BOUGHT IT, PUBLIC ASSESSMENTS OF THE PROPERTY OVER TIME, TRUMP’S THE PROPERTY OVER TIME, TRUMP’S OWN LEGAL DECLARATION AND HIS OWN LEGAL DECLARATION AND HIS ETHICS FILING LAST YEAR ABOUT ETHICS FILING LAST YEAR ABOUT THE VALUE OF THAT PROPERTY. THE VALUE OF THAT PROPERTY. REMEMBER, HE GAVE THAT RANGE, 25 REMEMBER, HE GAVE THAT RANGE, 25 TO 50. TO 50. AND AGAIN, OVER TIME YOU CAN SEE AND AGAIN, OVER TIME YOU CAN SEE THAT PROPERTY APPRECIATESING IN THAT PROPERTY APPRECIATESING IN VALUE, STARTING AT 7.5LE IN UP VALUE, STARTING AT 7.5LE IN UP TO 19 AND 20 MILLION IN 2013, TO 19 AND 20 MILLION IN 2013, 2017, BY LAST YEAR UP TO THIS 2017, BY LAST YEAR UP TO THIS RANGE OF 25 TO 50 MILLION. RANGE OF 25 TO 50 MILLION. OKAY. OKAY. WELL, WHAT MICHAEL COHEN GAVE WELL, WHAT MICHAEL COHEN GAVE CONGRESS YESTERDAY WAS A SET OF CONGRESS YESTERDAY WAS A SET OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FROM FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THE TRUMP PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION, INCLUDING ONE ORGANIZATION, INCLUDING ONE STATEMENT FROM 2012, WHICH STATEMENT FROM 2012, WHICH MICHAEL COHEN SAID WAS USED TO MICHAEL COHEN SAID WAS USED TO APPLY TO A BANK TO TRY TO GET A APPLY TO A BANK TO TRY TO GET A LARGE CASH LOAN. LARGE CASH LOAN. ON THAT 2012 FIREARMNANCIAL ON THAT 2012 FIREARMNANCIAL DECLARATION, THAT SAME PROPERTY DECLARATION, THAT SAME PROPERTY IN WEST CHESTER COUNTY, WHICH IN WEST CHESTER COUNTY, WHICH HAS BEEN VALUED OVER TIME $7.5 HAS BEEN VALUED OVER TIME $7.5 MILLION, $19 MILLION, $20 MILLION, $19 MILLION, $20 MILLION, MAYBE THAT RANGE OF 25 MILLION, MAYBE THAT RANGE OF 25 TO 50 BEEN IN HIS 2012 FINANCIAL TO 50 BEEN IN HIS 2012 FINANCIAL STATEMENT WHICH HE USED TO TRY STATEMENT WHICH HE USED TO TRY TO GET A BIG CASH LOAN FROM A TO GET A BIG CASH LOAN FROM A BANK, PRESIDENT TRUMP VALUED BANK, PRESIDENT TRUMP VALUED THAT SAME PROPERTY AT $291 THAT SAME PROPERTY AT $291 MILLION. MILLION. REALLY? REALLY? THAT’S HILARIOUS. THAT’S HILARIOUS. I MEAN, WHAT COULD POSSIBLY I MEAN, WHAT COULD POSSIBLY EXPLAIN, WHAT, THEY THOUGHT THEY EXPLAIN, WHAT, THEY THOUGHT THEY HAD DISCOVERED AN AMAZING HAD DISCOVERED AN AMAZING DIAMOND MINE IN 2012 BUT BY 2013 DIAMOND MINE IN 2012 BUT BY 2013 THEY REALIZED SOMEONE HAD THEY REALIZED SOMEONE HAD SPILLED A COOLER FULL OF ICE SPILLED A COOLER FULL OF ICE CUBES AND THOSE WEREN’T DIAMONDS CUBES AND THOSE WEREN’T DIAMONDS AFTER ALL? AFTER ALL? HOW DO YOU GO FROM $291 MILLION HOW DO YOU GO FROM $291 MILLION ONE YEAR AND THEN THE NEXT YEAR ONE YEAR AND THEN THE NEXT YEAR YOUR PROPERTY DROPS IN VALUE BY YOUR PROPERTY DROPS IN VALUE BY $272 MILLION? $272 MILLION? BACK TO WHAT IT USED TO BE. BACK TO WHAT IT USED TO BE. I MEAN, EVEN IF YOU JUST WANT TO I MEAN, EVEN IF YOU JUST WANT TO COMPARE APPLES TO APPLES, RIGHT, COMPARE APPLES TO APPLES, RIGHT, WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP’S OWN WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP’S OWN ASSESSMENT OF THE VALUE OF THIS ASSESSMENT OF THE VALUE OF THIS PROPERTY, IT LITERALLY WENT IN PROPERTY, IT LITERALLY WENT IN 2012 FROM $291 MILLION TO LAST 2012 FROM $291 MILLION TO LAST YEAR 25 TO 50. YEAR 25 TO 50. I MEAN, THAT’S JUST HIS OWN I MEAN, THAT’S JUST HIS OWN ASSESSMENT OF THE VALUE OF THAT ASSESSMENT OF THE VALUE OF THAT PROPERTY. PROPERTY. AND THAT’S RIDICULOUS. AND THAT’S RIDICULOUS. HE’S GOING FROM $300 MILLION TO HE’S GOING FROM $300 MILLION TO MAYBE $50 MILLION? MAYBE $50 MILLION? WHEN NOTHING CHANGE AT THE WHEN NOTHING CHANGE AT THE PROPERTY? PROPERTY? AND IF THAT WAS JUST ABOUT AND IF THAT WAS JUST ABOUT MAKING HIMSELF APPEAR SUPER RICH MAKING HIMSELF APPEAR SUPER RICH FOR "FORBES" MAGAZINE THAT WOULD FOR "FORBES" MAGAZINE THAT WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, VAIN AND SMALL AND BE, YOU KNOW, VAIN AND SMALL AND LYING AND SAD, BUT THAT IS NOT LYING AND SAD, BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT MICHAEL COHEN TESTIFIED AS WHAT MICHAEL COHEN TESTIFIED AS TO WHAT THESE FINANCIALS WERE TO