4 ms·

He bought it for 1/8th of the price it sold for two years earlier. During those two years, the US economy was on an upswing. http://www.nytimes.com/1995/12/07/

by vonnik 9y ago

He bought it for 1/8th of the price it sold for two years earlier. During those two years, the US economy was on an upswing. http://www.nytimes.com/1995/12/07/business/40-wall-street-is-sold-to-trump.html http://www.nytimes.com/1995/12/07/business/40-wall-street-is... And the building looks like this: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2016-trump-40-wall-street/ https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2016-trump-40-wall-street... It's a shady price, and a shady building, because he now rents it out to crooks like himself. (See Bloomberg piece.) In the future, do your own research. It's just a Google away. I bring up your Facebook comment because this is the second time you've come down on the side of the Kremlin and the conman they helped plant in the White House. It's an interesting pattern. Edit: Responding to your comment below due to limits on nested comments on HN. 40 Wall is a well known center of criminal activity. "Since Donald Trump took over 40 Wall St. in 1995, prosecutors have filed criminal charges against at least 29 people connected to 12 alleged scams tied to the building. Nine other firms have faced serious regulatory claims. Authorities prevailed in most but not all of the cases." Trump also housed Trump University there, as well as Trump Mortgage, which shuttered the year before the 2008 crash. Trump paid $25 million to settle charges of fraud against Trump U. https://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/trump-university-settlement-approved-gonzalo-curiel-236756 https://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/trump-university-sett... This isn't the only Trump property associated with large-scale crime. Trump's Taj Mahal casino was fined a record amount in 2015 for violations of anti-money laundering regulations, because it claimed to have lost records of all transactions for years. http://fortune.com/2015/02/11/trump-taj-mahal-casino-settles-u-s-money-laundering-claims/ http://fortune.com/2015/02/11/trump-taj-mahal-casino-settles... Trump has effectively led and profited from an international money-laundering syndicate for years. He is the leader of an organized crime family. He became president of the US with the help of dirty money and dirty tricks. Much coming from Russia.

vasilipupkin 9y ago
your whataboutism is a classic kremlin maneuver. What about this and what about that ? The fact that I defended Facebook's handling of Russian ads in an unrelated online discussion has nothing to do with the fact that your specific argument about details of a specific deal is bullshit. You said he bought it for 1 million and he bought it for 8. Apparently the same price as previous buyer paid ? So we can dispense with this line of reasoning ?
thesagan 9y ago
It's very shady looking into anyone's comment history and bring up other supposed dirt and use it like that. Smear tactic. Now you don't look so good either.
- vasilipupkin 9y ago
  I would say it's not shady, it's just kinda dumb because it's irrelevant
- vonnik 9y ago
  DELETED based on moderator feedback.
  - vasilipupkin 9y ago
    Ad hominem attacks do not change the fact that your original point turned out to be false
  - dang 9y ago
    This breaks both the HN guideline against personal attacks ('be civil') and the one against insinuations of astroturfing and shillage without evidence. Someone having an opposing opinion is not evidence. Please don't do this again. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html The rest of the internet may be losing its mind; that doesn't mean we need to. Commenters here can do better than this.
- to3m 9y ago
  Disagree. There's nothing wrong with looking at somebody else's previous comments, nor anything wrong with pointing out to the reader that there might (rightly or wrongly) be something of interest there. Comments are public, and a user's comment history is public too.
  - vasilipupkin 9y ago
    I agree. It's just dumb to bring in irrelevant comments and even dumber to call someone a kremlin troll for defending Facebook.
vasilipupkin 9y ago
You are changing the argument. I'm not defending trump and I am not saying he is or isn't a crook. I'm saying your original statement and argument is false.
- vonnik 9y ago
  I'm not changing the argument. I answered your question precisely, and added new information about criminal activity at the building in question. You have not given a satisfactory explanation of the discrepancy between what the market pays, and what Trump pays. Lacking subpoenas, it's unlikely that we can know what the other side of the trade was. But Mueller's team surely knows. That's why Mueller hired a team of financial crimes experts with Enron experience. They were able to nail Paul Manafort for money laundering, tax evasion and failure to report his status as a foreign agent. Trump is guilt of all that by 100x. The coming months will bring it all out.
  - vasilipupkin 9y ago
    Where did you get the number that he paid 1/8th the market price ? You provided zero evidence to this effect. If he did pay 1/8th the market price, I'll concede that something shady was taking place
    - chrischen 9y ago
      8 million dollars in 1993. 1 million dollars when Trump purchased it. 1 million / 8 million = 1/8.
- cjslep 9y ago
  And yet the comment you just replied to gives evidence that you are the one actually incorrect, as it backs up his original statement and strongly counters your assertion. To paraphrase for you: vonnik: $1m purchase price is shady vasilipupkin: No its not it is the real estate game, unless you can show me $1m in mid 90's is shady for a 71 story office building in premium location on Wall Street vonnik: OK here is source: http://www.nytimes.com/1995/12/07/business/40-wall-street-is-sold-to-trump.html http://www.nytimes.com/1995/12/07/business/40-wall-street-is... vasilipupkin: <comment I am replying to> My advice is it would help to have evidence, instead of seeding conversations with comments that cast doubt with very little evidence.

