Donald Trump’s biographer, Tim O’Brien, has refuted the perception that inflating assets in business dealings is a victimless crime, bringing to light the historical near-bankruptcy scenarios faced by the former president. The discussion unfolded on the Raw Story show on Friday, January 12, 2024, where former assistant U.S. attorney David N. Kelley weighed in on the potential consequences for Trump, proposing that Judge Arthur Engoron consider mitigating factors.
Kelley emphasized the importance of intent to defraud and the absence of direct harm as potential factors in determining the penalty for Trump. Ari Melber succinctly summarized the sentiment, stating, “Don’t hate the player, hate the game.”
Contrary to this perspective, O’Brien argued that misrepresenting financial states is not a victimless act, despite the immediate banks involved not suffering harm. He delved into Trump’s business history, revealing that while Trump himself has never filed for bankruptcy, his businesses have done so six times for five companies.
More Read
O’Brien spotlighted a near-bankruptcy scenario Trump faced in the early 1990s, forcing banks to write off billions in loans. Although the statute of limitations shields Trump from legal repercussions for these past events, O’Brien asserted that Trump’s tendency to misrepresent himself persists, citing instances such as Trump University and his foundation.
The biographer stressed the importance of holding individuals accountable for entering business relationships on truthful grounds. Drawing parallels with Trump University, O’Brien highlighted instances where victims were evident, and the company had to pay out $50 million.
Supporting Kelley’s emphasis on the harm aspect, O’Brien referenced his own litigation experience against Trump, where Deutsche Bank records revealed a significant discrepancy in Trump’s claimed net worth.
In analyzing the current legal predicament, O’Brien concluded, “If Trump’s lawyers had been sharp enough to request a jury trial, they might have ended up in a better place.” The discussion illuminated the complexity of the case and the potential ramifications for Trump’s financial legacy.
O’Brien’s perspective challenges the notion that the financial institutions involved are the sole victims, emphasizing the broader implications of Trump’s business practices over the years. As legal proceedings unfold, the public awaits Judge Engoron’s decision, with the nuanced arguments presented on the show providing additional context to the ongoing scrutiny surrounding Donald Trump’s financial dealings.