WHAT THESE FINANCIALS WERE USED FOR. USED FOR. >> MR. TRUMP’S PERSONAL >> MR. TRUMP’S PERSONAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FROM 2011, FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FROM 2011, 2012 AND 2013, WHICH HE GAVE TO 2012 AND 2013, WHICH HE GAVE TO DEUTSCHE BANK TO INQUIRE ABOUT A DEUTSCHE BANK TO INQUIRE ABOUT A LOAN. LOAN. WHEN WE WERE DEALING LATER ON WHEN WE WERE DEALING LATER ON WITH INSURANCE COMPANIES, WE WITH INSURANCE COMPANIES, WE WOULD PROVIDE THEM WITH THESE WOULD PROVIDE THEM WITH THESE COPIES. COPIES. THESE DOCUMENTS AND OTHERS WERE THESE DOCUMENTS AND OTHERS WERE PROVIDED TO DEUTSCHE BANK ON ONE PROVIDED TO DEUTSCHE BANK ON ONE OCCASION WHERE I WAS WITH THEM OCCASION WHERE I WAS WITH THEM IN OUR ATTEMPT TO OBTAIN MONEY. IN OUR ATTEMPT TO OBTAIN MONEY. >> NOW, I AM NOT A LAWYER. >> NOW, I AM NOT A LAWYER. STATISTICALLY SPEAKING, NEITHER STATISTICALLY SPEAKING, NEITHER ARE YOU, I’M GUESSING. ARE YOU, I’M GUESSING. BUT JUST EVEN AS PEOPLE WHO ARE BUT JUST EVEN AS PEOPLE WHO ARE OCCASIONALLY WATCHING THE NEWS OCCASIONALLY WATCHING THE NEWS DURING THE DONALD TRUMP DURING THE DONALD TRUMP PRESIDENCY, WE ALL CAN RECOGNIZE PRESIDENCY, WE ALL CAN RECOGNIZE THAT WHAT’S BEING DESCRIBED HERE THAT WHAT’S BEING DESCRIBED HERE IS POTENTIALLY A FELONY, RIGHT? IS POTENTIALLY A FELONY, RIGHT? FOR ONE THING, WE’VE SEEN THE FOR ONE THING, WE’VE SEEN THE PRESIDENT’S CAMPAIGN CHAIRMAN PRESIDENT’S CAMPAIGN CHAIRMAN CONVICTED OF THIS AS A FELONY. CONVICTED OF THIS AS A FELONY. REMEMBER THE FINANCIAL REMEMBER THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTION SCHEME IN THE PAUL INSTITUTION SCHEME IN THE PAUL MANAFORT INDICTMENT? MANAFORT INDICTMENT? YOU KNOW, WHEN HE WAS STILL YOU KNOW, WHEN HE WAS STILL BEING CHARGED WITH MANAFORT AND BEING CHARGED WITH MANAFORT AND GATES, REMEMBER THAT? GATES, REMEMBER THAT? MANAFORT, GATES AND OTHERS MANAFORT, GATES AND OTHERS ATTEMPTED TO EXECUTE A SCHEME ATTEMPTED TO EXECUTE A SCHEME AND ART FIRST TO DEFRAUD AND AND ART FIRST TO DEFRAUD AND OBTAIN MONEY AND PROPERTY BY OBTAIN MONEY AND PROPERTY BY FALSE PRETENSES, REPUTATIONS AND FALSE PRETENSES, REPUTATIONS AND PROMISES FROM BANKS AND OTHER PROMISES FROM BANKS AND OTHER FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS. FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS. AS PART OF THE SCHEME, THEY AS PART OF THE SCHEME, THEY REPEATEDLY PROVIDED AND CAUSED REPEATEDLY PROVIDED AND CAUSED TO BE PROVIDED FALSE INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED FALSE INFORMATION TO BANKS AND OTHER LENDERS. TO BANKS AND OTHER LENDERS. THEY DEFRAUDED THE LENDERS IN THEY DEFRAUDED THE LENDERS IN VARIOUS WAYS, INCLUDING LYING VARIOUS WAYS, INCLUDING LYING ABOUT MANAFORT AND HIS COMPANY’S ABOUT MANAFORT AND HIS COMPANY’S INCOME, LYING ABOUT THEIR DEBT, INCOME, LYING ABOUT THEIR DEBT, THEY PROVIDED DOCTORED FINANCIAL THEY PROVIDED DOCTORED FINANCIAL DOCUMENTS AT A TIME WHEN DOCUMENTS AT A TIME WHEN MANAFORT’S FINANCIAL STATEMENT MANAFORT’S FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE SHOWN LESS THAN SHOULD HAVE SHOWN LESS THAN $400,000 IN NET INCOME, THEY $400,000 IN NET INCOME, THEY INSTEAD TOLD THE BANK HE HAD INSTEAD TOLD THE BANK HE HAD $4.5 MILLION IN NET INCOME. $4.5 MILLION IN NET INCOME. LYING ABOUT THAT SO THAT HE LYING ABOUT THAT SO THAT HE COULD GET A LOAN. COULD GET A LOAN. AND LYING TO THE BANK SO THAT HE AND LYING TO THE BANK SO THAT HE COULD GET A LOAN. COULD GET A LOAN. LYING TO THE BANK ABOUT HIS REAL LYING TO THE BANK ABOUT HIS REAL FINANCIAL SITUATION SO HE COULD FINANCIAL SITUATION SO HE COULD GET A LOAN. GET A LOAN. THAT’S PART OF THE REASON PAUL THAT’S PART OF THE REASON PAUL MANAFORT IS GOING TO JAIL. MANAFORT IS GOING TO JAIL. IT’S ALSO PART OF THE REASON IT’S ALSO PART OF THE REASON MICHAEL COHEN IS ABOUT TO GO TO MICHAEL COHEN IS ABOUT TO GO TO JAIL, RIGHT? JAIL, RIGHT? REMEMBER THE CRIMINAL REMEMBER THE CRIMINAL INFORMATION OUTLINING MICHAEL INFORMATION OUTLINING MICHAEL COHEN’S CRIMES? COHEN’S CRIMES? MICHAEL