by vonnik 9y ago

vasilipupkin 9y ago

your whataboutism is a classic kremlin maneuver. What about this and what about that ? The fact that I defended Facebook's handling of Russian ads in an unrelated online discussion has nothing to do with the fact that your specific argument about details of a specific deal is bullshit. You said he bought it for 1 million and he bought it for 8. Apparently the same price as previous buyer paid ? So we can dispense with this line of reasoning ?

thesagan 9y ago

It's very shady looking into anyone's comment history and bring up other supposed dirt and use it like that. Smear tactic. Now you don't look so good either.

vasilipupkin 9y ago
I would say it's not shady, it's just kinda dumb because it's irrelevant
vonnik 9y ago
DELETED based on moderator feedback.
- vasilipupkin 9y ago
  Ad hominem attacks do not change the fact that your original point turned out to be false
- dang 9y ago
  This breaks both the HN guideline against personal attacks ('be civil') and the one against insinuations of astroturfing and shillage without evidence. Someone having an opposing opinion is not evidence. Please don't do this again. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html The rest of the internet may be losing its mind; that doesn't mean we need to. Commenters here can do better than this.
to3m 9y ago
Disagree. There's nothing wrong with looking at somebody else's previous comments, nor anything wrong with pointing out to the reader that there might (rightly or wrongly) be something of interest there. Comments are public, and a user's comment history is public too.
- vasilipupkin 9y ago
  I agree. It's just dumb to bring in irrelevant comments and even dumber to call someone a kremlin troll for defending Facebook.

vasilipupkin 9y ago

You are changing the argument. I'm not defending trump and I am not saying he is or isn't a crook. I'm saying your original statement and argument is false.

vonnik 9y ago
I'm not changing the argument. I answered your question precisely, and added new information about criminal activity at the building in question. You have not given a satisfactory explanation of the discrepancy between what the market pays, and what Trump pays. Lacking subpoenas, it's unlikely that we can know what the other side of the trade was. But Mueller's team surely knows. That's why Mueller hired a team of financial crimes experts with Enron experience. They were able to nail Paul Manafort for money laundering, tax evasion and failure to report his status as a foreign agent. Trump is guilt of all that by 100x. The coming months will bring it all out.
- vasilipupkin 9y ago
  Where did you get the number that he paid 1/8th the market price ? You provided zero evidence to this effect. If he did pay 1/8th the market price, I'll concede that something shady was taking place
  - chrischen 9y ago
    8 million dollars in 1993. 1 million dollars when Trump purchased it. 1 million / 8 million = 1/8.
cjslep 9y ago
And yet the comment you just replied to gives evidence that you are the one actually incorrect, as it backs up his original statement and strongly counters your assertion. To paraphrase for you: vonnik: $1m purchase price is shady vasilipupkin: No its not it is the real estate game, unless you can show me $1m in mid 90's is shady for a 71 story office building in premium location on Wall Street vonnik: OK here is source: http://www.nytimes.com/1995/12/07/business/40-wall-street-is-sold-to-trump.html http://www.nytimes.com/1995/12/07/business/40-wall-street-is... vasilipupkin: <comment I am replying to> My advice is it would help to have evidence, instead of seeding conversations with comments that cast doubt with very little evidence.