4 ms·

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.

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.