COHEN, THE DEFENDANT, MICHAEL COHEN, THE DEFENDANT, WILLFULLY AND KNOWINGLY MADE WILLFULLY AND KNOWINGLY MADE FALSE STATEMENTS FOR THE PURPOSE FALSE STATEMENTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF INFLUENCING THE ACTION OF A OF INFLUENCING THE ACTION OF A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION IN FINANCIAL INSTITUTION IN CONNECTION WITH AN APPLICATION CONNECTION WITH AN APPLICATION FOR A HOME EQUITY LINE OF FOR A HOME EQUITY LINE OF CREDIT, WHICH IS A LOAN. CREDIT, WHICH IS A LOAN. QUOTE, COHEN MADE FALSE QUOTE, COHEN MADE FALSE STATEMENTS TO BANK THREE ABOUT STATEMENTS TO BANK THREE ABOUT HIS TRUE FINANCIAL CONDITION. HIS TRUE FINANCIAL CONDITION. REMEMBER THE HEARING THE DAY REMEMBER THE HEARING THE DAY THAT COHEN IS THERE GIVING HIS THAT COHEN IS THERE GIVING HIS ALLOCUTION IN COURT. ALLOCUTION IN COURT. THE JUDGE INTERRUPTS MICHAEL THE JUDGE INTERRUPTS MICHAEL COHEN WHILE HE’S PLEADING GUILTY COHEN WHILE HE’S PLEADING GUILTY AND EXPLAINING ALL HIS CRIMES. AND EXPLAINING ALL HIS CRIMES. THE JUDGE MAKES SURE HE THE JUDGE MAKES SURE HE UNDERSTANDS HE’S PLEADING GUILTY UNDERSTANDS HE’S PLEADING GUILTY TO BANK FRAUD AND WHY. TO BANK FRAUD AND WHY. THE JUDGE SAYS, QUOTE, WELL, YOU THE JUDGE SAYS, QUOTE, WELL, YOU KNEW IT WAS FALSE, THAT IT KNEW IT WAS FALSE, THAT IT FALSELY DEPICTED YOUR FINANCIAL FALSELY DEPICTED YOUR FINANCIAL CONDITION, DID YOU NOT? CONDITION, DID YOU NOT? THE DEFENDANT, MICHAEL COHEN, THE DEFENDANT, MICHAEL COHEN, YES, YOUR HONOR. YES, YOUR HONOR. THE JUDGE, AND YOU OMITTED THOSE THE JUDGE, AND YOU OMITTED THOSE STATEMENTS, DID YOU NOT, FOR THE STATEMENTS, DID YOU NOT, FOR THE PURPOSE OF INFLUENCING ACTION BY PURPOSE OF INFLUENCING ACTION BY A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION? A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION? THE DEFENDANT, MICHAEL COHEN, THE DEFENDANT, MICHAEL COHEN, YES, YOUR HONOR, YES, I YES, YOUR HONOR, YES, I UNDERSTAND THIS IS FELONY BANK UNDERSTAND THIS IS FELONY BANK FRAUD TO LIE TO THE BANK FOR THE FRAUD TO LIE TO THE BANK FOR THE PURPOSE OF GETTING A LOAN, TO PURPOSE OF GETTING A LOAN, TO LIE TO THEM ABOUT MY REAL LIE TO THEM ABOUT MY REAL FINANCIAL SITUATION. FINANCIAL SITUATION. EVEN IF ALL YOU’VE BEEN DOING EVEN IF ALL YOU’VE BEEN DOING FOR THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS IS FOR THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS IS OCCASIONALLY WATCHING THE NEWS OCCASIONALLY WATCHING THE NEWS ABOUT THIS ADMINISTRATION, WHICH ABOUT THIS ADMINISTRATION, WHICH MEANS YOU’VE OCCASIONALLY BEEN MEANS YOU’VE OCCASIONALLY BEEN WATCHING PEOPLE CONNECTED TO THE WATCHING PEOPLE CONNECTED TO THE PRESIDENT GO TO PRISON FOR PRESIDENT GO TO PRISON FOR FELONIES. FELONIES. ONE OF THE THINGS WE’VE BECOME ONE OF THE THINGS WE’VE BECOME INTIMATELY AWARE OF IS THE TYPES INTIMATELY AWARE OF IS THE TYPES OF FINANCIAL CRIMES FOR WHICH OF FINANCIAL CRIMES FOR WHICH PEOPLE GO TO PRISON SORT OF ON PEOPLE GO TO PRISON SORT OF ON THE REGULAR. THE REGULAR. NOW WHAT WE HAVE AS A COUNTRY IS NOW WHAT WE HAVE AS A COUNTRY IS WE’VE GOT THIS TESTIMONY UNDER WE’VE GOT THIS TESTIMONY UNDER OATH OF THE PRESIDENT’S LONGTIME OATH OF THE PRESIDENT’S LONGTIME PERSONAL LAWYER, WE’VE GOT HIS PERSONAL LAWYER, WE’VE GOT HIS TESTIMONY AND WE’VE GOT SOME TESTIMONY AND WE’VE GOT SOME DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO BACK IT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO BACK IT UP, WHICH WOULD SEEM TO INDICATE UP, WHICH WOULD SEEM TO INDICATE THAT THE PRESIDENT POTENTIALLY THAT THE PRESIDENT POTENTIALLY HAS DONE THE SAME KIND OF BANK HAS DONE THE SAME KIND OF BANK FRAUD THAT HIS CAMPAIGN CHAIR FRAUD THAT HIS CAMPAIGN CHAIR AND HIS LAWYER ARE ALREADY GOING AND HIS LAWYER ARE ALREADY GOING TO PRISON FOR. TO PRISON FOR. I MEAN, WHAT COHEN TESTIFIED TO I MEAN, WHAT COHEN TESTIFIED TO AND WHAT THESE DOCUMENTS SHOWED AND WHAT THESE DOCUMENTS SHOWED APPEARS TO BE THE WILD APPEARS TO BE THE WILD OVERINFLATION OF THE VALUE OF AN OVERINFLATION OF THE VALUE OF AN ASSET. ASSET. RIGHT? RIGHT? HIS $7 MILLION HOUSE IS HOW NOW HIS $7 MILLION HOUSE IS HOW NOW A $291 MILLION HOUSE. A $291 MILLION HOUSE. ACCORDING TO A FINANCIAL ACCORDING TO A FINANCIAL DOCUMENT HE SUBMITTED TO A BANK DOCUMENT HE SUBMITTED TO A BANK FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRYING TO GET FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRYING TO GET A LOAN FROM THAT BANK. A LOAN FROM THAT BANK. ACCORDING TO MICHAEL COHEN, THIS ACCORDING TO MICHAEL COHEN, THIS SAME INFORMATION HAS BEEN SAME INFORMATION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO AT LEAST ONE SUBMITTED TO AT LEAST ONE INSURANCE COMPANY AS WELL FOR INSURANCE COMPANY AS WELL FOR THE PURPOSE OF REDUCING HIS THE PURPOSE OF REDUCING HIS INSURANCE PREMIUMS. INSURANCE PREMIUMS. LYING TO A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION LYING TO A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF INFLUENCING FOR THE PURPOSE OF INFLUENCING THAT INSTITUTION’S BEHAVIOR CAN THAT INSTITUTION’S BEHAVIOR CAN BE FELONY FINANCIAL FRAUD. BE FELONY FINANCIAL FRAUD. "THE WASHINGTON POST" TODAY PUT "THE WASHINGTON POST" TODAY PUT THIS SET OF FACTS TO A FORMER -- THIS SET OF FACTS TO A FORMER -- A COMMISSIONER OF THE SECURITIES A COMMISSIONER OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION WHO IS AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION WHO IS NOW A LAW PROFESSOR AT STANFORD. NOW A LAW PROFESSOR AT STANFORD. HE TOLD THEM, QUOTE, MICHAEL HE TOLD THEM, QUOTE, MICHAEL COHEN’S TESTIMONY OPENS ANOTHER COHEN’S TESTIMONY OPENS ANOTHER LINE OF INQUIRY INTO BLANK LINE OF INQUIRY INTO BLANK FRAUD. FRAUD. AND, YOU KNOW, THE DEVIL’S IN AND, YOU KNOW, THE DEVIL’S IN THE DETAILS AND CONTEXT IS THE DETAILS AND CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING. EVERYTHING. "THE POST" REPORTS THAT IN ONE "THE POST" REPORTS THAT IN ONE COPY OF THIS SAME 2012 FINANCIAL COPY OF THIS SAME 2012 FINANCIAL STATEMENT THAT THEY OBTAINED STATEMENT THAT THEY OBTAINED INDEPENDENTLY, TRUMP’S INDEPENDENTLY, TRUMP’S ACCOUNTANTS APPENDED A LONG ACCOUNTANTS APPENDED A LONG DISCLAIMER TO THE FINANCIAL DISCLAIMER TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT, SO MAYBE THAT’S STATEMENT, SO MAYBE THAT’S IMPORTANT. IMPORTANT. DISCLAIMER OR NOT, IF THIS WAS DISCLAIMER OR NOT, IF THIS WAS POTENTIALLY GOING TO BE POTENTIALLY GOING TO BE INVESTIGATED AS POSSIBLY FELONY INVESTIGATED AS POSSIBLY FELONY BANK FRAUD, YOU’D NEED TO SEE BANK FRAUD, YOU’D NEED TO SEE WHAT THE BANK ACTUALLY RECEIVED WHAT THE BANK ACTUALLY RECEIVED FROM TRUMP, HOW THESE MATERIALS FROM TRUMP, HOW THESE MATERIALS WERE PRESENTED BY TRUMP AND HIS WERE PRESENTED BY TRUMP AND HIS BUSINESS AND FOR WHAT PURPOSE. BUSINESS AND FOR WHAT PURPOSE. AS THE FORMER S.E.C. AS THE FORMER S.E.C. COMMISSIONER PUT IT TO "THE COMMISSIONER PUT IT TO "THE POST" TODAY, QUOTE, TO DETERMINE POST" TODAY, QUOTE, TO DETERMINE WHETHER FRAUD OCCURRED REQUIRES WHETHER FRAUD OCCURRED REQUIRES A CAREFUL LOOK AT THE TEXT OF A CAREFUL LOOK AT THE TEXT OF THE STATUTES BUT ALSO AT THE THE STATUTES BUT ALSO AT THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED TO THE BANK. DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED TO THE BANK. THE QUESTION WAS WHETHER THERE THE QUESTION WAS WHETHER THERE WAS A KNOWING ATTEMPT TO DEFRAUD WAS A KNOWING ATTEMPT TO DEFRAUD THE BANK. THE BANK. WELL, THE BANK IN QUESTION HERE, WELL, THE BANK IN QUESTION HERE, ACCORDING TO MICHAEL COHEN, IS ACCORDING TO MICHAEL COHEN, IS DEUTSCHE BANK. DEUTSCHE BANK. DID PRESIDENT TRUMP TRY TO GET A DID PRESIDENT TRUMP TRY TO GET A LOAN OUT OF DEUTSCHE BANK BY LOAN OUT OF DEUTSCHE BANK BY RANDOMLY ADDING MORE THAN RANDOMLY ADDING MORE THAN $250,000 MILLION TO THE VALUE OF $250,000 MILLION TO THE VALUE OF HIS HOUSE UP BY THE PRISON, HIS HOUSE UP BY THE PRISON, PRETENDING IT WAS ON, LIKE, PRETENDING IT WAS ON, LIKE, HILLS MADE OF GOLD OR SITTING ON HILLS MADE OF GOLD OR SITTING ON A SECRET DIAMOND MINE THAT ONE A SECRET DIAMOND MINE THAT ONE YEAR? YEAR? I MEAN, PUBLICLY WE DON’T KNOW. I MEAN, PUBLICLY WE DON’T KNOW. THERE WERE REPORTS DECEMBER OF THERE WERE REPORTS DECEMBER OF 2017 THAT FEDERAL PROSECUTORS 2017 THAT FEDERAL PROSECUTORS FROM THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S FROM THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE HAD SUBPOENAED DEUTSCHE OFFICE HAD SUBPOENAED DEUTSCHE BANK FOR DOCUMENTS DETAILING THE BANK FOR DOCUMENTS DETAILING THE BANK’S RELATIONSHIP WITH BANK’S RELATIONSHIP WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP. PRESIDENT TRUMP. THE REPORTED SUBPOENA OF THAT THE REPORTED SUBPOENA OF THAT BANK WAS APPARENTLY OCCASIONED BANK WAS APPARENTLY OCCASIONED ONE OF THE GREAT REPORTED ONE OF THE GREAT REPORTED PRESIDENTIAL FREAK OUTS PRESIDENTIAL FREAK OUTS CONCERNING THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S CONCERNING THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE, INCLUDING WHAT WAS OFFICE, INCLUDING WHAT WAS REPORTED BY "THE NEW YORK TIMES" REPORTED BY "THE NEW YORK TIMES" TO BE THE FIRST CONCERTED EFFORT TO BE THE FIRST CONCERTED EFFORT BY PRESIDENT TRUMP TO FIRE BY PRESIDENT TRUMP TO FIRE SPECIAL COUNSEL ROBERT MUELLER. SPECIAL COUNSEL ROBERT MUELLER. SPECIFICALLY IN RESPONSE TO SPECIFICALLY IN RESPONSE TO THOSE REPORTS THAT MUELLER’S THOSE REPORTS THAT MUELLER’S OFFICE HAD SUBPOENAED DEUTSCHE OFFICE HAD SUBPOENAED DEUTSCHE BANK. BANK. NOW, THAT REPORTING ABOUT NOW, THAT REPORTING ABOUT MUELLER SUBPOENAING DEUTSCHE MUELLER SUBPOENAING DEUTSCHE BANK WAS LATER WALKED BACK. BANK WAS LATER WALKED BACK. IT’S STILL NOT CLEAR WHETHER OR IT’S STILL NOT CLEAR WHETHER OR NOT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE NOT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE DID SUBPOENA DEUTSCHE BANK FOR DID SUBPOENA DEUTSCHE BANK FOR THEIR TRUMP-RELATED RECORDS. THEIR TRUMP-RELATED RECORDS. WE KNOW THAT DEMOCRATS IN WE KNOW THAT DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS TRIED TO ELICIT CONGRESS TRIED TO ELICIT INFORMATION FROM THAT BANK ABOUT INFORMATION FROM THAT BANK ABOUT THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH TRUMP THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH TRUMP OVER THE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS. OVER THE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS. REPUBLICANS AT THE TIME WERE IN REPUBLICANS AT THE TIME WERE IN CONTROL OF BOTH HOUSES OF CONTROL OF BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS. CONGRESS. THEY WERE NOT INTERESTED IN THEY WERE NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THOSE LINES OF INQUIRY PURSUING THOSE LINES OF INQUIRY THEMSELVES, AND DEUTSCHE BANK THEMSELVES, AND DEUTSCHE BANK THEREFORE DIDN’T HAVE TO RESPOND THEREFORE DIDN’T HAVE TO RESPOND TO ANY OF THOSE REQUESTS. TO ANY OF THOSE REQUESTS. NOW, THOUGH, THE DEMOCRATS NOW, THOUGH, THE DEMOCRATS CONTROL THE HOUSE, AND TODAY THE CONTROL THE HOUSE, AND TODAY THE CHAIR OF THE FINANCIAL SERVICES CHAIR OF THE FINANCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE IN THE HOUSE, COMMITTEE IN THE HOUSE, CONGRESSWOMAN MAXINE WATERS, CONGRESSWOMAN MAXINE WATERS, TOLD POLITICO.COM THAT DEUTSCHE TOLD POLITICO.COM THAT DEUTSCHE BANK IS NOW COOPERATING FOR THE BANK IS NOW COOPERATING FOR THE FIRST TIME. FIRST TIME. SHE SAID, QUOTE, THEY ARE JUST SHE SAID, QUOTE, THEY ARE JUST NOW BEING COOPERATIVE. NOW BEING COOPERATIVE. THEY HAD NOT BEEN. THEY HAD NOT BEEN. BUT SHE SAYS NOW THEY ARE BEING BUT SHE SAYS NOW THEY ARE BEING COOPERATIVE AND THEY ARE HANDING COOPERATIVE AND THEY ARE HANDING OVER DOCUMENTS AT THE REQUEST OF OVER DOCUMENTS AT THE REQUEST OF HER COMMITTEE. HER COMMITTEE. SO HERE’S MY QUESTION. SO HERE’S MY QUESTION. I MEAN, THIS THING INVOLVING I MEAN, THIS THING INVOLVING THIS PROPERTY IN WEST CHESTER THIS PROPERTY IN WEST CHESTER COUNT COZY, THE TESTIMONY BY COUNT COZY, THE TESTIMONY BY COHEN AND THE FINANCIAL COHEN AND THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS CONCERNING THE STATEMENTS CONCERNING THE PROPERTY AND WHAT HE SAYS THOSE PROPERTY AND WHAT HE SAYS THOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS WERE USED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS WERE USED FOR. FOR. THIS INEXPLICABLE $200-PLUS THIS INEXPLICABLE $200-PLUS MILLION THAT POPS UP ON THAT MILLION THAT POPS UP ON THAT FINANCIAL STATEMENT, THAT FINANCIAL STATEMENT, THAT FINANCIAL STATEMENT THAT HE SAYS FINANCIAL STATEMENT THAT HE SAYS WAS TRIED TO USE TO GET A LOAN WAS TRIED TO USE TO GET A LOAN AND TRY TO AFFECT TRUMP’S AND TRY TO AFFECT TRUMP’S INSURANCE RATES. INSURANCE RATES. I MEAN THIS IS BASICALLY JUST I MEAN THIS IS BASICALLY JUST ONE LITTLE CASE STUDY OF THE ONE LITTLE CASE STUDY OF THE POTENTIAL CRIMINAL EXPOSURE WE POTENTIAL CRIMINAL EXPOSURE WE ARE NOW COTTONING TO WHEN IT ARE NOW COTTONING TO WHEN IT COMES TO THIS PRESIDENT. COMES TO THIS PRESIDENT. I MEAN, THERE’S LOTS OF THINGS I MEAN, THERE’S LOTS OF THINGS THAT WE COULD HAVE CHOSEN AND THAT WE COULD HAVE CHOSEN AND TOLD YOU A STORY LIKE THIS ABOUT TOLD YOU A STORY LIKE THIS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT, RIGHT? THE PRESIDENT, RIGHT? LET’S JUST PICK THIS ONE ABOUT LET’S JUST PICK THIS ONE ABOUT THE VALUATION OF THIS PROPERTY THE VALUATION OF THIS PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSES OF ILLUSTRATING FOR THE PURPOSES OF ILLUSTRATING THE QUESTION AND THE CONUNDRUM THE QUESTION AND THE CONUNDRUM WE ARE NOW IN AS AMERICANS. WE ARE NOW IN AS AMERICANS. BECAUSE, RIGHT, THESE FINANCIAL BECAUSE, RIGHT, THESE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS HAVE NOW BEEN HANDED STATEMENTS HAVE NOW BEEN HANDED OVER BY COHEN TO CONGRESS. OVER BY COHEN TO CONGRESS. THEY’RE NOW IN THE HANDS OF THEY’RE NOW IN THE HANDS OF CONGRESS. CONGRESS. WE BELIEVE THESE FINANCIAL WE BELIEVE THESE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN STATEMENTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN THROUGH THE HANDS OF THE FBI AND THROUGH THE HANDS OF THE FBI AND THEREFORE THEY HAVE BEEN SEEN BY THEREFORE THEY HAVE BEEN SEEN BY FEDERAL PROSECUTORS. FEDERAL PROSECUTORS. WE’VE ALSO NOW GOT COHEN’S BLUNT WE’VE ALSO NOW GOT COHEN’S BLUNT UNDER OCEAN ASSERTIONS AS TO UNDER OCEAN ASSERTIONS AS TO WHAT THOSE FINANCIAL DOCUMENTS WHAT THOSE FINANCIAL DOCUMENTS WERE USED FOR. WERE USED FOR. IF DEUTSCHE BANK IS NOW HANDING IF DEUTSCHE BANK IS NOW HANDING OVER DOCUMENTS TO THE OVER DOCUMENTS TO THE DEMOCRATIC-CONTROLLED DEMOCRATIC-CONTROLLED CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES, THEN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES, THEN PRESUMABLY WE WILL SOON KNOW IF PRESUMABLY WE WILL SOON KNOW IF MICHAEL COHEN WAS RIGHT IN HIS MICHAEL COHEN WAS RIGHT IN HIS TESTIMONY YESTERDAY. TESTIMONY YESTERDAY. AND IF THESE DOCUMENTS WERE IN AND IF THESE DOCUMENTS WERE IN FACT USED IN A LOAN APPLICATION FACT USED IN A LOAN APPLICATION TO DEUTSCHE BANK OR IF THEY WERE TO DEUTSCHE BANK OR IF THEY WERE USED WITH INSURANCE COMPANIES OR USED WITH INSURANCE COMPANIES OR IF THEY WERE USED WITH ANY OTHER IF THEY WERE USED WITH ANY OTHER FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS. FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS. I MEAN, CLEARLY THERE APPEARS TO I MEAN, CLEARLY THERE APPEARS TO BE SOMETHING WRONG WITH THAT BE SOMETHING WRONG WITH THAT 2012 FINANCIAL STATEMENT. 2012 FINANCIAL STATEMENT. CLEARLY THAT IS NOT A $291 CLEARLY THAT IS NOT A $291 MILLION PROPERTY. MILLION PROPERTY. AS NICE AS IT MAY SEEM. AS NICE AS IT MAY SEEM. I SAY THAT IT’S NOT A $291 I SAY THAT IT’S NOT A $291 MILLION PROPERTY NOT BECAUSE I MILLION PROPERTY NOT BECAUSE I CAN TELL AT A GLANCE WHAT A CAN TELL AT A GLANCE WHAT A PROPERTY IS WORTH. PROPERTY IS WORTH. I SAY THAT BECAUSE THAT’S WHAT I SAY THAT BECAUSE THAT’S WHAT DONALD TRUMP SAYS. DONALD TRUMP SAYS. TRUMP DOESN’T EVEN CLAIM IT’S A TRUMP DOESN’T EVEN CLAIM IT’S A $291 MILLION PROPERTY. $291 MILLION PROPERTY. NOT WHEN HE KNOWS PEOPLE ARE NOT WHEN HE KNOWS PEOPLE ARE WATCHING. WATCHING. WHEN HE FILED HI FINANCIAL WHEN HE FILED HI FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE FORM AS A PUBLIC DISCLOSURE FORM AS A PUBLIC OFFICIAL IN 2018, HE SAID IT WAS OFFICIAL IN 2018, HE SAID IT WAS WORTH 25 TO 50. WORTH 25 TO 50. WELL, THEN HOW IS IT WORTH 291 WELL, THEN HOW IS IT WORTH 291 MILLION IN 2012? MILLION IN 2012? I MEAN, IF THAT $250,000 MILLION I MEAN, IF THAT $250,000 MILLION MAGIC TRICK HE TRIED TO PLAY MAGIC TRICK HE TRIED TO PLAY WITH THAT FINANCIAL STATEMENT IS WITH THAT FINANCIAL STATEMENT IS IN FACT EVIDENCE OF FELONY BANK IN FACT EVIDENCE OF FELONY BANK FRAUD, AT FAR AS I CAN TELL, FRAUD, AT FAR AS I CAN TELL, WE’RE WELL WITHIN THE TEN YEARS WE’RE WELL WITHIN THE TEN YEARS OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR A OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR A CRIME. CRIME. AS A COUNTRY NOW WE HAVE ALL AS A COUNTRY NOW WE HAVE ALL JUST BEEN SHOWN EVIDENCE OF THIS JUST BEEN SHOWN EVIDENCE OF THIS POTENTIAL FELONY BANK FRAUD BY POTENTIAL FELONY BANK FRAUD BY THE PRESIDENT AND WE KNOW THE PRESIDENT AND WE KNOW CONGRESS HAS IT AND WE BELIEVE CONGRESS HAS IT AND WE BELIEVE FEDERAL PROSECUTORS HAVE IT. FEDERAL PROSECUTORS HAVE IT. BUT HERE’S THE QUESTION. BUT HERE’S THE QUESTION. WHO DOES WHAT WITH THAT WHO DOES WHAT WITH THAT INFORMATION? INFORMATION? I MEAN, AS A COUNTRY, IT’S NOT I MEAN, AS A COUNTRY, IT’S NOT COOL TO JUST, LIKE, KNOW ABOUT COOL TO JUST, LIKE, KNOW ABOUT THE FELONY, RIGHT? THE FELONY, RIGHT? I MEAN, IN THE WAKE OF MICHAEL I MEAN, IN THE WAKE OF MICHAEL COHEN’S TESTIMONY YESTERDAY, COHEN’S TESTIMONY YESTERDAY, THERE’S A WHOLE BUNCH OF THERE’S A WHOLE BUNCH OF DIFFERENT POTENTIAL AVENUES FOR DIFFERENT POTENTIAL AVENUES FOR EVIDENCE THAT MAY LEAD TO OVERT EVIDENCE THAT MAY LEAD TO OVERT CRIMINAL EXPOSURE FOR THE CRIMINAL EXPOSURE FOR THE PRESIDENT. PRESIDENT. THIS FINANCIAL FRAUD THING IS THIS FINANCIAL FRAUD THING IS JUST ONE OF THEM. JUST ONE OF THEM. I MEAN, TO THE EXTENT THAT THE I MEAN, TO THE EXTENT THAT THE PRESIDENT’S POTENTIAL CRIMINAL PRESIDENT’S POTENTIAL CRIMINAL EXPOSURE IS ABOUT RUSSIAN EXPOSURE IS ABOUT RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE ELECTION, INTERFERENCE IN THE ELECTION, POTENTIAL CONSPIRACY OR POTENTIAL CONSPIRACY OR COOPERATION WITH THAT COOPERATION WITH THAT INTERFERENCE, THE RELEVANT INTERFERENCE, THE RELEVANT PROSECUTORS, AT LEAST FOR NOW, PROSECUTORS, AT LEAST FOR NOW, WOULD SEEM TO BE THE PROSECUTORS WOULD SEEM TO BE THE PROSECUTORS AT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE. AT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE. TO THE EXTENT THAT THE TO THE EXTENT THAT THE PRESIDENT’S CRIMINAL EXPOSURE PRESIDENT’S CRIMINAL EXPOSURE MAY BE ABOUT THE CAMPAIGN MAY BE ABOUT THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE FELONIES FOR WHICH FINANCE FELONIES FOR WHICH MICHAEL COHEN IS ALREADY GOING MICHAEL COHEN IS ALREADY GOING TO PRISON, WELL, THOSE FELONIES TO PRISON, WELL, THOSE FELONIES HAVE THUS FAR BEEN PROSECUTED BY HAVE THUS FAR BEEN PROSECUTED BY THE U.S. ATTORNEY’S OFFICE IN THE U.S. ATTORNEY’S OFFICE IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. YORK. IF THE PRESIDENT IS ALSO IF THE PRESIDENT IS ALSO CRIMINALLY EXPOSED FOR OTHER CRIMINALLY EXPOSED FOR OTHER GARDEN VARIETY FINANCIAL FRAUD, GARDEN VARIETY FINANCIAL FRAUD, SAY THE KIND OF BANK FRAUD THAT SAY THE KIND OF BANK FRAUD THAT MANAFORT AND COHEN WERE BOTH MANAFORT AND COHEN WERE BOTH CONVICTED OF ALREADY THIS PAST CONVICTED OF ALREADY THIS PAST YEAR, THAT TOO COULD EASILY BE YEAR, THAT TOO COULD EASILY BE AT THE CENTER OF THE BULLSEYE AT THE CENTER OF THE BULLSEYE FOR PROSECUTORS IN SDNY. FOR PROSECUTORS IN SDNY. THAT’S THE KIND OF BREAD AND THAT’S THE KIND OF BREAD AND BUTTER WHITE COLLAR FINANCIAL BUTTER WHITE COLLAR FINANCIAL CRIME THAT SDNY PROSECUTORS CRIME THAT SDNY PROSECUTORS BRING TO COURT EVERY DARN DAY. BRING TO COURT EVERY DARN DAY. I MEAN, EVERYTHING FROM I MEAN, EVERYTHING FROM HIGH-PROFILE CASES LIKE WORLD HIGH-PROFILE CASES LIKE WORLD COM, THAT FAMOUS CASE WHERE THAT COM, THAT FAMOUS CASE WHERE THAT COMPANY RADICALLY OVERVALUED COMPANY RADICALLY OVERVALUED ITSELF, RIGHT? ITSELF, RIGHT? TO EVERYDAY CROOKS LIKE MICHAEL TO EVERYDAY CROOKS LIKE MICHAEL COHEN TRYING TO GET HIS HOME COHEN TRYING TO GET HIS HOME EQUITY LINE OF CREDIT, EQUITY LINE OF CREDIT, MISSTATING HIS FINANCIAL STATUS MISSTATING HIS FINANCIAL STATUS TO THE BANK IN ORDER TO DO IT. TO THE BANK IN ORDER TO DO IT. THAT’S WHAT THEY DO. THAT’S WHAT THEY DO. THOSE CASES COME UP EVERY DAY. THOSE CASES COME UP EVERY DAY. BIG CASES. BIG CASES. SMALL CASES. SMALL CASES. CASES PEOPLE CARE ABOUT. CASES PEOPLE CARE ABOUT. CASES PEOPLE DON’T. CASES PEOPLE DON’T. WE SPOKE TO THE FORMER DEPUTY WE SPOKE TO THE FORMER DEPUTY CHIEF OF THAT U.S. ATTORNEY’S CHIEF OF THAT U.S. ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, JUNE KIM, TODAY FROM OFFICE, JUNE KIM, TODAY FROM SDNY. SDNY. HE TOLD US THAT, IN FACT, THIS HE TOLD US THAT, IN FACT, THIS IS THE DAY IN DAY OUT RUN OF THE IS THE DAY IN DAY OUT RUN OF THE MILL PROSECUTORIAL WORK OF THE MILL PROSECUTORIAL WORK OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY’S OFFICE IN THE U.S. ATTORNEY’S OFFICE IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. HE TOLD US TODAY, QUOTE, PEOPLE HE TOLD US TODAY, QUOTE, PEOPLE WHO INFLATE THEIR FINANCIALS, WHO INFLATE THEIR FINANCIALS, FOR EXAMPLE, TO OBTAIN A FOR EXAMPLE, TO OBTAIN A MORTGAGE AND WHO DEFLATE THEIR MORTGAGE AND WHO DEFLATE THEIR FINANCIALS, FOR EXAMPLE, TO PAY FINANCIALS, FOR EXAMPLE, TO PAY LESS TAXES, THOSE PEOPLE ARE LESS TAXES, THOSE PEOPLE ARE ENGAGING IN VERY COMMON SCHEMES ENGAGING IN VERY COMMON SCHEMES AND HAVE BEEN PROSECUTED AND HAVE BEEN PROSECUTED REGULARLY. REGULARLY. IF TRUMP ORGANIZATION DOCUMENTS IF TRUMP ORGANIZATION DOCUMENTS AND DEUTSCHE BANK DOCUMENTS AND AND DEUTSCHE BANK DOCUMENTS AND WHATEVER OTHER EVIDENCE WE’RE WHATEVER OTHER EVIDENCE WE’RE ABOUT TO HAVE PUBLICLY AIRED, IF ABOUT TO HAVE PUBLICLY AIRED, IF THAT EVIDENCE PAINTS A THAT EVIDENCE PAINTS A COMPELLING AT LEAST PUBLIC COMPELLING AT LEAST PUBLIC PICTURE THAT THE PRESIDENT PICTURE THAT THE PRESIDENT APPEARS TO HAVE ENGAGED IN APPEARS TO HAVE ENGAGED IN PRETTY CLEAR INSTANCES OF PRETTY CLEAR INSTANCES OF FINANCIAL CRIMES, FINANCIAL FINANCIAL CRIMES, FINANCIAL FELONIES, FINANCIAL FRAUD FELONIES, FINANCIAL FRAUD SCHEMES OF THE KIND THAT ARE SCHEMES OF THE KIND THAT ARE ROUTINELY PROSECUTED AGAINST ALL ROUTINELY PROSECUTED AGAINST ALL SORTS OF PEOPLE AND COMPANIES SORTS OF PEOPLE AND COMPANIES AND ENTITIES IN THIS COUNTRY, AND ENTITIES IN THIS COUNTRY, WELL, WHO PROSECUTES IT WHEN IT WELL, WHO PROSECUTES IT WHEN IT COMES TO HIM? COMES TO HIM? WHO PROSECUTES IT WHEN IT COMES WHO PROSECUTES IT WHEN IT COMES TO HIM? TO HIM? WOULD IT BE AN ACT OF BRAVERY OR WOULD IT BE AN ACT OF BRAVERY OR AN ACT OF SORT OF POLITICAL HIGH AN ACT OF SORT OF POLITICAL HIGH WIRE WALKING IN ORDER TO WIRE WALKING IN ORDER TO PROSECUTE IT WHEN IT COMES TO PROSECUTE IT WHEN IT COMES TO HIM? HIM? IF SOMEBODY IS GOING TO TRY TO IF SOMEBODY IS GOING TO TRY TO PROSECUTE HIM FOR THIS STUFF, PROSECUTE HIM FOR THIS STUFF, WHEN? WHEN? AND WHERE AND HOW? AND WHERE AND HOW? BECAUSE EVEN WITH JUST WHAT BECAUSE EVEN WITH JUST WHAT WE’VE SEEN PUBLICLY, IT SORT OF
This is unbelievable direct evidence that our President cheated and lied, felonies!, to banks and insurance companies, where he inflated his assets astronomically.
What a loser! I guess his loyal lemmings should have known he was a loser after the 5 bankruptcies, but then again they still believe Mexico paid for the wall that was supposedly already built yet we need a national emergency for in order for taxpayers to fund it so construction can begin... yea, that mess is something they believe is normal.
I don't get how he could get away with this without the bank being complicit. $300 million would easily place it among the top 10 most valuable homes in North America, if not the world. This is as much as the value of Graceland, Neverland Ranch and Bill Gates' home combined. Not exactly something you can just sneak in under the radar.